Transcripts For CSPAN Politics Public Policy Today 20121022

That is being used as an attack against republicans in a variety of districts, all although republicans are more often poured into medicare than they are the antitax often pointing to medicare than they are the antitax portion. There are the remaining portions of the third Congressional District have been pushed into the first, which is safely anchored by perata andrews in camden. Democrats have a candidate running against him, who is a widow of a former democratic congressman. Her name is shalit out there. , shelley out there. She has a son of war a stunt double locking candidates, portraying the blocked benefits of the seniors deserve. Part of the reason the republicans succeeded in making that district more red in redistricting. That is akin to what we are seeing all over the country. Host we will have to michigan on the republicans line. Caller a quick question stabenow has done nothing with this heat. We are still hurting with hurting terribly. And of course, obama, with what is going on with him as well. It is already a lost decade and that is just horrible. Just a comment republicans hoped that this would be a seat they could make competitive. Her numbers are not great. They are not awful, they are sort of soft, mediocre. Republicans ended up hosting a primary with a former member of congress, ran for the gubernatorial nomination, lost the race, he won the primary but he seemed to run out of steam, and especially money. He had to spend at his campaign war chest. The races in michigan were more competitive but the Romney Campaign is airing ads there. I think that that actually hurt hoekstras chances a good deal. While i thought there was some potential for the rights to the competitive, all the data i have seen in the last six weeks suggests to me that stand now is likely going to win reelection. Host we go to ohio for our last phone call. Caller how are you . Host what do you have to say . Caller i want to ask ms. Duffy, what do you think about the senate races in massachusetts, columbus, ohio . I am from columbus, a female, and an africanamerican. I would like to know what you think about mr. Romney talking about the 47 i have paid my taxes all year. Host we have to leave it there because were running short on time. Guest massachusetts is a short race. I think Elizabeth Warren is probably ahead a few points. If scott brown wants to win a full term, he needs to pull ahead on election day. In ohio, Sherrod Brown has brought a very tough race, he has had an awful lot of tough money thrown at him, but he told the advantage today above josh mandel. Host Jennifer Duffy and david wasserman. Thank you so much for being here to bring down the races. That is all for washington journal. We now go to the u. S. Institute of peace, which is holding a forum on religion, coexistence, and peace. Embassador johnson cook is the ambassador at large for International Religious freedom. Prior to joiningjournal. We now go the state department, Senior Pastor and ceo of the bronx Christian Fellowship the art. Earlier, a white house fellow on the domestic policy council. President clinton appointed her to serve on the National Initiative on peace. In the two years, she has served as ambassador for religious flown to fives continents to promote religious freedom. Ambassador . [applause] thank you and good morning. The pleasure to be with you today. The United States institute of peace does such great work in the world. The ambassador at large for international freedom. Welcome to everyone of you for being here promote religious freedom. Ambassador . [applause] with us today, including those who are online, on the air. I want to express my appreciation and gratitude to you, wonderful cosponsors of the institute of peace of, for hosting today. I wanted knowledge Susan Hayward and david for your work. It has been wonderful to continue with you and for your conceptualizing and coordinating todays event. I am pleased to be here to discuss seouls society, perspective of religion, violence and coexistence. It is a topic that is of interest to us. Together, with usit, we have brought together a distinguished panel of experts to discuss a critical set of issues that impact not only u. S. Foreign policy, but the way the u. S. Views the religion and views of society around the world. The release of the antiislamic film on youtube, followed by the violence and protests around the world serve as a stark reminder of the all too common relationship between religious extremism and violence. Something we need to proceed with understanding, respect, and coexistence, but it also reminds us that there is more to be done in terms of improving our understanding of religious dynamics and engaging on religious action. The makeup of todays panel and acknowledges that government officials cannot do this work alone and we have been working together with partnerships. We rely on consultations and partnerships with Civil Society leaders and faithbased organizations to help us dig deeper, analysis, more effective initiatives. From the community of faith, i can tell you how effective that is. We are also able to hear fresh perspectives from religious leaders on how to preserve our fundamental freedoms while advancing peace, security, and coexistence. Thank you. It also gives us the opportunity to hear Expert Opinions on the roles that the media plays in this arena. We want to meet our panelists who are here today. Are delighted to have with us director of the iraq, iran, and north african programs. She was previously the Program Manager for the middle east. She founded a humanitarian crises in cost than and lebanon. She is also a key Civil Society individual on peace building. She is recognized as one of the 500 most influential muslims by prince ali bin talal. She has also recently visited libya and tunisia, and i look forward to hearing the reflections on what is being done in these countries. Also joining us is professor mark gold been. The professor is also subject Matter Expert on diplomacy and religion, political and military figures. He has been working on religion and peacemaking in the arab israeli conflict for more than 30 years. Also and in spirit expert on peacemaking strategies for conflict in which religion and culture play a role. Recently, he worked with the syrian and afghan religious actors conducting research on value as they apply to International Problems of globalization, class of cultures, development, social justice, and conflict. I have been so fortunate to work with him as part of a religious and Foreign Policy working group, one of the five working groups established by secretary clinton dialogue with society. Lastly, we are joined by the legislative and policy analyst for the Muslim Public Affairs council. We are thrilled that you have priestley stepped in for harris, who unfortunately, could not be with us the two family emergency. She also has experience working with programs involving dialog development and debate corp. And conflict revolution resolution. She serves as a female muslim ambassador to publicschool and interfaith initiatives to highlight the commonalities of the fates. This will be followed by a question and answer session. I am looking for to all that you have to contribute today and for all the we have to hear an share today. Last but not least, we are so thrilled to have Susan Hayward from usip, who will serve as todays moderator of the panel. She is a Program Officer at the Religious Center for peacemaking. She also coordinates an Initiative Exploring the intersection of women, religion, conflict, and hes building, and partnership with the Berkeley Center at georgetown university. She works on the ground with of religious activists and is involved in peace building in burma, iraq, and shrill lockout. So with that, we are eager to hear from our distinguished panel. I will turn it over to the speakers. Thank you for having us here. We look forward to a wonderful morning. Thank you. Think it to the ambassador and to david for opening up. We are happy to have all of you here to the u. S. Institute of peace in the room, and those watching on the webcast. As we are giving the presentations, launching off the discussion here after the presentations, if you have questions, please jot them down, because we will have an opportunity to open up the dialogue to the audience, including the audience watching over the internet. You can use the hass tag on twitter. I am a senior Program Officer here at the institute which works to analyze and understand religious factors it in conflict zones and to work with religious actors to build a just and sustainable peace and to transform religious travers of violence in places like pakistan, iraq, sri lockup, colombia, we work with villages in government institutions and civic organizations to transform religious travers of violence, to deepen and extend into religious coexistence, and to leverage the power of religious resources for the work of creating sustainable peace. We consider religious freedom to be an important aspect of our work. I should note, one of the reason we are orienting this discussion about religion, violence, and hes building around issues of religious freedom is, in part, to Mark International freedom day, october 27. In this sense, we are walking hand and foot with our state Department Colleagues that sea of religious freedom as an inscribed legal norm, insuring the protection of all people to practice their faith, or lack of faith, openly and without fear of reprisal. We see this as important to creating a peaceful and just societies. We also know that the relationship between religion, violence, its human rights, and peace is complicated because religions and human societies are complicated and dynamic. After all, even the adoption of strong legal norms protectively protecting religious freedom does not guarantee religious bias was used to exist, that conflict between religious groups will no longer appear, or that conflict between religious groups will not face stricter discrimination, particularly when humanrights, a freedom of expression is protected, up to freedom of speech of religion which can drive violence. It is complicated. Many local communities and the global communities struggle to chart the right course through this complicated fray. Is protected, upaware that in d trouble that martin varmints of violent conflict, andour prograd around the world, is painfully in nations and democracies of countries facing political turmoil or transition, religious influence and shaping attitudes and behaviors towards respect of violence, governance, and attitudes towards other groups is often heightened. And of course, religious heightened influence is not always for peaceful ends. Particularly when media is added nations and democracies of