vulnerabilities in which the russians were able to preemptively destroy u.s. nuclear weapons. so the two sides have kind of switch uses in this regard. the russians look remarkably like historians. you know, public constituencies and russia are not worried about missile defense, that finding a useful political bargaining chance on the table. i think there is a belief -- i think russia has been much greater belief in the u.s. technical skills and technical ability than the u.s. has in its own type of skills and ability. so i don't have a single clean and fair, but i think there's a series of overlapping different issues. ..

even though it's not quite clear with the threat is that they are worried about but think they are very much worried about the weakness of their conventional forces. they are taking some steps to try to resolve that and they are making some progress, so perhaps not will reduce the paranoia. i personally don't believe that nuclear forces can significantly detour the conventional warfare

when both sides have nuclear forces i think the offset each other i don't think this is the impact or hard to think through a scenario in which the nuclear forces would help them in that respect. but i think they believe it and they believe therefore that unless they can get the u.s. to agree to things they see as favorable in the nuclear area they are better off just staying where they are. >> to brief comments, first i think it is unlikely that the russians will at some point withdraw from the treaty. at the end of 2010 when they signed the treaty they looked at the perspective of the american plans for missile defense and said even if they go as far as we hear they might go in 2021 when the expires we're still going to be in the position its may happen afterwards. the second point is the

paranoiacs i think in moscow is fuelled in part by an incredible some might say overestimation of american technical capabilities and when i was reading an arms control when i was serving at the american embassy in moscow in 1986, 97 when their was the soviet union that the strategic vision and initiative announced by president reagan was going to put them out of the ballistic missile business in five or six years. this really is rocket science. it's very hard to do. but i think there is this tendency on the part of a fairly significant part of the russian officials who follow this to look at american plans and say the americans really can't do that and then right now they say we are going to look at the end active approach to see faces one to three if we have a problem we are worried about phase four but

then with a phase five, six and seven which may be coming out there so that makes the paranoia even more difficult to deal with. is by far the legislation clinic, kind of speaking to what you were just talking about with russia's lord conventional weapons capabilities may be in being compensated for perhaps putting faith or confidence worldwide in their larger numbers of tactical nuclear weapons versus the united states how hard is it going to be safe from of russian domestic public concerns wanting to maintain the power status or wanting to sort of still have some superiority of the united states how hard does it make it for them to commit to the further reductions of the future may be on the flip side from the united states

perspective how difficult is it politically from any president to seemingly weak in the united states and russia or other possible lead for serious? i wondered if you could maybe speculate or speak to how those political difficulties could impede any further progress on reducing the tactical nuclear weapons. >> i think you raise very good points. it will be difficult for an american president to take steps that would lead to a major difference. we are down out of the kind of levels where cost isn't a huge consideration. i don't mean to belittle the cost of isn't trivial especially in the time we are looking for every possible way to save money one shouldn't be little a few

tens of millions of dollars here and there, but that's what we are talking about. we are not talking about hundreds of billions with these forces, so i think there's very little incentive for an american president to let things get along way from paris even though i like many others have written and argued extensively against the concept of the parity is being terribly relevant in the nuclear age. i think it is a political reality and we have to live with that. on either hand i do think that this nuclear posture review makes it clear that the united states is very prepared to change mali its nuclear posture but the approach to the nuclear weapons altogether so there's a lot to do while the president has promised maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent the way we deplore our nuclear forces and what we are willing to

cooperate on and the openness with which we approach this process if we have a cooperative scheme on the ballistic missile defense which is mutually beneficial step-by-step i think these things can begin to break through this difficulty that you correctly identified. i also believe that there's plenty the united states can do to try to deal with the larger questions that face all of the proliferation, nuclear terrorism , and controlled fissile materials which could be used to make bombs and so forth that don't deal with this particular issue of numbers between the u.s. and russia. and i personally would hope very much we accept the reality of where we are and the reality of

what the political situation is and don't let the difficulties keep us from making progress in these other areas which are not so directly tied to the complicated political questions that you raise. >> very briefly let me emphasize one thing. you kind of said it would be during hard for a u.s. president to do something to make the u.s. weaker but if the arms control isn't about weakening, the arms control is about building mutual security cooperative fleet that sometimes is a jury hard argument to make. there's no better example about that than the ballistic missile defense but at the end of the day the best argument for the ballistic missile defense cooperation is that the russians have regard that have better access or would provide the

united states better access to ballistic missile launch the in the u.s. has itself. so those are the kind of arguments i think have to be made in the domestic context, and indeed the administration's strategy for the ratification to say this treaty by itself makes the u.s. more secure. russia could say the same thing. is, i completely agree with you on the domestic politics in all of this is extremely difficult, and i think to some extent you have to be able to make -- it has to be true that every step you take enhances the and you have to make that argument. >> last question. >> i think it was either james or steve on the arms control association. you have acknowledged the russian strategic forces may fall significantly under the new

s.t.a.r.t. ceilings. i'm wondering what you think about the idea of the u.s. as a unilateral confidence building measure allowing the levels to go down and not below the actual russian levels but within the new s.t.a.r.t. framework to significantly below the 1550. >> i never thought about it in the way. the difficulty would be first there would be a domestic politics difficulty. the other difficulty would be if the russians are still committed to building the heavy icbm to build up their forces very rapidly it would be hard for the u.s. to go down whiff of the developing system that would allow it to go up rapidly. this committee have a lot of

upload which it could potentially match with that, so i need to remember back to the tactical weapons the russians have -- nobody really knows because they never met their obligation to give the accounting of those weapons, but

at least for-1 or maybe five or 6-1 advantage in the deployed operational tactical weapons we're not talking about the strategic reserve stores meeting to go get them and reactivate them and maybe fix them up. these are ready to go weapons. they have some more that are stored in all of that also but, you know, they got a lot of those things and every one of those is ready to go in that our allies in europe, and so, i think that there is a broad balance here that we had to accept as well when we accepted the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty by deleting all that stuff out and they had to accept leaving out the non-deployed in all that and so i think is a little hard to accept the balance and a relatively small reduction but below the total number in the russian strategic deployed forces isn't the whole picture.

>> unfortunately our time is over but let me ask you all to think our panelists. [applause]

falling last begins failure to obtain a u.n. resolution on the violence in syria deutsch of the veto of russia and china, britain for an secretary william hague reported to the house of commons and to questions from members. the event is a rollover and our. >> with permission, mr. speaker, i will make a statement on syria. the whole house will be appalled by the blood shed and repression so it continues at this very moment. over the last 11 months more than 6,000 people have been killed. the syrian regime has deployed

snipers, tanks, artillery and mortars against civilian protesters and population centers particularly is in the city's. thousands of syrians have endure imprisonment, torture and sexual violence including the alleged rape of children and the humanitarian position has deteriorated. this is an utterly unacceptable situation which demands the united international response. of cicatrix clinton and the french foreign minister and other masters. we also been strong support of a draft u.n. security council resolution proposed by the kingdom of morocco on behalf of the arab league. the revolution called for the implementation of the arab league plan to stop all violence in syria from all sides, and to begin a political transition. mr. speaker, there was not the resolution that couldn't be supported buy any country seeking the peaceful end to the tragedy unfolding in syria.