countries facing political turmoil or to a cocktail that can incite violence locally, but also across International Borders in our increasingly shrinking world, again as we witnessed in september 2012. We also know from our experiences on the ground, in most cases, government and policy alone does not and cannot address religious dynamics that shape Civil Society. In fact, in many instances, silicide organizations may be those best positioned or suited to transform religious and social drivers of violence and discrimination, whether they are working independently or in partnership with governments seeking to strengthen religious freedom and coexistence. For this reason, we are happy to put this host this panel and to launch the discussion about what the World Society does run the world in fostering a religious coexistence. We seek to highlight what may be little known stories of religious and secular actors and institutions working together to nit Diverse Communities together and we seek to make recommendations on how to strengthen the constructive Civil Society efforts to foster religious coexistence about where and when these efforts can be done in partnership with governments and intergovernment organizations. We begin with the presentations and then we open up for discussion. We will start with hoda. Thank you, susan, thank you to the usip, and state department for putting on this important and timely event. When we talk about religious freedom in 2012, we must view the issue through a 2012 lands. The International Religious Freedom Community needs to shift its culture to a more nuanced understanding of how truly connected our globalized world has become. Not just in terms of how we streamline reporting news to the masses, but also in terms of an everincreasing pluralistic world. What happened in benghazi, whether as a result of the amateur trailer or not, was a with a call to the International Community on the rights and responsibilities of our freedoms of religion and expression. The freedoms of expression and religion are not stand alone issues. When discussing issues of expression, we are inherently talking about expressing religion freely. When we, an everincreasing pluralistic world. What happened in benghazi, whether as a result of the amateur trailer or not, was a with a call toreligious free col out and engage society, organizations abroad, we need to start the conversation by clarifying an understanding with Free Expression and religion mean to all. It is important to start with a speech what definition so that any miscommunication of these values are avoided. It is incumbent on government and Civil Society organizations to start this dialogue of defining these freedoms as a starting point to beginning the difficult discussion of how we polled and support these values worldwide. Recently, our organization, the most Public Affairs council, and human rights first, released a statement condemning hate speech while protecting freedoms of expression. I have some copies if anyone is interested. In this document, it is affirmed hatred must be fought through long nonlegal means, through better speech, responsible speech. The problem lies with media chooses to promote traditional voices, when well lose our cannot hear voices of the mainstream, we miss out on the bigger picture. Take for example the reports about the attack on the embassy in benghazi. Iran and indebted with images of angry protesters surrounded the embassy, filling the streets with shouts and violence, but where were the reports of the libyans who were carrying the ambassador and try to protect him as they were taken into the hospital . Where were the images of people around the arab world mourning the loss of the ambassador while Holding Roses in his honor . When we miss out on hearing on mainstream voices, we lose the new ones to understanding of the situation. I am not denying the understanding of and a vibrant place of markets and ideas, but Civil Society needs to hold me accountable for highlighting only one extreme narrative. We have to push against the media is often onesided for trails and work to find mechanisms that give incentives to highlighting peaceful over the decision of voices. There is a sincere effort to counter this kind of hateful narrative that seems to be getting so much attention. Civil Society Organizations such as the Muslim Public Affairs council have been working on promoting religious coexistence through freedom of expression. After the release and subsequent reaction, very violent reaction, saddening reaction against innocents and muslims, we released a series of youtube videos in arabic, farsi, and other languages, condemning the trailer and a violent reactions to it. These videos featured leading american muslim scholars highlighting the examples of the prophet muhammed and how he handled hate speech. Between releasing the videos and now we have had over 1 Million Viewers of these videos. These videos show that Civil Society organizations can effectively use media, social media in this case, to promote peace and coexistence, highlighting this one example shows that silicide organizations can take ownership of supporting peace and religious pluralism by employing media. The videos are also a conversation starter. They go beyond the current buyout moment and goes beyond the deeper conversation of dealing with freespeech, hate speech, and freedom are religion. When media, even on the liverleaf comments religious of bias and discrimination, responsibility push back paws on Civil Society and government. There are plenty of challenges that arise when government gets involved and there are plenty of opportunities as well. Governments must recognize the old ways of advocating for religious freedom are outdated. Government to government diplomacy has got to be shifted to a more people to people to diplomacy, and we have got to recognize this paradigm reflects the times in which we live. When International Religious Freedom Advocacy became popular in the late 1980s, the focus was on certain persecution of minorities around world. Today, the International Religious Freedom Community should be promoting a more pluralistic theology of advocacy. International religious freedom communities have got to reflect the diversity of the world and therefore must be more pluralistic in nature, promoting and highlighting conversation that do not just affect christians, jews, and muslims, but hindu, sikh, buddhist, and others to run the world. We earn a living in an increasingly borderless world, so when a young man like himself on fire in tunisia, it is not surprising when there are subsequent protests in egypt, libya, or yemen. They ever spring highlighted the historic fleet oppressive tyranny of the middle east and north africa. The International Community witnessed the correlation between a lack of freedom of expression and the oppressive nature of religious persecution on all communities and all groups. The arab spring was all about being able to express ones belief, whether politically, egypt, libya, or yemen. They ever spring highlighted the historic fleet oppressive tyranny of the middle east and north africa. The international revolutions, t it should not have been. We need to be more aware and realize the direction our world is taking. The average thing was not a governmentinspired movement. On the contrary, it was spearheaded an led by young people who utilize media to create change and strengthen the voice of Civil Society. Media coverage of the arab spring promoted mainstream voices and the synergy of all communities coming together to stand for peace, justice, and coexistence. When we talk about opportunities and possibility for engagement during a time like the arab springsocially, ed religiously. Our government was caught off guard with the and after, it is imperative government interest media and Civil Society organizations are included in those conversations. For too long, relevant religious institutions were ignored 4 invasion purposes. As americans, we are learning their bounty to the conversation for upholding the freedom of religion and expression. As long as we promote and develop a culture of diverse inclusion in these conversations, we might just find answers we need to promoting religious freedom and coexistence through expression. In terms of recommendations for the government or Society Organizations in moving forward to create International Religious freedom and upholding Free Expression, i would stress we use our position, we use the governments position to play the role of the container and facilitate conversations and discussions like this to strengthen the voices of Civil Society organizations. Those who are working to championed these positive values. Let us be honest, at the end of the day, we have had a million innocent muslims before and we probably will see more to come, but now is the time for us to be working together. This is the first death in a positive direction to overcoming hate speech and using our freedoms to counter that hate speech. Thank you. Revolutions, but it should not have been. We need to be more aware and realize the direction our world is taking. The average thing was not a governmentinspired movement. It is a pleasure for me to speak with you and to be working with ambassador susan, david these of my favorite people in washington. It is a thrill to be here. I just want to reflect all of it on where we are going in terms of our practice, in so society on a global scale, where some of the research is indicating, where and when Human Society is moving towards nonviolence, where things get worse, where things get better. And putting the pieces together, in terms of our experience in the field. I have been involved in any conflict management situations over the years that involve religious incidence of religious intolerance or expressions about race over something that occurred. One of the things that is interesting, a question in our lives, when is an incident something that is transformative and creates a massive outbreak of response . And when does it just looked peculiar . Why are there incidents that look like they are central and change the relationships and are very destructive, and other times, it is just a kook, somebody that has violated the law . It is very important to analyze the substructures of the relationship to detain people. What is there an unwritten social contracts . What are the binders that bring people together or tear them apart . In knowing that, in building upon that, which is the basis of society work, but also the rule of law, and then you see whether an incident is going to create a crisis, or whether it is just the peculiarity of one person. When you compare the peculiarity of the person that made this film, this ends up having this just a completely irrelevant, strange character in American Society. Then think about what it affectively symbolized in global relations between the United States, the west, the islamic world, what an absurd tragedy. A comic strip could not have done better in thinking about the origins of the film, and then the consequence. What is missing . What is missing is the social contract. What is missing is the hard work that people build together, that as hoda said, it is absolutely necessary in a global community. Without that contract, everything becomes a symbol of adversarial some. For example, taken out of context. There are villages in india where there were terrible outbreak of violence in the 1970s, 1980s, and so on, and those villages cut international attention. Everyone knew about those riots, a symbol of the hindumuslim confrontation. It is one of the biggest muslim and hindu countries in the world. A billion people, 300 million muslims. Those incidents were front and center. But little number the thousands of villages where hindus and muslims celebrate each others rituals. That is also india. But it did that get on the news. The media does craven drama. Human beings crave trauma. Going back thousands of years, even before radio and television, people loved trauma. People loved drama. The great social binders that move beyond religious differences, the Martin Luther kings, named john d. s, they understood that you did you create those bonds, or someone will create the instances to tear those bonds apart. It is a great moneymaker. It is not just the media. The media likes of drama. But the real issue is you can build your political societies on the hatred of another, or you can build on more pragmatic things, like better wages, Better Health care. And every society in the world is struggling with the question and choice. Am i going to build nine nigerian political career on or building a well in the class . Everyone faces that choice. The key for Civil Society, particularly for religious groups, Civil Society around the world, and all my friends in nigeria, to syria, other places, was how would they utilize their power as Civil Society people, to create the social contract, the unwritten social contract between groups that makes these kinds of incidents into embarrassing exceptions, not opportunities for unscrupulous politicians or others to use that to build their power base. That is the choice. The question for the United States government, for the west, every government in the muslim and arab world, are they going to invest in Civil Society that specifically tries to build that social contract, or are they going to act as if they want to repress it all . Were going to ignore religious identity. I worked in syria for seven years with amazing people, shiite, sunni, christian, we were all together in our interfaith work. We out smart and the regime. We were so nonviolent, so nonthreatening, we were nice to everyone, and we got on television every time with these panels that represented allied, a sunni, shiite, atheist, women, and men, for at least one bit of their television they sell a model of interfaith coexistence. Now we are trying to pick up the pieces because of so many forces that came to work to tear them apart, to put them at each others throats, for the sake of maintaining a police state. This is the danger of religious identity. It is easily utilized by politicians and military and intelligence agencies, to destroy people and controlling people. I work with pakistanis who are throats, for the sake of increasing incredible difficulties of the legacy of the cold war, where my government and others in the region specifically pitted she up against shiite for the purposes of political gain. Now they are tried to pick up the pieces from disastrous, unscrupulous criminal activities. And look at the difference between the targeted the almost killing of this poor little girl that wanted an education, and the thousands of pakistani that come out onto the streets to demonstrate in solidarity with her. Those people girl that wanted an education, and the thousands wes of gandhi and king. They understood that if media and drama is the stage on which all of this is played out, then you have to get better at that stage. If the symbols of hatred are sources of power for some in the world, then you have to of the f create the symbols of solidarity and love, and you have to do it often. You have to put it in peoples face. You have to have Interfaith Council is in public all the time the sheikhs, priests, and everyone sang the same thing. The honor terror and dignity of men and women is at the core of our religious beliefs. Then when a threeperson comes along to do something else, they just see it as crazy, not a party. In addition, what we have discovered in this field we were not able to do this in syria, but we have tried in other places. At a certain point of interfaith dialogue in social contracts, people get tired of words. If they are living miserably, they are poor, they see this particular group has the money and we do not, then they are not so crazy about love and peace and justice when they do not see the evidence. What you have to do further is something that is difficult bureaucratically for governments. You have to combine humanitarian investment and interface and peacemaking. You have to bring health and jobs and empowerment to people, as jews, christians, muslims, and in do. People have to see that this is a joint effort. People have to see you are investing in their families. And that starts to make a difference. This is what Martin Luther king and gondi understood, and this is what many activists, my friends in nigeria everywhere you go. You go to gaza, many other places. It starts out with important symbols, like a big hunk of jerusalem. They had nobody but were able to get a thousand people to hug jerusalem, and it made a difference. They surround a jerusalem with a hug. A brilliant idea. But when the gaza war happened, it went further, to secretly smuggling food into gaza, arabs and jews together, and that a difference to families. When somebody decided to do something with a pigs head and muhammed, one of the radicals in israel, and there was already a prior existing relationship between a major rabbi in israel, major sheikhs in palestine. Immediately, they are on the phone together and they condemn that action. That prevented violence. Again, an unwritten social contract between leading people, and they could contain the violence. We are seeing a great deal of research from others on this, the growth of religious sympathy, the vital nature of people come to know each other and feel sympathy for each other. The vital nature of gentle commerce, people doing business together and growing will be the weather. The vital nature of the rule of law. The western contracts and the government constructs getting used to the fact that the rule of law is not just a rule of law, it is also the role of religious law, so that people come to know that there are rabbis say this is illegal to do this. And this person says it is specifically against this kind of terrorism. That, too, is the establishment of social norms in history that become a Solid Foundation for the social contract makes in from a filmapilot into strange, criminal activity. It takes a lot of empathy to understand that in many cultures, insulting the profit is the same as defecating on the american flag. For somebody doing something that is an incitement. We are struggling in the United States i did not know which group it is, when the soldiers were coming home, something horrible at their funerals. It was a radical christian group. I do not know the name. Really, it attested to this notion of freedom of speech. We are tearing our hair out with, how you do that . How much more can you injures someone who is at the funeral for their child . We have all these symbols in place for, how could you go there . Yet, the more empathy we have, the more we come to know each other, we know about that pain, and we work together, because we have a prayer existing relationship to not let people divide us on those insulting and horrible incidents. On the contrary, to bring us together. So that when somebody makes an outrageous statement in the new york subway system about jihad and muslims, on the contrary, you invest in counter advertisement. And that becomes the more important symbol. You get right in there because you have the relationships. That is what we are seeing in society, making it stronger. Im going to apologize ahead of time because my views on this are often contradictory in many ways. I spend a lot of time debating myself on what is the best way forward. One thing i will start with is a recent trip. I started in malaysia before going to tunisia, dubai. In all muslim countries, the reaction to the film was different. In malaysia, the you kept on telling me things like, it speaks for itself, there is no reason to defend it. In fact, most of them were showing me a parody of gangnym style. There were more concerned about that. In other countries, they were wondering how they could put out their own views to be proactive. In libya and tunisia, it was much more passionate and defensive. One of the thing that we forgot in the debate is we are talking about transitional countries that have been through trauma, have been destabilized. At the root of the conversation was the question of, everything has been stripped away, we are trying to rebuild our nation. The last thing we have is our dignity. The revolutions in each country brought dignity, and a video hit them there, made them feel humiliated. Everyone was talking about protecting the right to speak, but nobody was talking about the right of religion and our own identity. After root of this is the question of identity. Religion is very much intertwined there. It is also not only a question of international debate, but an internal debate. Many are asking, where will religion fall in the constitution come in a very pragmatic sense . As a tunisian, libyan, if shish egyptian, where do i find myself . What you saw was a reaction that took on and turned into a global scale. I learned about the bad guys attacks from my libyan colleagues who called mayor lee inreligion is very much the morning to apologize, who were really call me early in the morning to apologize, who were really sorry to see that there were as violence. We did not know where it came. I was based in washington at the time. We want you to make sure that people understand, this is not libyans, this is not islam. We respect ambassador stevens. I personally worked with him as a u. S. Envoy. He was very much loved and respected in libya. But the question remains, why the violence in libya . And of course, we saw it in tunisia and other countries. I bring up the issue of traumatized transition nations. We have to work with these groups and address