it demanded an end to all violence. it called for the syrian led political process to allow the syrians to determine the future to the national unity of the government and internationally supervised elections. it didn't call for the military intervention and couldn't have been used to authorize any such action under any circumstances. it didn't impose sanctions. it proposed putting the weight and the authority of the united nations security council behind the plan to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace and syria. as i said the security council this was the arab league, it wasn't imposed by western nations. it was co-sponsored by the nations that included turkey, jordan, kuwait, libya, bahrain, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, egypt. the leadership and their strong understanding of the region deserves our support. i.t. for to give the tribute to disagree general of the arab league and the prime minister who traveled to new york to

brief the council and played a vital role in the extensive negotiations that followed. on saturday the resolution was put to the vote. 13 of the 15 members of the u.n. security council resolution voted in favor. two of them did not. russia and china were exercised the veto. they did so despite extensive efforts made to amend the draft resolution to address russia's's specific concerns and in the face of the repeated appeals from the arab nation. instead of the syrian regime and implicitly to leave the door open to further abuses by them. they did so while the president was in circling shells of pounding the homes of the syrian civilians killing of 200 people and left 30 of the anniversary of the massacre we regard this as an error of judgment by the government of china and russia. mr. speaker there is no need to mix words about this. russia and china have twice vetoed reasonableness is a

reaction by the united nations security council. the vetoes are a trail of the syrian people. deploying them may have let down the arab league and the increased the likelihood of what they wish to avoid a serious civil war and they placed themselves on the wrong side of the arab and international opinions. bye contrast i icbm the other members of the security council and the principal stand de tichenor particular in morocco and others in colombia, germany, guatemala, india, pakistan, portugal, south africa and all of whom voted in favor of the resolution. the council spoke to all of those and this resolution shall not die by being active and engaged we should give hope to those that are expecting it. mr. speaker the syrian regime may have drawn comfort from that evens after the u.s. security council but we will do everything we can to make sure that comfort is short-lived. this is a doomed regime as well as a murdering regime.

there is no way it can recover its credibility internationally or with its own people. the u.n. security council stated to the dree doesn't signal the end of our efforts to end the violence and syria. and i want to sit out how we will now proceed. first we will continue our strong support for the arab league. earlier this afternoon i spoke to the secretary-general of the era of as well as the foreign minister of jordan. i welcomed and encouraged the proposal to appoint a special envoy of the era of weak and i commended the leadership and actions so far. the arab foreign ministers will meet this weekend to consider their options. the secretary-general is very clear but the urgency of the situation, the continued determination of the arab world to act and the need to step up their efforts. i told them they will have their own complete support. second we will take to widening international coalition of nations seeking a peaceful and lasting resolution in syria. we welcome the concept of the new group of friends of seeley

of which i discussed with the prime minister last tuesday in new york. the aim of such a group will be to demonstrate the strength of international support for the people of syria and the legitimate demand to coordinate intensified diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime and to engage in the syrian opposition group committed to the space future for the country. britain will be highly active member and stepping up the group with the broadest possible international support. third we will intensify our contact with members of the opposition, the house will recall that in november i appointed the transit guide and the ambassador envoy to lead our discussions with them. we will continue to urge the syrian opposition to come together to have common statement of commitment to democracy, human rights and as a protection of all of the minorities. fourth we will maintain our strong focus of the united nations undeterred by the vote. we will continue to raise the security council and we will consider with other nations the

resolution of the united nations of the general assembly and despite or disagreement with russia and china we will continue to discuss with them and in possibility of the agreed but meaningful way forward and increase pressure to the european union following the discussions i had in new york with the minister from france, portugal and germany we've already agreed 11 rounds of the sanctions and we hope to agree further measures by the foreign affairs council on the 27th of february. sixth we will work with others to ensure that those responsible for the crimes and syria are held to account. the u.n. human rights council meeting in geneva in march we will work to ensure the strongest possible mandate to scrutinize human rights violations in syriac so those responsible know there will be a day of reckoning and that they will be held to account. and seventh we will use our remaining channels to the regime to make clear our violence that is utterly unacceptable to the civilized world. the syrian ambassador was today summoned to the foreign office

to receive this message. despite the new carrier relations of the government we remain committed to ensure the safety of the embassy in staff in london and expect the authorities to provide the same protections to our embassy in damascus. in parallel the consultation he and his team work and extremely difficult conditions to ensure that we have an accurate picture what is happening in syria i hope the house will join me in paying tribute to them and their families the safety and security is prominent in our consideration. mr. speaker the human suffering and syria is already imaginable, and it is in grave danger of escalating further. the position taken by russia and china has regrettably made this more likely. however, this government, this house and our country and our allies will not forget the people of syria. we will redouble our efforts to put pressure on this regime and to stop this indispensable

violence. >> i want to discuss the issue in by a grateful for the foreign secretary agreed to make a statement this afternoon. the foreign secretary's statement is made in the dark shadow of the slaughter continuing even today with news of scores more people murdered in homes in just the last 24 hours alone. there for all to be clear responsibility for the debt of these innocent people what is the door of the president and his murderous regime. the international community that the regime has no future and the facade must go. the tragedy is not withstanding that, the slaughter still continues. but for the international community, the combination is not enough, the comprehensive diplomatic efforts are required, and that is why the recent foreign secretary just spoke to

reach agreements in the security council is such a stain on the conscience of the world. i welcome the point made by the foreign secretary sitting out the next steps of the british government would take to resolve this great crisis. i've not in recent days and do not in this response make any criticism of the government for its actions to date. another in the last of organs and determination let me ask the following questions of foreign secretary. i share the disappointment by the foreign government taken by russia and china. so can the foreign secretary said out more fully to the house what steps are being taken to convince them of the need for international consensus, in particular to the foreign secretary tell the house what conversations he has had with survey in his upcoming meeting in damascus tomorrow with the president has he sought or received any assurances that in this meeting the russian foreign

minister will require the committee for special envoy appointed. will he press for the joint summit to be held in the weeks ahead and order to coordinate the final steps that now required to be taken. can the sec to give any more indication of the level of emissions that he's aiming for at that meeting where the possible sanctions will be discussed. will the forensic treen from the house recently he's spoken to the counterpart about the steps that we should be taking at this stage to further increase the pressure on assad. there are reports of even more people fleeing across the border of syria into the country's and the refugee camps set up along the borders are struggling to

meet these increasing demands. so can the foreign secretary confirm the conversations he held with the international development secretary on this matter? and confront the house within the government leading on the humanitarian response to this crisis. has the government requested a meeting of the council of the development ministers to ensure the coordinated response to the growing threat of the humanitarian crisis? mr. speaker i wrote the foreign secretary regarding the attack on the syrian embassy while we share the aandahl to the sense of revulsion that the president to be to present actions of the regime ensure the government would agree that the protection of the foreign embassies on our soil and is a basic principal of international law that must be upheld. let me take this opportunity to praise the bravery of the officers in the embassy this weekend our thoughts are with their family and friends and of those officers were hospitalized and we wish him a speedy recovery. but would the secretary of fine what discussions took place

between him, the secretary and the metropolitan police with regard to protecting the embassy in the reports of the attack any specific measures taken were contingency plans put in place in light of the report of the opposition forces calling living abroad to protest outside of their embassies. mr. speaker, shortly before the statement, the u.s. closed the embassy in damascus and had withdrawn all diplomatic from syria. the secretary made clear in his remarks the ambassador in damascus in the the call for talks. will foreign secretary therefore outlined for the house what is the british government assessment of the utility of the existing diplomatic channel in light of the continuing violence. mr. speaker welcome the steps undertaken by the government to increase the pressure and deep in the isolation on the president in the authority is. i, however, feel that this security council veto has been

taken as a green light for the sustained slaughter by the regime. that is why efforts must now be redoubled to end the violence and bring a peaceful resolution to the past 11 months of bloodshed. >> mr. speaker i'm grateful to the honorable gentleman who has referred rightly to the bloodshed to in place over the last 24 hours and the agreement across the house and so much of the international community that this regime in syria has no future and he's spoken as i have on the need of the comprehensive diplomatic efforts and he has no criticism about what the government has done so far and i'm obviously very grateful for that. to deal with this specific questions he asked whether there should be the arab league summit and that is one of the possibilities for bringing together a wide group of nations to address the crisis.