the issue of identity. On the ground, this is one of the Biggest Issues Civil Society is coming together with. In most cases, there is an assumption, in order to receive funding or beat it accepted by western nations, you have to distance herself from religion. The exception has been in libya where you have seen some groups stepped out. In particular, there is a network of some of the most respected people in libya who have been very active in terms of issuing statements. Even after the revolution, in 2011, the network issued a statement to promote International Womens rights. So here we have a country in the midst of a revolution for freedom and they took a step back to talk about womens rights, we respect womens role in the revolution. You saw there was a voice tried to break through the mainstream. They also recently released a statement about the attacks in ben ghazni. But those are the exception. Where religion and society has come well together, and some may debate where this happens in terms of development, a lot of religious institutions in the middle east going into humanitarian and development work. Rarely will they go into human rights or more specifically, talking about religious freedom, because it is a difficult issue to address. The question i wanted to talk about was, if there currently is an understanding that anything to do with religion will not be seen as Civil Society, and therefore you have a lot of civilization scrubbing any language about faith, what is the effect on the ground . One, it delegitimizes these groups because they are not able to connect with the grassroots, not able to connect with the youth, whose First Response is to connect with things about their fate. It also forces the mainstream, who are practicing and do not want to go towards a secular language, to then go towards other groups may not represent their vision in torrance in terms of nation building. When i was into asia more recently, i sat with a Group Young People who had been trading in conflict resolution. They said, if they were to choose, they feel closer to the secular organizations. But because these secular groups either reject them directly because they are practicing or where the jobs, or they are using islamic references, they are not welcome in that group. By that exclusion, they tend to go to some of the more extreme groups. It is not necessarily a choice as much as the polarization going on in the country is forcing people to choose sides, whereas if we are able to integrate faith and religion, particularly in terms of peacemaking, you will find a majority of people want to find that avenue, that area for participation. The Biggest Issue is the divide between the secular and religious, and the framework is one of the things that people are emphasizing more than the principles or outcome. One of the things i wanted to talk about was how to overcome that divide. Hoda mention the role of the government and International Community convening. That is where an ironic opportunity has opened. Both groups cannot trust each other internally in the country, and they are looking to the International Community, asking for groups to convene so that this discussion will take place. Nationbuilding not be addressed until that can take place. Some of the issues are in terms of engaging in supporting, not only by bringing them to the table, but providing them the tools, the religious leaders. A lot of program that part of religious leaders are already targeting audiences. They will bring them into the room and tell them, this is what this one says, this is how we deal with freedom of religion. That will not have the same affect of partnering with the religious leaders to find a way to make sure the message is heard through the grass roots. The other thing is recognizing, be wary of the political agendas. For example, with ben ghazni, the incident was terrific, a very strong call internationally and locally for action to take place. You saw Civil Society organizations on the street immediately protesting the pilots. A lot of the memorials for ambassador stevens in bed gauzy the same day. People felt the need to take action. That somehow got a bridge to a political agenda of a ticket rid of the militias in libya. We are we need to be cautious that we are not overcome by the sort of thing politically. That expanded to with the incident in gaza is now being used as a popcorn for what is now happening in bani walid, two separate instances. They forced them out of bed gauzy. In order to show that extremism and violence was not welcomed, they used by us to get rid of them. The ends justify the means attitude. It is very important that the International Community and religious leaders particularly say, lets take a step back and see how our approach is different from the others, so that our message is not lost, and it is not just the ends justify the means. In order to do that, we need to address our own issue domestically, to really talk about extremism from within. Talk about the video, how it was made, but also, statistics show a rise in islamaphobia. There has been a rise in targeting. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are extreme things within our own midst. Even acknowledge it gives a legitimacy that the United States and western countries are willing to address the issue internally as much as they are willing to hold other nations accountable. Over the weekend, there was an attack in france on a mosque to express concerns over the rise of debates over islamic law. The use of violence to prove a fear of the unknown. Until we are willing to address this issue, we ourselves use lose legitimacy as the possible convene nrs. The other thing i wanted to say, a lot of times, the concepts are acceptable, but what it looks like its harder on the ground. Nothing demonstrates this better than freedom of religion. I was surprised at how much of an issue it was while i was into asia. The idea, within the constitution, do you have a clause that allows for freedom of religion . When you ask people personally, everyone says, of course this is natural. But what it looks like its harder on the ground. Nothing demonstrates this better than freedom of religion. No compulsion in religion. When you talk about actually putting it in the constitution, people say that we cannot. Well, if you believe it, why can you . The concept is acceptable but the actual mechanism is controversial. It is important we focus on the approach. If there is an insistence that you put it in, then it becomes difficult to implement. Without building the proper foundation, without having the proper dialogue, working with communities so that they understand it is not only something required because of International Convention but rooted within islamic from work, but also necessary for the nationbuilding process, what will happen as we push these group to implement, there could be issues. Particularly now to with the arab spring gather now group leadership, taking to the streets. There have to be mechanisms for people to express their concern and anger to the point when you to implement within the constitution or any Legal Framework the issue of freedom religion, it is understood, accepted, and what it looks like is agreed upon. Thanks to all of our speakers. That was a great launching off to the discussion. Some of the theme that came through strongly for me was, one, the potential, ways in which the organizations are using the potential of social media to foster religious coexistence, foster some of these local and Global Dialogue on some of these issues. The need to strengthen those initiatives. As mark pointed out, the need to develop this craving for the drama of into religious peace building and the alternative piece of religious voices, as much as there is that craving for it, instances of religious conflict. But again, as came out with all the presenters, it is very complicated. Even within these religions and context, there is a great deal of pluralism, contestation within the religious sector, also within the political sector. Entering into those conversations and seeking to support some Civil Society organizations and religious organizations in a constructive way is something that needs to be done carefully and with as much listening as there is talking and cajoling. One thing i want to throw at the beginning, we often working with religious organizations overseas we often hear how . How can international, western organizations, quasi governmental organizations, work with religious organizations and actors overseas in a way that you will not delegitimizing the authorities and the legitimacy that religious factors and institutions have within their society . We know that working with western organizations that can sometimes pain religious actors and institutions in particular ways as untrustworthy, opportunistic, and so on. I wonder what you have to say how with your observations on the ground about how this work has been done effectively by outside organizations, to support religious leaders and not undermining . The key issue is Funding Organization that already have the legitimacy and then providing them that support. One of the challenges has been networks that have been formed, groups that have been formed have often not necessarily been supportive as much treated by western organizations. Understanding that distinction is important. Depending on the language being used, i was surprised in to the show when the majority of participants told me that this was the first time that the training of conflict resolution had taken place in every bit. Everything that had been done tk has been done effectively by outside organizations, to support religious leaders and not undermining . The key issue is Funding Organization that already have the legitimacy and then providing them that support. Taking place in arabic. Everything that had been done previously was done in french. The other issue is the capacity building. Bringing in more of the convening role of south to south leadership. Sell to self leadership. Even contacts that may not seem to have anything in relation. For example, your stories from india, how can you connect more self to self learning, rather than just this is how it works in the west. This is what we see in the u. S. This is why we are able to differentiate between freedom of speech and religion. For a lot of people, people cannot relate. They see the west as a very different society. The more you can bring in this kind of learning, where people have been through it in recent history the more attraction you could have with the message. The other thing to add, there is a long history in human interactions, globally, well beyond government, philanthropy being quiet. In other words, there is a long history of the affected this of philanthropists and private donors of people being quiet because they want to work to be prominent, not their presence. That is an issue for many people in government. They want to be it knowledge, they want people to see that this is our activity. Well, there is a good place for Public Diplomacy that governments do. Very important work that governments can do when the Public Diplomacy. Helping Civil Society is not necessarily one of them. That is where it might be better to be quiet and respectful, and not over emphasize your presence. I think that has been my experience amongst various european governments and others i have worked with. The quieter the ambassador is, the more he becomes a trusted partner. I did not mean that other investors in the world. Ambassadors in the world. Theyre quiet this almost demonstrates their seriousness. In relation to a swiss ambassador in syria literally, i was afraid of my life half the time. I did not know. Jewish origin, i am in a police state, severe enemies with israel. I was always worried, but it turns out i was mostly paranoid. It turns out it was the series to were in danger. But i was afraid. This ambassador made me feel comfortable. He did not tell me how many other things they were doing. Theyve been doing many things to improve Civil Society. They were just quiet about every activity. That is great diplomacy. That is great effectiveness of the government. I think the quietness and respect, making prominent voices in that space, identify this amazing woman in afghanistan that is already running a stronger programs women and it to Educational Programs then you get in there and support her. But he did not ruin her reputation by making people think that she is a tool of somebody else. You empower her. Also have to say, one of the things that western governments can do better local governments, too, there is an interesting thing that was raised. Where we glorify society but there is a problem with Civil Society. Ngos tend to be situated sometimes they are religious ideologues. Sometimes they are anti religious dialogues. Antireligious ideologues. Communist groups come in and they hate religious people. They have an intention of what they will do with society and they speak to my class. Then a religious militant comes in. He says, what is your agenda . Revenge. Revenged. We are going to get to them. You can see the makings of what will be a very difficult affair. There needs to be a conscious cultivation of interface communities and a secular alliances for poverty, for women, for health care, for jobs that are specifically binds people together. That creates almost a new notion of religiousosity. That is what we find from syria, to palestine. That is what most people actually want. If they want a safe space for their families. A prosperous face. They do not need religious to be militant the victim and its secular people to insult them either. We can be helpful in encouraging those kinds of spaces. I want to go back to something that you said in your presentation and we discussed a little over bagels of this morning which is the sensitivity of religious freedom as a policy and its in at some of the context that to work. The senate might not be something that can be written into the constitution of this point, but it can be dialogued with a society and nurtured as a foundation on which laws can be established later. There is a lot of fear that it is not in the constitution that it might be something that is never established in law down the road. How would you respond to those concerns . Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. I think you have to find a way to write it into the constitution, the same way that you have to find ways to write production of womens issues. I think the idea is not to give it as a given. When you say womens rights, religious freedom, minoritys rights, everyone as an individual agrees. It is what it will look like that begins to divide people. Unless you have the full conversation, people will reject it within the constitution. Most of these countries were talking about, because the process is very quick. We look at libya, the head and eight month road map. Theoretically, tunisia is down. It ought to take a reset button and start over. This is a very quick process. None of these dialogues took place. What will happen, for example, it goes to a referendum. People will vote of no. No one understands why religious freedom has been introduced. All the understands is that if a muslim decides to sobbing and muslim, then the government will sanction and support it. They are not understanding the fault, wide range of what religious freedom will look like and womens rights. That is the danger. When you look at those pictures and you put yes or no, this is the debate we had in iraq over and over. The conversations they were trying to have did not belong in baghdad. We hear that over and over. In fact, they do belong because people need to understand the full brunt of the conversation. You cannot have secular or religious law it is a lose lose situation. It is the whole breadth of the religious freedom and it protects you. It protects you to be a will to follow. Is for tax usa christian minority. People understand what it means. How it is being presented now, International Conventions will require it. Even if that is not true, no one has to make that statement. That is how people on the ground understand it. Everyone agrees with the concept. I would just add here, i am probably breaking the rules by adding my own input. I would just add that some of the concept context in which i work, not just in the muslim world, but elsewhere the elephant and the room is always the negative role that some groups have played, particularly christian groups, particularly to humanitarian assistance. It is often in negative ways getting associated with these groups and that is what creates the sensitivity. That is to be part of the larger dialogue and discussion of these groups. It is ok. There is a tendency of western constructs to be very narrow. This is the very legitimate form of rights or it is not. That is not how this plays out historically. People come up with their own formulas in the end. They are moved forward, but not necessarily for word. I would like to see a struggle for the right to interpret freedom of interpretation. Freedom have to people have to struggle with the language because people work on this for hundreds of years because of what rights meant to them and how it worked in their society. There are still major differences between germany and the United States. On for example, what is that about . We have this radical notion of freedom of assembles and germany decided, no. That is beyond the pale. Ok. Do they not have rights there . Free speech . Because they decided that symbols are beyond the pale . No. They have their interpretation. This is where we should encourage a great deal of negativity this or we should encourage a great deal of he hit the nail on the head. When it comes to writing the constitution, it is imperative to define these terms. What exactly does it mean for freedom of religion. Rather than it being sort of a negative thing, it will protect u. S. A minority. It will protect you as a woman. It will protect you as a part of the majority. Unfortunately, we live in a world where perception becomes reality. When you do have this idea that if you do not vote yes on religious freedom, then you will not get certain funding. That is where the problem lies. It is important for us Civil Society to be engaged with these with government when they are writing these constitutions to help define and make the definition of a broader so that all groups and all communities are included. One more question for me and i am building up of about twitter question that came in earlier and no open it up to all of you. That question goes back to something that you mentioned, about atheists to being part of the conversation in that syria. The question that came in from twitter is how can outside organizations also helped mediate or moderate a discussion between nonbelievers . Those who do not affiliate those who affiliated themselves outside of faith communities, religious communities . We know it is a contentious issue in much of the world. What did it look like . What was the texture of the conversations . How did you create a space for a this to be a part of the conversation in at syria . Yeah, that was eight all public displays of what i call a social contract are based on prior relations. You cannot discount the fact that there are specific people with pallets the great connectors that are talked about in the social network. Who have those relationships with believers and non believers, etc. There are the ones who convene in a way that makes it possible for people to come together and have good arguments. In fact, much of my work in a cigarette was framed as the inar wmuch of my work that syria was a framed as the spirit. I said, lets wait. This is one year before everything broke up. The debate is actually the non of violent engagement of conflict. If you think about it. We wanted to model what debate it was. This is especially important for men. We know that globally women are involved in leadership and there is less of violence there. One of the issues of men and violence is the difficulty to debate nonviolently. Expressing differences in public without Excessive Force or anchor, etc. That was the model. It was that kind of debate when it was atheists versus the others. Nonbelievers everywhere feel very threatened and are frightened for their future. But, if you moderate i could not as an outsider. I was just, again, just a guide representing judaism. That is all. [laughter] i was almost like a syringe you at that moment. It was an interesting role. I was almost like eight syrian a syrian jew at that moment. It was an interesting role. What is inspirational is the Younger Generation has acknowledged the fault of the Younger Generation. If you have a lot of that happening naturally. For example, a group of young activists would probably dbe defined as a secular. There are much more approachable than their mothers generation which actually have in their bylaws that you cannot be a member of a feminist organization. It was talking about how she was reaching out to the more conservative. She was sitting in her final examination in college when two of her friends not necessarily good friends the teacher said, come up to them, and you must take off your scarf for leave. Basically, their entire school was in jeopardy so they decided to leave because they felt they were under this moral road and they couldnt do that. Raised in a secular home, she was more concerned about these two girls were just denied an education. Even at the start is oppressive if theres any hope of them having a future, it was for them to complete their