but i think would be preferable to have a meeting that goes beyond the european union and the arab league since they are african nations who have been very supportive that the security council, what american nations as well, and so it is probably best to have as inclusive as possible an international gathering and a group that goes beyond europe and the arab world. that would be my discussion with the league and others. he asked about a level of ambition for the e.u. meeting on the 27th of february. most of the measures we can take we have now taken to date we have had 11 rounds of sanctions. that includes the complete oil embargo that we introduced months ago and we've placed sanctions on well over 100 individuals and entities. there will be further tightening of the sanctions we can introduce but i stress the

majority of the sanctions we can introduce we have already introduced, so i don't want to exaggerate what we can do on but 27 of 43. he asked about contact with some of the other foreign ministers who i didn't mention in my statement today i discussed a very regular consultations about this and putting last tuesday i spoke with him from new york while i was in new york and that was my most recent consultation with him and indeed i would expect turkey was a co-sponsor of the resolution and i would expect turkey to be an active participant in the new informal international group that we expect to be formed. on the question of the steps with russia and china we are in daily conversations with the security council and i had many discussions with my russian counterpart about the situation and syria and while i haven't spoken deutsch and the security council voted the visit tomorrow i will go on to speak with him

after the visit to mauro. he has been speaking to the secretary-general of the arab league, so why am well in touch. but mr. lavrov has in mind for his visit but clearly the russians on a different track from the rest of us and so it has been difficult to work with them on such contact with syria. the international development secretary gives regular attention to this and britain has contributed helping with funds from people who have been displaced, and of course he's ready to work with other countries on any further developments in that regard. the right honorable gentleman freest correctly the metropolitan police involved in protecting the syrian embassy. there are regular meetings. a monthly review meeting between the home office of foreign office on the protection of all in the seas. well lead contingency plans in the case of the syrian embassy.

those are put into the operation. this weekend there were about 150 protesters there on saturday three of whom by planning at scaffolding entered a fifth floor window we and the presence there would further reinforce. the of continued it would be reviewed today but i think they did a very good job in protecting the embassy working weld and foreign office and home office and he asked for the assessment of the utility of our diplomatic channels. i've been discussing with the ambassador in damascus on the phone before i came into the chamber, and he has had the announcement of the american embassy is enclosed. they've been aware for some days of the american embassy. this is primarily on the security ground. our embassy thomas is in a different situation and the

securities slightly maintained on the case of the u.s. embassy. we will review all options and have recalled our ambassador and clearly we are doing that so that we can review all options. and i would prefer the change if we make a further chance to the diplomatic relations to act in concert with a wide number of other nations so we will stay close to our partners in the arab world and the european union on december not ruling anything out. the house will understand there are the advantages maintaining an embassy as long as we can in terms of understanding the situation on the ground being able to discuss the situation with a variety of people being able to press on the regime the gravity of the situation they have gotten themselves into. we are not announcing at the moment any closure of the embassy. we will keep the situation under close review.

stickney ra nevertheless urged him to keep the fact that inside seeley which is an intense and complex ethnic and religious a group of people. a large christian community now estimated to be over 350,000 that there are to be shut to the dhaka -- archbishop said of the present regime is overthrown and it certainly would be by the regime of a different denomination that community might suffer catastrophe. in iraq after the overthrow of saddam hussein. >> mr. speaker i cannot leave a

point of information from my right honorable friend and his deep knowledge of the region he's quite right to point to the position of christians that they remain a thriving christian presence in syria. but i think what we have to consider is that this regime is now doomed one way or another and it is a question of how it falls not when or whether it will and this is the importance of the work with the syrian opposition to the senate to of the groups of the syrian opposition and my honorable friend has had many meetings with them and pressing upon them if they are to be an alternative future government of syria the importance of the protection of the minorities including christian minorities we have to look for that protection from the future government since this regime.

>> during the course of the conversations in new york is a question in the criminal court that raises itself and it's still necessary to give the present regime an exit strategy. nevertheless the crimes now warrant that level. >> these are very serious crimes with a legitimate question as there are some other we all know where a country is not a signatory to the international criminal court and syria is not a signatory dennett requires the united nations security council to bring about a reference to the prosecutor of the international criminal court and he will understand the given the difficulties of passing the resolution the supports the moderate sensible plan from the air of lead it would be difficult and impossible to pass a resolution seeking reference to the international criminal

court. that is why as i explained in my statement we will make very strong representations of the meeting of the united nations human rights council where we will press for the appointment of the special investigations into the human rights situation. so as an alternative tracked. >> have you considered speaking to the russian foreign minister before mr. lavrov goes to damascus tomorrow and remind him of the serious damage russia is doing to its own of long-term interest in the middle east. if he does speak to mr. love of point of the statement is being put out by the opposition of the national council today in which the accused russia and china and i quote those words they are being responsible for the escalating act of killing and then went on to say the use of the veto at the security council is to use their words tantamount to the license to kill within

two nettie will not russia there is a very heavy responsibility of syria now descends into the bloody unprotected symbol war? >> i think this is true. i agree with my right honorable friend and that is why i use a very strong language of my elma as well over the weekend in a statement today that these vitos ariana trail bea trail and make russia and china increasingly responsible for the situation in syria and some of the slaughter that is taking place. they must consider on the basis of their own national interest apart from anything else whether it is a simple policy to carry on in this life. they are turning their backs on the arab world and would reduce their influence in the middle east. and this is as i say a regime they are backing a regime deemed to be consumed in any case.

they are in no doubt the will expressed views and they will be ensure expressed in the house this afternoon. >> with the journalists be noted with impunity and the elections being read is this the case as the secretary just said russia is rapidly turning itself into a pariah state and would it not be a good opportunity for the conservative party that sets with mr. putin's party in the same in the european council? >> i don't think the party matters on this government statement, mr. speaker. we strongly disagree and are appalled at the veto in the security council. nevertheless russia is a permanent member of the council and it does have a veto and therefore we will continue to discuss with russia the way forward just as we will discuss it with all other nations.

>> is it not clear the exercise of the veto buy any member of the council always comes at a cost and the even to there will be no exception to this principle. but in this case is in the immediate cost being paid in the broken bodies wrapped in sheets of children and the english my honorable friend needs no urging that the urgency with which he should fulfil the objectives he is properly set up. can i say to him i think he is most well placed when he takes the view this should be the coalition of the willing and throughout the world as the security council and possessed so that with the united nations was unable to do the be achieved in a much broader basis namely the maintenance of the pressure upon syria

>> i are absolutely agree with fi friend as you can gather from my ear earlier reply this is why that international coalition should include the notions beyond europe and the arab world and i discussed it with the foreign minister of australia who came to be a participant and across the commonwealth as well as the arab and european community's there will be the demand to be involved in that light coalition so we will pursue this energetically in the hours and the days ahead. >> the one that is absent from the foreign secretary's statement has been iran if you can see what extent you think that this support at. >> it certainly feels that iran -- we discussed this in the house before. iran has given active support to the syrian regime and that has taken the form of equipment as well as advice on how to deal

with the civil disorder in rebellion and there may be many other ways we are not aware and which the regime supports the syrian regime. this is a classic piece of hypocrisy and they have supported the revolution elsewhere in the arab world particularly in egypt and tunisia. they are against it in syria and i think that is seen in the whole arab world and further yet widens the separation between iran and the arab neighbors. >> i share the approach to the situation and urged him to continue maintaining the political economic diplomatic pressure he set out. the first that he announced his he would intensify the contact with members of the syrian opposition. could he he elaborate on that?