degree. She cannot understand the logic. It is focusing on the principles. The framework is not what is relevant. It is the principles. I think you can really have unite people all around the principles the right to education, basic rights will bring people to get there. Other stories, young egyptians who started the youtube campaign. It shows the breakdown of communication. One of my favorite videos this is a communistsecularism goes to visit the muslim brotherhood. He says, what to what would you want to drink . And it said, i cannot drink pepsi, the caffeine is forbidden. He is having all of these stereotypes of the brotherhood guy. In the meantime, the brotherhood guy is and i wish i could ask him this question. He will ask me for vodka. If this ban temins not talking. And then they leave. They spend the time not talking and then they leave. Because of this stereotype, they do not engage in the dialogue. Thank you. Now i will open it up to all of you. I just asked to identify yourself and your organization. If you have a comment, and to add a question on it. We do want to see this and a form of a question that the panelists can respond to. You want me to go first . Hi. I am steve. I just, a few weeks ago, retired from the state department. I just, a few weeks ago, retired from the state department. So, i am getting my mind and around what it is like to be out of government. In still shaky about the problems as i saw them when i was in government. I am still getting my mind around the problems as i saw them when i was in government. You may recall an issue of a statement just before the rioting in an attempt, i am sure, to head this off. To put it my way, this was not a successful statement. Did not head off the riot. And it was offensive here at home. Was apologetic about the First Amendment. I recall it said something about abusing to freedom of speech or Something Like that. What because i was once in a situation when pastor jones was getting ready with great fanfare to have one of his incidents with the koran. People came running to me, saying the same thing here. Which is put out a statement saying but at a statement. Thank god we didnt. What do you recommend governments say the next time somebody decides to be provocative, and it will happen, and upload something crazy on youtube. What should we be saying . We have no responsibility with any kook, i think is a good term, who might want to upload onto youtube. I would be curious what the government should be same. Thank you. I think i might have an answer for that. I think president obama and a secretary clinton did an excellent job in responding to the youtube of video by basically not responding to it. Saying that they recognized the hateful message that came out of it, but they were moving beyond the video. Like you said, governments do not have a responsibility to comment on every single thing that is up loaded to youtube or the internet that may be deemed as hateful or offensive to some people. I think in this instance, is is probably best for governments to rely on those a strong, Civil Society organizations that do have a relationship with communities to put out statements, or to work with the community, or to be like, listen. I understand that whatever message amount might be offensive, but this is the way to react or not react. Here is something more appropriate or responsible. Here is some responsible speech to counter that. For example, i know the advertisements in new york were brought up. The government does not have to comment on that. There have been plenty of organizations that have put up a counteradvertisements. In fact, our organizations has put up advertisers in the subway and here you see it in the bus system. This is the perfect opportunity where you do see that working relationship between government and organizations to combat instances like this. I think its much bigger opportunity to remind that anything i say is my own personal opinion and not the opinion of the u. S. Institute of peace. What did want to share is what i hear on the ground. My perception is reality. For the majority of people in the middle east, there is very few who can understand that the government cannot get involved. This is the strongest government in the world and you cannot tell someone not to stop it . It is impossible for them to understand because they come from governments who have the height censorship. The idea that it is not in government hands, no one can believe or understand that. The second issue is people perceive a double standard. People say to me that al jazeera is limited. It is not allowed on satellite channels or cable. If you can limit al jazeera, but you cannot limit of this . That is the statement i hear a lot. Yet there was an antisemitic message, it would be accepted in the u. S. I agree, if you really want for people to understand that dynamic or freedom of speech versus of freedom of religion, you have to be understanding of what the different roles in government in a society can be and a proactive one to really be able to have people begin to appreciate the complexity. At the end of the day, there is a responsibility to protect. In the cases of the koran burnings, you had u. S. Soldiers on the ground. Has someone who is consistently working with embassy staff, it puts us in danger when the statements come out. There is that a delicate balance of the responsibility to protect people on the ground if you are involved in these countries and the statements are made. Ladies and gentlemen, [indiscernible] we focus on of violence protection. [indiscernible] i do not know where we belong. Thank you, so much, madame ambassador. It was a wonderful presentation. The big organizations do not want to collaborate with small organizations like that. When they are on the ground from america. Did not want to collaborate. That is the way it is. People know more on the ground. [indiscernible] they know what is happening in that place. Looking at the language barrier, they cannot understand english. How would you communicate the thing youre talking about, keyes . Peace . We need to incorporate into peace. [indiscernible] that people are used. They are sitting idle, waiting. It is how they will act the violence. I am going to do an Election Observation in kenya. How do we put Civil Society, religious people, together to tell us to prevent of violence before an election . We need to get together. Thank you so much for this. How can we collaborate . The state department, the government in getting all of that. [indiscernible] thank you. The challenge of collaborations between small and rural organizations. I could not agree more with the problem you are identifying. Governments have huge amounts of money that they have to disperse in very particular ways. There are very controlled by extreme details of mentality. The make it almost impossible for anyone of integrity to be on the ground to handle that. This vast difference between the governments of the one hand, and their legal fixtures. And of the other hand, the people or on the ground, this is one of the big challenges we have in the global community. How do we actually learn . It is also a shift in psychology. That is a paradigm shift. Part of it is realizing and we know this, scientifically, now. There are high forms of intelligence and physics and mathematics. The same and britain have 0 intelligence and social intelligence. Social intelligence, moral intelligence the capacity to know that everyone in the room has the same right to dignity is not simple for the brain. It is a very developed notion that very illiterate people have and highly educated people do not. That wisdom at the bottom is of vital to the shift in this. Then there is a technical problem. They cannot even apply. They do not know what it is to apply. Ive been trying to figure out for 20 years. Only because of my 30something colleagues can i figure it out right now. Otherwise, the money is just taken from people who know how to take money. Their expertise is not peace. Their expertise is taking money. Ok. This is a builtin problem that every government person has a problem with. We have to work harder on how to make that connection. How to have that hierarchy of relationships and such a way that there are enablers to speak for those amazing people on the ground. And the second thing is, like i said before, every institution you develop in development work, and jobs, has to be not one group over and against another. Those villages have to see that this is a multifaith or multi ethnic effort. It is not one group over the other. That model is the model you are looking for. If it is not, it looks like a trick. It looks like one Group Getting the advantages over the other. It is always this new notion of contract against ethnic boundaries. The other is that we recognize that we have a problem globally with how to transfer are well and our power into the hands of people who really deserve it because they are of high moral intelligence but to not know how to ask or how to get it. We have to work harder at that. Ok. I completely agree with several points. One thing is in terms of security, with knowing. One thing is with preventing. Sometimes, ill find a who the religious and tribal leader is. I lived in iraq from 2003 to 2005. I was able to leave before it got very violent. I was living in a dangerous area. It was the religious leader who said, our neighborhood is no longer hours. We never had prompted to, but i cannot guarantee anything Going Forward. That was the time that i left and it became one of the biggest areas where the confrontation happened. Knowing that the local leadership, i think is very essential. Anyone who spent time on the ground will acknowledge that. The challenge that mark was describing, we call the international darlings. Third first have access to computers, we take that for granted. Know how to apply. I think the biggest challenge is, how you get those people involved. You have to find a way to bridge those groups with the international darlings. You cannot ignore one or the other. Even if you go straight into the rural areas and give them funding, you can delegitimized them, you can create a moral hazard and corruption because they might not even be corrupt. It is to not know how to handle the money. There are a lot of technical issues. One of the things we try to do is we work with people before they rights the proposals of the can put in a note. We will work a backandforth. We travel to the area. There is a relationship before the proposal is ever submitted. That takes an overwhelming amount of overhead. The capacity of the organizations you are talking about are about 10,000 to 15,000. Donors are used to millions of dollars. Maybe 250,000. When you are talking about organizations that only draw 10,000 or 15,000, you have a disconnect. There are huge logistical and administrative challenges. I think the way around it is networks. They can then take the large funds and disperse them. That, in itself, has challenges of its own. How to have regional networks. Just one issue on poverty. When youre looking at religious extremism, i agree with you in most of the cases. There is a large number of middleclass people. It is a great way to burst the method of poverty. A lot of it does come from gulf countries who are considered wealthy and come from wealthy families. It is not the only link, particularly with religious extremism. There is an ideology there. There is an exploitation of peoples of viewpoints. I think the dignity and humiliation aspect is a big part of it. When we are looking at the analysis, we need to be careful not to look at poverty and social economics. The right to be heard, which is a basic right, issues humiliation. To go to other things you said. In embracing my role as moderator i apologize. I am not breaking my role as moderator i apologize. Some of the challenge was not engaging with the religious sector is also because of the faithbased organizations or the religious, keyes building organizations might not be as sophisticated when it comes to proposal writing. That creates the challenge. Also, with this issue of engagement with a women. This becomes a challenge for religious peace building because oftentimes when International Organizations or government want to engage the religious sector, the district for the clerics. The street for the religious authorities, which in most of the world is primarily invested in man. Part of it has been pushing governments and International Organizations to think of religious leaderships and authorities as outside of clerical authority. We know that women in much of the world play a very significant role in shaping religious interpretations and shipping more responses to violence and other communities. We need to be thinking about the interpretive power and authority that many different religious actors have, not just clerical authorities. Lets open it more questions . I am with the department of state. Following what you are saying about women, i think most of us will recognize the important, a vital resource that women bring to the table. Can you discuss logistically how, particularly in the muslim world, we can reach these women of faith to make them not just part of the discussion on the side, but the decisionmaking process . It is actually not as difficult as one would think. Women in the majority of countries, we tend to think of them as being illiterate or uneducated. In some rural areas, that is the case. Kate egypt, for example. You have a lot of women who are entering the universities and, in some cases, outnumber men in these universities. It is just being aware and making sure to include all these different voices at the table when you are discussing these issues, especially when it comes to religious freedom. If and when you talk about religious freedom within certain contexts, lets say, the arab world or muslimmajority countries. You want to come at it from an organic perspective. What is it that their faith teaches them. What sorts of ideals are promoted within islam that allow women to be educated, to have a voice, to be part of a discussion and part of the Decision Making process . I think the general idea may be from people in western countries is that it is difficult finding women who will be part of these discussions. It is just getting out there and engaging them. They will be there. They want to be part of the decisionmaking process. There are in parliament. There are in universities. It is just giving them that chance. I think that when you are talking about it Decision Makers, there is foreign to have to be institutionalized change. That will take a long time to do that. If you look is the case of morocco, they were able to create a program for women. Five women who are engaged, and youll find one who are well school, but theyre not decisionmakers when it comes to religious authority. It is a tradition that once existed, but is lost. What you are having is the need for institutionalized a change. I know that, for example, the foundation is looking at taking a group of afghan women to study. Having that actual traditional teaching and then looking at changing the institutions, i think is very necessary. I can tell you. I know a lot of the stories about how women are supposed to be participating at all about. If i am standing in front of a room and as someone contradicts me, who are you going to believe . In most cases, have gone into yemen or iraq, i will tell women. Some will say, and is on it is forbidden for us to work. Of course, that is not true. When i go to the religious beater and come back, then they will listen. The Decision Maker is still a challenge and it has to happen institutionally. I think the bestcase scenario so far has been in morocco. [indiscernible] my congratulations to each of you. I like to commend you on this. Geopolitical considerations often, religious and religious groups supported or opposed for their own geopolitical agenda. Looking ahead, how do you think the u. S. Can work to change this . As low as opposing governments . [indiscernible] i have done a lot of thinking about that and work done that for the last 20 years. It is really an excellent question. I do believe that we need there is much Unfinished Business from the cold war. Is is still testing our planet. If people do not realize the in terms of consequences for syria and other things. The uses of religion in the cold war, in particular, and the consequences in terms of how these proxy wars took place is still haunting us. The next that, from a logical point of view, is something again that the western nations have a hard time considering because religion is officially not on the agenda. But there needs to be a peace treaty on religion. The instruments allies asian of religion for military or political gain is a Standard Operating Procedure for many states to this a day. The only way that we have resolved these kinds of conflicts on the global scale is at the United Nations which people negotiating on the places in which they are doing things destructive in bosnia. How can we do something constructive and bosnia . In bosnia . One of those is, hands off of christianity, as a tool of warfare. Hands off of how these militant groups that is not an easy that is not easy. It is a very tempting to form your own group. Immediately you are seen as instrumental lies in them, too. We are facing us now with the american egyptian relations. What is the relation now with the muslim buzzer heard with the muslim brotherhood. How states, and how even allies the night in states, saudi arabia what is the attitude now with the uses of religion . How could we have a treaty on how to the politicize the engagements with religious groups and the religious community. I think the more that becomes a selfconscious process, the more that we will allow local and others to work out their own problems. That is the best we can do. I have been working in afghanistan and it is an extremely difficult process. How you build that kind of trust that the local people believe that you are not there to instruments allies them. I will never forget a moment where we were in the room with them for the first time and they said, ok, what you want the conference to be about . And we turn to them and said, what do you want it to be about . There were in a state of shock because no founder had ever done that. It is so simple from a psychological point of view. It is a form of intelligence that is not always available to international actors. To that notion of handing over the power and sang, what do you want . That simple notion is already creating that trust that in some that religion is not been instrumental eyes. Instrumentalized. I totally agree with everything matties said. I think it is really important for governments to realize that they should not be afraid to engage in different kinds of groups. When it comes to, you know, faithbased groups, now more than ever we are seeing their prominence and their value to adding the voice to the conversation. In fact, we like to say that if youre not sitting at the table, youre on the menu. And nobody wants to be on the menu. You do not you what to include all of these voices. They have things to say. They are on the ground. You know what sorts of ideas, comments, what is happening on the grant better than the government from the top does . It is important to include these kinds of groups. It just like he said if you should not be afraid right now. More specifically, u. S. Egypt relations. This pushed back or welcome with open arms of the muslim brotherhood, or whoever is going to be in power, if you need to be able to adjust policies with groups that are coming into power. [inaudible] [laughter] it would be my delight. I think he hit it very well that is is very complex. In terms of Going Forward, many of the governments have to be at the table. The critical things that he said, two things. A Strategic Dialogue is beginning the conversation to make sure that everyone at the table in a Civil Society is at the table. That is beginning a conversation that has not happened before. Earlier, when he said that just listening, i think that is a paradigm that started to shift. I can speak to myself as i go, having been a former state a leader and now in government, i think in many times is welcome and people to want us. It is very complex as we go forward. I think what she shared now is that faithleaders are at the table. I just left the United Nations last week. I met with several groups who are religious actors. The room was standing in terms of putting religion on the table. I made several interventions with jordan and italy. I believe that the conversation has begun. The first cut in Going Forward is doing what we are doing today and putting government, religion, and politics on the table. We are planting seeds for the future. I think we have made a lot of headway with strategic of dialogue. I would hope at some point, this panel and i could travel together so it is not just of a government. The government goes with congress. I think at some point in the future we might want to go together and begin to really show them a paradigm that has not been done before. We are on our way. For the invitation. [laughter] we have a lot of questions and the time is quickly marching on. I will ask you to run around a little bit. You might want to be on the center aisle so we can capture some of these questions before we leave at noon. I will make it really quick. One of the elements and i think is lacking in the discussion, we talk about the u. S. Government and Civil Society. We do not talk much about the behavior of the other governments and for lack