is that on the multilateral basis and is there a limit to the level he can actually commit to helping the opposition? >> that's a bilateral and multilateral peter lynch and the contact we have had with them and when we do have the ambassador level representatives to them as i mentioned earlier. but i also think that one of the rules of the wide international coalition we were just discussing a few moments ago would be to meet with of of various groups of the opposition i think that would be a catalyst for the opposition to propose their plan to make a clear commitment to the democratic future for their country and set out there commission to human rights and indeed the protection of the minorities to try to come together since one of the challenges is to develop a single platform and a symbol

agreed body for taking forward their concerns. so there is no limit on what resources we can provide. we have provided training and documentation of human rights abuses and strategic communications. we may be able to do more in the future. >> you can't be forced into the handling of this crisis. before we go down the road of forming the opposition can we recall what happened when they turned against the taliban and al qaeda and more broadly this is the major intervention in the muslim country. iraq, afghanistan, libya are not examples -- to be not need a broad strategic approach in this crisis? >> i think that is what we have and i am grateful to st. he

couldn't hold my colleague but let me reassure him further because we are not contemplating alarming anybody and indeed for one of the things that we stressed in our meeting in the syrian opposition as they should remain peaceful and we have not been in contact with the army which is engaged in a different kind of struggle with the authority's so i wouldn't classify this as an intervention. we are supporting the work of the arab league and the coalition. we are not calling for military action or intervention. so i think that he can be reassured and a supporter of us he was in the first half of his questioning. >> can i applaud the secretary in the vigorous alleged a clay he and his colleagues are

attempting to deal with the matter and management tribute to the staunch as of our diplomatic s.t.a.r.t. in damascus. but can he tell the house what he thinks animates the chinese government to support these? >> this is an intriguing question. as far as we can see in the security council for a last week china had no objection that could be easily identified to the draft resolution, and when it came to the vote, the chinese representative was surrounded urging them there for to vote on all the resolutions. as it turned out however evidently his instructions were to vote to veto the resolution what russia. it seemed the desire to act with russia on the security council out ways any other consideration. i think that is the mistake on

the part of china. we have a regular and full strategic dialogue with china on the regular occasions, and if i will certainly want to pursue this vigorously in the next strategic dialogue because i don't think that is in the interest of china, nor do i think it is living up to the full responsibilities of permanent membership of the security council. >> the foreign secretary talked about the importance of turkey and all of this and i wondered in his discussions with the foreign secretary of turkey with a there was any talk about setting up the syrian opposition in the safe haven near the turkish border. >> this idea has been floated i think more and more in the media by the government concerned, and of course it can be an appealing idea. when people are in such distress and suffering so much this is an appealing idea. but then one has to consider how the safe havens would be created

and indeed how they would then be policed, and i think we know from experience in the 1990's and the balkans the notion of safe havens that are then not really safe is one of the worst things you can create. so in effect the creation inside of the territory would require military intervention and that's something that is not authorized by the u.n. security council and would require a massive military operation and therefore is not proposing it wasn't a part of our discussion last week. >> mr. edward leigh the russians and chinese are woeful and entirely correct some did warn through the interventions that were in danger of playing into the hands of an ally because we

didn't stick strictly to the humanitarian action not when we were pursuing the last hours of his life. the fact is the chinese are impervious to the grandstanding and the diplomacy he's now going to engage with them to get them to sign up for the resolution which prohibits any repetition of the kind of action that took place in libya. >> i disagree with my honorable friend. i don't think what happened in libya provides an ally after all the country on the security council such as india that didn't vote for the resolution in 1993 on libya or south africa that did vote for it but then critical of its implementation who were perfectly happy to vote for this resolution because it is entirely different from what we contemplated we are not calling for the military

intervention. these are different circumstances. so why don't think that is an adequate defense by russia and china. he said i was quite in the diplomacy that is not pursued more easily. i did say we will continue to discuss with russia and china and we will do so in a rather vigorously but we will do so continuing to seek agreement that the u.n. security council in the coming days and weeks. >> the first arab country in the arab spring is recognizing the criminal regime the national council has called the other countries to follow suit. is that something the government will be considering? >> i don't rule that out and i would like us to act in concert with other nations, so with other nations to is a factor and

we will keep in close consultation with our partners on this but there are considerations and reasons to maintain an embassy as i also mentioned earlier and so it is a balance between those. >> having had a friend and his 5-year-old son butchered by their regime in the days when they controlled lebanon, could recommend everything that my honorable friend is doing in this and also urge him to take a particular interest in what is going on in a country with the regime continues to destabilize through its own proxy and ones like hezbollah. >> absolutely pity we always take a close interest in what is happening and syria has indeed a great deal of time been a malign

influence and additionally the events in lebanon and what may happen in the future are in important consideration in how we handle this crisis and syria. it's one reason it is quite different for instance from the libya crisis. my honorable friend is right to point to the horrors of what has happened before, and i'm very conscious of the point he makes. >> welcome and endorse the secretaries remarks about taking action through the european union to the general assembly's, human-rights council and with the syria group but one organization you didn't mention is it not time to have a discussion on the council including turkey about what we could have some kind of a no-fly zone comparable to what happened 11 years ago over the northern part of syria? >> i don't think it is, mr. speaker, first of all because i think it's planning

with different even sure of the fees that would weaken rather than unite the international coalition. also a no-fly zone which require your authorization from the u.n. security council was clearly not obtained in a moment, and in addition although there are reports of the aircraft involved in the latest event this is not the means of repression and the no-fly zone that's an easy thing to call for would be the illusion of security when the prime means of repression and the civilian population is by the troops on the ground. >> i welcome the foreign secretary's words in the arab league with the eyes of the world and syria will foreign secretary give me his personal assurance he will not close the sali is to what is happening next door in israel where the

united nations resolutions and international law are being pushed against the palestinian people? >> will mr. speaker my honorable friend knows we have discussed in the house many times the position on this to me get a little white in this statement and of course we have condemned violence in the occupied the expansion of the settlements in occupied so which are a legal and on occupied. >> perhaps we can keep the statement exchanges to the subject matter and to the gentleman must stick to what is right and that is the content of the statement. >> was the assessment of the prospect agreed to impose the arms embargo? >> there isn't much agreeing to the arms embargo in the state

russia continues to sell arms to the regime. russia has many close allies to those of the regime and they are an important customer for the russian arms. this is no doubt one of the factors behind russia's defense of the regime and the to the u.n. security council comes the prospect that the moment is very small the risk of a given the cynicism of the veto of the draft resolution in the weekend and the bloodshed that followed a sense what my friend consider calling in the russian ambassador and suggest to him that russia's failure to support human rights and syria might be construed by some as incompatible with the membership of the council of europe?

>> i will give consideration to all of the points being raised about russia. and i will make sure that the force of the views about the veto in the house of commons as well is understood by the russian embassy and will be understood anyway, but my first preference in how we are going to conduct or discussions with russia now is to do so vertically with the russian foreign minister as well as the ambassador that we may have. >> the action of russia and china is completely inexcusable and no one in the house would defend or justify can i take the foreign secretary back to the point made earlier are you aware that the resolution on libya which was of course brought forward to stop the slaughter was so extended to bring about the change but it's played right into the hands of russia and

china have done what they have done in the security council resolution and those countries have a poor record when it comes to those human-rights. >> the resolution was in my view implemented, and i think if i remember rightly the gentleman voted in the end for the action in libya. yes, he did. so, we are united in agreeing with that resolution and i don't think it provides an excuse for russia and china for the reasons i gave there are many nations on the security council who disapproved of what we did in libya who voted for this resolution on syria to meet specs before mr. speaker. notwithstanding the earlier comments on the international criminal court, if there is a subsequent u.n. resolution on president assad and his regime to the u.n. and to the icc does

he agree that timing is important because many dictators we know they feel they've got nothing to lose, no where to run they are likely to dig into the atrocities more than perhaps they would have been and the timing is absolutely critical. >> yes, mr. speaker that is my honorable friend makes a very valid and legitimate point. in anyplace it isn't possible at the moment to refer this to the prosecutor of the icc but i do think that the longer that this goes on and the greater the atrocities that are committed, the more determined the world will be to find a way to bring to account and bring to justice those that are responsible, and those should we heavily on those the firm now participating in the atrocities of this regime to read stomachs before mr. speaker. with the secretary state measures being taken to ensure the safety of the british citizens in syria? >> mr. speaker, for a long time we have said the british

nationals shouldn't travel to syria and those there should leave. we've now said that for many months. we've also made clear when we've reduced the staff of our embassy some weeks ago to the minimum level possible to maintain the embassy that level of stuff is now below the level that we conduct and each accusation -- evacuation so you've made it abundantly clear and there shouldn't be the british nationals now and syria. there will be some better dual nationals and are married to people in syria who have remained, and course whenever they are in difficult circumstances we will do our best to assist them but we have made the position starkly clear. ..

certainly any discussion in the future of safe havens or humanitarian corridors must be accompanied by the will and the authority and the full means to make sure that they truly would be safe and humanitarian rather than leaving people in a very, very difficult situation. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on friday, i attended a fundraiser in newcastle where

over 30,000 pounds was raised to provide assistance, but many there expressed real fear at returning to syria, especially now during their support for democracy and freedom. could the secretary assure me he is working with hi colleagues in the home office to make sure that no syrians are forced to return to syria from the uk? >> i will draw this point to the attention of the home secretary, and i congratulate her and her constituents on the concerns they have been raising. i would point the attention of my colleague, the home secretary, and we have rigorous rules on these matters in terms of giving asylums and we are not returning people to countries in a state of great disorder but i will check on the point she raises. >> foreign secretary, in his ongoing discussions with china, for the use of the veto in these

circumstances. it does not bode well for the future effectiveness of the security council. returning to the republican foreign minister is visiting. he will tell president assad his days are numbered and the only question is how much more blood will be spilled before the goes. >> i would love it if that was the message conveyed when he goes tomorrow, that is what should be conveyed. i think russia's difference from that as we saw in the veto, they still acting to protect the regime, and still standing by a long-standing ally, despite everything that has happened. and so we will underline, as i have said to the house earlier, to russia to the representative of russia, including the foreign

minister, the depth and strength of opinion from this country and they'll hear from the arar league and so many other nations around the world. >> what assessment has the foreign secretary made of records over the weekend that al siri was freed in an apparent warning to the united states and the united kingdom. wouldn't this be further evidence of the murderous activity of this government? >> yes, it would. i'm awaiting reliable information. an announcement is not helpful but it is further information but if they think we're fog to change our approach, as the united nations or anywhere else, because of announcements like that or the release office any criminal, then they are seriously mistaken. >> thank you, mr. speaker. russia is inflicting a double

blow on the syrian people by the u.n. veto and continuing the 1.5 billions of arms sales. it's more and humanitarian argument cannot get through will the foreign secretary emphasize its not in their strategic and economic interest with the key trading partners to act as a road block to protect the syrian people. >> yes, i absolutely agree with me honorable friend. this is an important consideration for the russian authorities. it's not even in their own national interest to take the position they have taken. there will be a future government in syria that will remember what they have done, what action they have taken is causing outrage in the arab rolled who are deeply frustrated with the russian position, and as the secretary general said

this afternoon. >> killings and the murders and the disorder are obviously dreadful in syria and obviously have to be condemned. notwithstanding the foreign secretary's underearl anger with russia at the present time, does he not seem it appropriate to have negotiations with russia and iran, whose interest it cannot be for further unrest to spread to their country, and is he not confident of the syrian opposition. game given my many colleagues concerning libya is surely one we can learn from where the abuse of human rights is unfortunately still continuing in libya, despite assurances given by the opposition there before the speaker sense. >> certainly we'll continue to have discussions. russia as i mentioned many times, i don't think their discussions with iran would be productive on this subject at

the moment. the views of members of the syrian opposition vary greatly and there are only three different organizations that could be categorizeed as a syrian opposition, and so that's why i stress the need for them to come to international gatherings with a clear statement of democratic and inclusive principles and including the protection of minorities in syria. i think they well have greater support in the world if they can articulate those things clearly and set out a clear vision for the future of their country. >> it is always the innocents who suffer in these situations. and anyone who has seen or heard of the collateral damage being inflicted on the innocent women and children cannot fail to think that this final russia veto is disgrateful and disgusting. there is any way we can use our remaining infrastructure and resources in syria or that of our allies to provide humanitarian or medical assistance to these helpless

victims? >> we don't really have the diplomats. we are down to the smallest level of representation we can have consistent with diplomatic representation. our staff is able to maintain an embassy but it's not easy for them to travel around the country, let alone to deliver practical assistance. so we can't do that with our diplomatic staff remaining. we do support the work of the icrc in the region, and we'll have to deliver any assistant that way. >> dr. julian lewis. >> the met priority is to put an end to the slaughter. what longer term assessments have been made about the likely complexion of any sessionor regime to -- successor regime this dictator? >> there are many shades of

opinions. when i met members of the syrian national council, they were clear about their commitment to an open and democratic society and the protection of minorities. i have no reason to doubt them on that. but there will be many, maybe instances at work. so, i think it is -- it's very difficult to predict to give an accurate answer to my honorable friend's question. all i can say is we will continue to urge them to adopt the open democratic principles in which we also believe. >> address the foreign second on uk nationals holding a dual nationalities. what discussions has he had with regards to mutual aid with other countries should the situation deteriorate. >> the arrange. is we will provide assistance if

one country is not able to do so. the embassies of other nations are also being slimmed down, and so it would be wrong for people to rely on that. i do think they should take our advice seriously. we have said do not say stay in syria, do not good to syria. i can't make it clearer than that. rather than expect practical assistance, they should leave and leave now. >> dr. phillip lee. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have had the privilege of visiting syria twice in my life, once in 18998 -- 1998 with a backpack, and last year, in a delegation read by the man from -- i was struck by the lack of media. does the first secretary agree with me that our foreign policy and the foreign policies of all of our partners abroad should

reflect that changed media environment and as soon as the russian and chinese governments understand that and respect that, the better? >> i very much agree with my honorable friend. people do have access to media reports, particularly carried by the arab satellite television channel and what we say on our television and in his house is heard and understand by many people in syria. that is one of the ropes why it is not possible, just to say to people, there is no problem, and that the government is doing everything it can when they can see it isn't acting in the interests of the peaceful transition in syria. so we will continue to communicate in many ways directly with the people of syria and the rest of the arab world. there is a lesson in atlanta -- in that for russia and china. >> the actions of this regime or a continuation of abuses. if i can go back to the question