of a better term, target countries. Going on with a traditional diplomacy line, we as the u. S. Government have to publicly go out and and put out our redlines and define our interests in order to engage in these governments as partners. I know there are many complications and that. Here in the United States is one that really requires us to define this interest publicly. What is that conflict with our approach and our emerging approach in a Civil Societies and how can we do a better job with traditional and policy diplomacy . The host of governments are the ones that need to carve out. What can we do to push those governments to carve up the space to do with a need to do . That is going to the next person in the audience. I will talk to a question from twitter as well. One person asked a question that think we have been addressing in the last comments. In the past, we thought of having a secular approach, and the secular language, as being inclusive language. We are increasingly learning that secular language and excludes or marginalizes particular voices or groups. This question is on the government approaches, but peacebuilding approaches. How can we include different religious understandings of peace the building but in a way that is still going to be inclusive of many different religious communities and many different groups . The next question from the audience. My name is david steele. Consultantpendent run the world. At the question about the dialogue, which i do a lot of attempts at. When you are dealing with the tremendous values differences, you talk about common definitions of religious freedom, for example. But there isnt one at the moment, around the world. You talked about social contracts, which i think are extremely important. Talking about the global community, how you begin to do that. The u. N. Is a good example. My real question is, when you come down to dealing with conflicts of of values as they are experienced by people, how you begin to approach that question . I am with the National Office of the church of scientology. Thank you for your comments. Weve been talking a lot about dialogue and having the tools with which to bring people together. I was just wondering what role it universal declaration of human rights might be able to play at, say, a grass roots level and bring people together . One more back there. [indiscernible] he mentioned that we have a very different interpretations, for example, of the freedom of expression. For me, as a european, it is interesting for me to see. You can expose a swastika, but certain forms of nudity are punished. It seems crazy. Listening to you, i did not get one idea how the American Society is able to think about changing itself by demanding the rest of the world to think about a lot of things. Your interpretation of the First Amendment is a possible. Many people, even in europe would say, please start to debate about your interpretation of the constitution before you come up and give rise to the rest of the world. As a european, i think about how an arab or turkish person or whoever would view this when you do not question yourself. [indiscernible] okay. I will begin with the first question last. I asked before we began because this was provoked by the film that ended up in the tragedy. And the focus was on at some of global questions. One of the challenges of every society, i told you before. I worked with the swiss ambassador during a tour during a terrible situation. There many things i couldnt discuss, how as a possible that women did not vote until 1970 something, etc. . He was not the issue. It was not his problem. He and i were together in a difficult situation, a life threatening situation and we were both committed to the value of everyones human life. We were not speaking for our societies. We face a globalized community of people who were trying to do good. They do not represent at every moment everything that is going on in their society. That is a subculture on a different scale of people advocating human rights. People advocating conflict resolution. So, if you say to me that american officials are not self examined a enough . If you say that to me, i will say that to you that it is true of all officials at the world. The hardest thing in the world is for a societys to officially selfexam. It is an exception when australia has a national sorrow day. After years of Civil Society, helping people get used to the idea of apologizing to an indigenous people. What happens here, in terms of freedom of speech allowing for a swastika or a new but allowing for allowing a swastika but not a new picture a nude picture, it is this country. Should we be south examined . Absolutely. Should that prevent people from sharing globally on how to advance and human rights . No, it should not. Are you telling me that officials tend to be arrogant or tell people what to do . Yes, of course. That happens all the time. But there is a real struggle that i have experienced and officials if european officials, american officials some are excellent at not coming off that way. People like the ambassador to libya. There are great variations in the capacity of diplomacy of officials. If you feel in frustration with American Power in the world and massive militaryindustrial complex, well, everybody is frustrated by how much power the west throws around and how much we are supporting both sides. We talk about peace in iran but we are providing submarines to another side. And you know, germany is, too. Providing Chemical Warfare and a submarines. If everybody is benefiting from the west and their power. There is a lot to selfexam about that. I am in of Violence Research now. Im fascinated by that. The gigaflop is the talk about the deaths in the United States and that is high. It is only they talk about the deaths in United States and that is high. All of the violence is over in africa, no. Selfexamination is absolutely critical to our work, but that should not prevent us from struggling for a globe in which everyone is struggling with the question of freedom and religion. Everyone is struggling with the question of a freedom of speech. I have deep faith that the more that we provoke these discussions globally and the more honest we are about our own peculiarities that ever will, with their own interesting innovations on how to manage that and we will all be better off for it. I respect your frustration with the public image of the United States, but i also say that there are many good people who are trying to do Something Different as far as the conflict of values, the simplest thing has been focusing on the positive. You do not ask people what their differences are. You focus on you ask people, what do you think you share with them . What do you think they want for their children . What do you think they want in terms of jobs . What do you want . In other words, positive piece building i have a found is a remarkable shift of the brain capacity. I always take it back to that. Everything is focused on what cannot work. And then you say, what do you want to see here in five years . Suddenly the brain gets all crazy . We all have troubles in our lives. All you can think about is the trouble, until somebody thinks about, what do you want . And suddenly your brain does Something Different and your heart does Something Different. We have to be ambassadors of that process. Last night, i was very proud of my presentation. Somebody asked the question. Everybody was thrilled with all this piece work. Somebody asked the question and said i was talking about womens empowerment was changing everything and making the world far less of violent than it has ever been in history. And they said to me, but if you think it is less violent, how do you respond what do you think about the voice of the unborn . And his direct question and a challenge was that all this liberation of women has led to the debt to the deaths of the unborn. I was stunned. I said, that is very important. Because that would take a very deep conversation between your care for the unborn and other peoples belief that the liberation of women has been the key to the non violence. Were both talking about how to celebrate life. Lets think about how we can celebrate life together and work on that because his passion was life. A different interpretation. You really have to work your brain on how to refocus. I have seen this work in many situations. To the question of self examination, i think a lot of these issues that have been happening globally recently have led to an internal cells that examination in the United States. I am not sure. I think we may have a negative Public Perception worldwide that we have this american exceptional as some and we can go out and give advice but do not take our own advice. I think it would be unfair to say that we do not sellanalyze a lot of the policies do not selfanalyze a lot of the policies that come out. Even that trailer that cannot on you to cost a lot of discussions. What is the difference between free speech and hate speech . I do not think it would be fair to say that we are completely devoid of sell examining a lot of our policies self examining a lot of our policies. When it comes to our shared values, he hit the hammer on the head. We have a lot more shared values than we actually think. At the end of the day, we are all humans and we do strive to have the same things. Security, bringing our children into a safe world, education, empowerment for all as a the end of the day, having our voice heard. Focusing on the positive aspects of our shared values is more important than trying to build policies on what we do not have in common. I will stocked with the gentlemans question i will start with the gentlemans question about how to get countries to actually share. It is important for our Foreign Policy when we are addressing the nations to understand what their capacity is and what they are capable of. I say that because, for example, in libya, most people agree with the recommendations that the u. S. Or other people are asking for. It comes down to the capacity issue. A lot of time we will ask governments to take control of the speech when they cannot have that authority. This is where a Civil Society and government comes in, particularly the issues we are addressing here. The most important question is who has the moral legitimacy. Who has the authority to make change. They simply do not have it. Even if they do have it, they do not have the capacity. That is one of the trickiest issues. It goes back to focusing on principles. This is what we would like to see. With a lot of the recognition of the opposition, when dictatorships were still in the country, the u. S. Was very clear we accept you, but based on certain principles we expect you to adhere to. But the population and people in the streets are expecting the