put out by my honorable friend, once we welcome the appointment of the special envoy to the syrian opposition will that necessarily lead to the establishment of a contact group with the syrian national council and the syrian free army and other individuals in lieu of establishment of free democratic government? >> um, well, we'll have to see how the on signature -- opposition groups develop. we're urging them to come together. our contact has been with those advocating peaceful actions. we have nod hat contact with the syrian army which advocates a different cause but we want them to come together, and we want them to be involved, and to bring their ideas, their future plans to the international grouping of whatever kind that is formed among arab and european and other nations. i think that will be the forum for the opposition to present

their ideas to and to receive the support of the rest of the world. >> stephen gilbert. >> in his statement my honorable friend mentioned the possibility of securing a resolution at the united nations general assembly as a way of tackling this issue. what attempt has been made at the possibility of that and what timeline? >> well, we're still making an assessment for that. really it was only on saturday that the resolution was vetoed in security council. a general assembly resolution does not have the same weight as a security council resolution, but it can illustrate the strength of numbers behind a particular proposition. so we're discussing that now. whether that is a feasible possibility, we're discussing with the arab league and other partners on the security council. i can't give a timeline but it is a possibility. >> mr. john barren.

>> may i press him in suggesting the regrettable decisions to veto was at least in part caused by russia and china believing western powers had exceeded their mandate under u.n. resolution 1973 as they themselves made clear at the time. >> this is not an excuse, mr. speaker, for russia and china. and is a pointed it earlier, there were other nations that were very critical of our actions in libya, appreciating it was put ford on behalf of the arab league, that it put forward an entirely different proposition from how we proceeded in libya because the situation is entirely different. so i don't think this should be advanced as an excuse for what is in my view an indefensible veto. >> mr. robert howell. >> just as we were right to intervene in libya and support

those opposition movements who were facing massacre with weapons and logistics, working with other countries to give logistics and weapons and humanitarian aid to groups in syria, and when will the stage be reached we need to expel the syrian ambassador from the unite kingdom. >> i hope i covered those points. we are not planning on engaging in arming the opposition forces in syria, owl although we will help with advice and logistics and practice tall support in order to ensure they're ability to operate. i don't think it would be in their interests in any case to be seep as -- seen as an arm of western government so there's a limit to what we can do in that regard, and on the question of the embassy, well, we will work with our partners around the world on that, but there are advantages in keeping an embassy as well as of making the strong

diplomatic statement of with drawing an agency. it does improve our understanding of the situation on the ground to have an embassy there. >> mr. richard harrington. >> is the foreign secretary aware of reports on chemical and other weaponry being moved by hezbollah out of syria, and if sew, is he concerned about the consequence it could held for israel and jordan and the other region. >> we keep close eye on any report office the presence of chemical or biological weapons, and i haven't seep reports of such weapons being moved around by hezbollah, although clearly the syrian regime's close connections with hezbollah can give rise to concerns about what may happen in lebanon if this situation continues. but we're very alert to this issue. my honorable friend can be assured of that.

>> impending elections in russia have weakened mr. putin. trying to bolster his opinion poles and trying to show his strength could be a reason for the veto. does the secretary agree? >> this may be a factor. they are coming up to elections. i think a stronger factor is they have had a long alliance with the afghan regime and they have a naval base there. they have sold large quantities of arms there and feel committed to support the assad regime and that is something they should change their mind about in my view. circumstances have changed. and so we'll continue to work on them, on that. whether or not it's before or after the election on march 4th. >> mr. jay johnson. >> mr. speaker, clearly welcome news that india came off the fence and supported the resolution, marking an end of three decades of that country's ties with the assad family.

it made no mention to any automatic measures in the event of noncompliance. >> like my honorable friend i welcome the fact that india voted for the resolution. it is true that several countries on the security council did want to see a resolution which didn't go beyond the draft resolution as it was put to the vote on saturday. certainly india is one of the countries that wouldn't have wanted a stronger resolution or authorization of sanctions or other measures but i express the prime negotiation was with russia and objections were from rock primarily rather than from india or pakistan. >> very much welcome the foreign secretary. the foreign secretary will know that there are over 30 opposition parties in syria from

the national council, from the national formation committee, ad the work has been going on for a very long time to unite them. how close are we in terms of uniting the opposition? because unless the opposition are united the future for syria looks bleak. >> the answer is that many of them have come together under the umbrella of the syrian national council but it's important that all of the major groups come together under that umbrella. this is a national emergency, a is i put it to them actually when i met them in this country, which is a thriving democracy when we face an existential threat, parties come together, as with the coalition in the second world war. well, syria faces one of the direst emergencies in its history so they should come together, and we continue to

give them that advice. >> can i ask the foreign secretary on another aspect of dual nationality and that is the fact that many of the most energetic supporters and members of this barbaric regime have dual sirn and british nationalities. that includes members of president assad's own immediate family. can i and the foreign secretary to commit to look into this and consider ways we might be able to stop this abuse of british nationality. >> well, my own -- many people may share my honorable friend's views about views expressed by dual nationals in this country. however, views expressed are no grounds for depriving anyone of their nationality. so i can't hold out any hopes that we'll be able to act in the way he would like us to.

>> mr. phillip holliday. >> what role can jordan play in helping to resolve this crisis? >> jordan can -- jordan is playing a strong and constructive role. i discussed it a couple of hours ago. the foreign minister of jordan, and they support the work of the arab league and they're energetic sponsor. they cosponsored the resolution put to the u.n. security council and we welcome their active participation. >> when i first started the book i thought, this must be an american story. this is about a country that worships the religion of self-reliance and individualism. the legacy of thorough and emerson, but turns out we're lag guard when it comes to living alone and it's much more common in european nations, especially scandanavia, and even more command in japan. >> onard words, eric klienenberg

discusses the growing trend of older americans living alone. and on sunday, the second cousin of former secretary of state condoleezza rice, connie rice, on her work to reduce gang violence in l.a. and at 8:00 5 georgetown university's bonnie morris on her one-woman play and become of the same name, revenge of the women's studies professor. book tv every weekend on c-span2.

>> the turkish foreign affairs minister, ahmet davutoglu talk about the ongoing violence in syria. the foreign minister is set to meet with secretary of state hillary clinton on monday to talk about efforts to tighten sanctions against syrian government in the absence of u.n. participation. it's about an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for coming. my name is john hamre, the

president here at csis, and i said to the foreign minister, the last time we had a crowd like this is when bill gates was here before he gave his money away. this is probably the most important -- well, certainly the most important thing i'm going to do this week, and exceptionally grateful the foreign minister has come to csis and has made us part of his visit to washington. we have had a chance to develop a very fine working relationship with the foreign minister. i first met him back in 2008, and at the time felt this was an exceptional intellect, in a very remarkable position. what most impressed me was something that sounds so simple, but when he started talking about the zero problems with neighbors. isn't that a nice idea. wouldn't that be good if every

country thought about that as their strategy. unfortunately not all his neighbors have zero problems. i mean, he lives in a very complicated neighborhood and he keeps being drawn in to that neighborhood, partly because of the depth of his intellect and his energy, to make a real difference in the world, and he is making an enormous difference in the world. and so you all know that. that's why there are so many people here. so, i don't want to take any time where i -- i have a love low long speech i was going to give and that would only irritate you at this stage, so could i ask you to warmly receive the foreign minister of turkey, foreign minister davutoglu. [applause] >> thank you very much for that excellent introduction.

thanks for this opportunity to meet with these distinguished audience. since you made reference to our meetings, i will make reference to my -- some of my previous statements here before, because i think maybe because of being a student of international real relations and teaching for many years, i prefer talk analysis rather than teach analysis. maybe some of you want to listen more my assessment about the existing pictures, focused on syria. but i will still insist on process analysis from where we are coming, where we are now and where we are going. in one of my conference this year i made the reference to modern history, and i said,

after all big wars, there was some sort of new adjustment of world order to a conference or a new international organizations or new convention like after turkey with the peace and order. after napoleon war wes had congress of vienna. of first world war we had league of nations. after second world war we had united nations, and a system which was very much complicated compared to the previous experiences, economic political institutionalization. at that time when i came here, i said cold war was a long war. continued almost half a century. but after the cold war, still there is no new reflecting the

cold war situation. there is no congress like congress of vienna, no international organization or even no reform of the existing organization -- international organizations. there have been many discussions on the reforming united nations system, but still united nations is functioning like before. the best indication was veto in security council as if cold war was continuing. so we have to see big picture. today we are facing a huge crisis, global economic crisis, and a political crisis around turkey, but you have to understand from where we are coming. since there was no re-adjustment of international system, since

there was no new set of norms, sense there was no reformation of the existing international organizations, i can tell you there were three big earthquakes in the last 20 years. earthquake for turks, maybe for americans who came -- from los angeles. maybe i don't know it was not good for washington until last year. last year -- so you can at least understand the psychology of earthquakes. earthquake means the existing statistical is shifting. when i say political earthquake or international earthquake, it means international system is changing and the main attitudes of the actors are changing. but in cold war we could predict all the assumptions, actions or

attitudes of the main actors, but after cold war, during these transformation, difficult to predict, and today very difficult to predict the reactions. the earthquakes i mentioned, first earthquake was in 1991. started the previous -- indications of the earthquake came with the fall of berlin wall and in 1991, soviet union collapsed. it was geo political earthquake. indications were changing of geo political structure, and the result of the earthquake, emergence of new state and transformation of the states in eastern europe and central asia, and the basic slogan of this earthquake was freedom and democracy. i'm sure all remember the end of history series, et cetera. and the concept was the new world order. now we can ask, will we have any world order or disorder?

from that time, we -- for almost ten years we have observed democratic transitions in eastern europe. this is important because whenever we -- in turkey, not only as a minister of foreign affairs but as an intellectual, the main criteria is do you want to be on right side of the history? i would come to that point. ...

we have to take responsibility in bosnia, in kosovo, and many other events, but in the end of 10 years, just to give one indication our per capita income was around 2,502,001 is around 2800 years before spending the budget of defense zero the cold war spending increased at the per capita income around $200 or $300 is not much again. but the issue was because of security around coming it was

playing in the earthquake spirit and 2001, the second earthquake was security earthquake. the concept that security has changed because of the level. so before the security was seen as a security among the nations. when you refer to secretary defense command means you are defending your country can another state or another lock. but this time, 9/11 showed that there was no royalty is security ever in the world, even in new york and in washington. so that concept because of the system. from freedom, the regulations were done, new regulations, migration regulations started from their coming to conventions after 9/11, after 2001 all operations were security

oriented operations. operation kosovo was more a reference to liberating sarajevo, but operations of afghanistan later was more security against terrorism. in this 10 year and 2011, and this is our government in turkey, we acted differently. we didn't want to have a security policy. we wanted to have freedom and democracy in politics. and what we did was we tried to implement new policies. they were used by tax or hamra. we try to find new priorities of turkish domestic and foreign policy.

in domestic field, the main concept was democratization, democratization packages. they were restrict its regulations been implemented in europe and other parts of the world, turkey in 2002, 2004, 2006 in the democratization process. at this time, we declared type principles, no assumptions of policy. in order to understand today wisteria and sunni shia, they need to refer to these reference come in the first principle was the balance between secret entry. the first time i used this concept of security and freedom. just to change the mindset.

throughout the cold war and after the cold war in the 1990s taught that they may need a society with security. security can donate expansion, security can tension between greece and turkey for security against pt terrorism, but all security revolutions. what we said it's not there is a neo-set of norms based on more freedom, but equally sacred. because again today, we have this pollution. why? because if you sacrifice security for freedom, you'll have a cost. if you sacrifice freedom, you'll have regimes like today was a

sharper shame before. for many decades, arabs were taught that they need to sacrifice from the freedom because it is a security threat of israel or others. similarly, what we were told throughout the cold war as the radical islam another day the separation lacombe, division will come. if you have so many fears come you cannot have a logical as. what effect in order to be a legitimate democratic government, there should be security and freedom. and the government is different if he says to his people that the government has maximum freedom without risking security of maximum-security without limiting freedom.

so now in our region, the regime is facing this challenge. they offer first security and they tell the people to wait for freedom. maybe another time. maybe another screen. second principle was as i mentioned i was not planning to refer to these, but i want to be on this year. still we have this. why? for to change the minds that simple annoyance of foreign policy before we are feeling that we have problematic relationships with our neighbors. picture in the second earthquake, we have proven that turkish additions could be improved in today if you go turkish people and ask, do you

feel threat from any neighbor or how do you see the future of our relations at neighbors, there will be no such psychological fear like the cold war that russians are a nominee. greeks are our enemy or iran is their main competitor or bulgaria is a former soviet. no, today this concept has achieved success that the mindset has changed. everyone today agrees that we need to have max integration. yes, we have a problem with syria, that is not because of our choices. it is because their domestic problem. here's the key for us is we want to have the people. therefore i set profit analysis, not picture analysis.

if you have a picture today coming inc. it has problems with syria. we have problems with syria at one's nation, but syrian planning the future after process to ensure we will be having excellent relations with the new syria establishment of the listeria provided by the three choices here yet. in order to avoid an fisting crisis we cannot sacrifice. it was a risk when prime minister ericka khan made a statement from the assembly against mubarak on 1.8 million egyptian people gathered and career msk mubarak now it's time to leave. it was a big risk and we were criticized at this time by the main opposition if the bar

continues, what will you be doing? and it was interesting. mhn to me by my former colleague, expressing -- praising relation and expressing disappointment or at least very polite appointment at the station. i was bonded to the next day and say we have the egyptian people because the egyptian people created one of the most they've. and because of our trusted egyptian people, the prime minister made the call that egyptian people should be given a chance for the future and the history shows who is trying to do is write and after mubarak left. if at this time you're reluctant i'm not sure that i raise and we

tried to pray or keep good relations with mubarak, today's turkish prime minister would you oakland by 20,000 egyptians when he went to cairo last year and set tender or 10 thousands of people in libya would welcome him and wait for hours for his arrival. here, our main reference this race. in sheer problems their neighbors needs excellent relations with the maximum integration with the people of our region's. then we declare their principles like at a foreign policy for regional stability, regional reordering can essentially shut the middle east, then active

foreign policy in the u.n. exit. so we made an adjustment in foreign policy, and domestic politics. and i can say in the last nine years, after nine years in power, turkey is one of the countries which affect the use the new post aftershock of the security earthquake in 2001. we were not tracked by security paranoia. we tried and we were not trapped. we try to provide in horizon, a new horizon and vision to our region and to the world. he became a member of the united states council and we have today

open to new embassies in different parts of the world in two years only to be opened to embassies and fight embassies in three to embassies in east asia when there is a huge economic crisis. why do we want to make turkey a cost u.s. stability and surrounding regions and the country providing new fish in come the new horizon for international relations. coming to the earthquake, the third earthquake started in 2000. 2009, 2010, but this earthquake is the economic political earthquake. and in this earthquake, we have an economic crisis and its reflection to europe on one hand and we have a regional political

crisis transformation on the other hand. now, sitting in ankara now, sitting in ankara now, sitting in ankara every morning when we wake up to your two work, usually i do wake up in other countries, but i still assume i am in ankara, when we turn our eyes to the west, to europe, from greece at two spain, it is its own economic crisis. no governments being the face by democratic government in some countries. and there is a worry about the future of europe. european union and we like to be in the european union and we are following the worry europeans for futures.

let me turn our eyes to the east and south from iran, syria especially to morocco thursday political turmoil, political change. and in the middle of this true crisis zone, there is a country having a stable democratic process. we had elections last year. one of the fastest growing economies. last year we were the first in the other to come the second biggest growing country and a country with the f.a.i.r. act gives foreign polls. with the air of a rising started in tunisia, that is a big challenge. it is a big challenge for the region. it was a big challenge for turkey. the same day when i was busy

americans step is to protest in tunisia, they made statements that a special cabinet and we took a strategic position. rss is the distribution world is not a nation world, not a world of form. it is a wide spread regional reward is now at this time for change. and we have come up what should be our foreign policy? how should we apportion this process? and we said we will be supporting the demands of their people right over there, whatever they demand. and why? because the thought this is the history. and one of my speeches and last

year, march, i said this is the normalization of history because 20th 20th century 20th century there were two abnormal structures in the region. mama's colonialism. we separate cities, societies from each other like french and british colonies were british colonies in egypt, italian colonies olympia, french colony in tunisia are so wealthy societies are separated from each other. the second abnormality was turning cold word because north was communist. now it is time to have one single regional ownership and throughout the cold war, because of the airport and because the type of governance, there is an

absence of link between the leaders and the people. and he said, is a risky decision. now some people are surprised how we have to take such critical decisions. you show they are long thinking, select and keep both that if the units. or your attack even if they claim to be that bad that our foreign policies include. but if you make an assessment and a few trester your alias, you have to make and if you trust your alias, you have to make and if you trust your alias, you have to make and if you trust your alias, you have to make chip should show the positions. yes, turkish foreign policy. so it isn't to say it was normal to say to mubarak for it was

normal to say cool. you remember in chinese shia sub democratic western countries decided in the early days of the revolt. we took risk. why? because we have a vision for a region. that vision for a region is new regime, new political systems based on the demands of the people and a new regime fully integrated to each other at values centering economy investments. that is our vp for when we had good relations with the existing authorities because at this time there is no word between these authorities and a peep of unnecessary policy today. second principle was, if we are on the side of the people, then how could we -- how could we get

through this process? we said we would use all the means of diplomacy in order to prevent bloodshed, massacres. in every case in the middle east and north africa are unique. to demand fair same the process is the same. but the existing countries they're different. you should is egypt, libya, tunisia, and they are almost all sunni arab people while you have much more diversified cosmopolitan societies. the structures are different. the egyptian area has a different position than syrian army or libyan army. each case is unique, but the

demands of the area beyond generation is the same for all. and our approach to this transformation, and the values are the same, but in each case we had different matters to head to this process. today in syria, what we tried to do as we go to egypt and libya and tunisia because of syria, first of all, let me as last month when i went to tehran before going there i gave a press conference, i gave a statement that we don't want to get cold war structures and cold war tensions, a cold war polarization. and last week in munich, when

the resolution was vetoed, is that we don't want to see no cold war logic rising. what did i mean? i meant inside the region, new polarization such as shiite sunni conflict, and these countries they're making cold war against each other. were we don't want -- we don't want revolutionary countries. you know, camp david there is but commendations can't. or, and i region today, there is one single difference. those who are trying to keep cold war structures and those who are trying to understand the

logic of the flow of history and try to respond to the demands of the people accordingly. what do i mean by this? mubarak was pro-west as it was pro-soviet and cold war and anti-west afterwards. mubarak was sunni and shiite approach. but our attitude against mubarak, denali is in the states and the demands of the young people interior and the demands today at the people are safe. they don't look at this or this

is sunni, associate. they have the same demands. what people interior square, young people wanted his free and fair election, transparency. and what people in homs once is accountability, free and fair election. that means it is not initial shiite and sunni or revolution. we have one consistent approach. turkey has a constant notion. we are against any of pression and i region. we don't want to see autocratic tended these. we don't want any regime seen any country is that it is they are into one archaic ideology here to recount for the people of that nation.

and turkey entrants agree it's against any information. we shall have many times, but at the same time, if there is an oppression by an autocratic leader can peep hole, nobody can expect as for the committee to be silenced. two weeks ago i was in moscow and would ask a question that had good relations before but has some problems now. how do you evaluate. i said before he was not fighting against his own people. now he is fighting against his own people. when i went to the west to the moscow last august, and made it very clear to him. i sent mr. president, if there

is any foreign autocratic and to be very exciting. but if you fight against your own people and force us to decide, it will be you were won by minute it will be with the people. we want president bishara saad to be like a gorbachev, to transform it, to end up after the cold war structures, but he preferred to be his choice. and today, we are siding with the people of sub 10 like the people of sarajevo. the people against a metal search. for us, from this retrospect, another one is missing the other amendment that limits a lot different. depression is operation.

we want to have a new vision. today, their three top regions. one is not part of. if they had this meeting last year, i think many of us wouldn't imagine that in one year it would be relations in chinese shia, morocco, egypt. but in one year, we have mistakenly are hopeful because they are for election 23 countries in the transitional process going on and libya appeared we have many churches. we should not forget them in the first earthquake it is starting in 1991, but in 1999 week kosovo. it's a long process. in fact, all these transitions should have been achieved in the

middle east, but unfortunately in preference there is much more out stability other than democracy in the region. and north africa, all international organizations, i varies, ngo, all regional problem should be having the new government and tunisia, which is a success, he could coalition of three big parties. the prime minister is from the president is from a leftist nationalist party and the speaker of the parliament is a social democrat. it's a good combination. we have the siding with the new egyptian parliament. we should not look at the composition of the parliament and think that there is some worry. will it be happening to the secret of israel as there is a

conservative government comes to power? this should not be the concern for the egypt there is only one authority for this site. egyptian people here at no other concern should lead us. if there is a democratic government, that democratic government should decide what is good or what is bad. if it is affecting the government, the next election should have this process with libya and we have to create success tories rather than creating new images, negative images. more cold countries, less populated, more income and mary

mannion comes. inchoate as an election. invariant and decided to several difficulties/share, there is a report achieved by rain to discuss both sides in order to open a video, but at the end of the day, the more challenging for the separation is from iraq, syria and lebanon, making very challenging neighborhood. in the back of this today is syria. regarding syria, last year we had three state diplomacy. the first was bilateral engagement. we work very hard to run through such tender. unfortunately, we weren't able to convince the administration

to stop and go direct to reforms. then we started after september we started the arab league and supported arab league plans and invariably came to a point of support. we had the third stage, internal stage and the arab league and turkey supported this resolution. unfortunately, there is a veto. now, at this stage we cannot just and we can see. we have to create a new awareness regarding the suffering of people. therefore this is we are talking i can obtain with all the concerned parties in the trees in order to create an

international. so in short, the economy political earthquake, the aftershocks cannot be daydreaming. there will be many challenging this in front of us. the two references will make a strong. one, the values we are defending we will continue to defend the same values everywhere in the world. second, active foreign policy diplomacy to resolve these issues through peaceful means. if we can achieve these economic and political earthquakes come economical and political earthquakes in an appropriate manner, then a new convention, a new conference, a new restructuring of international

organizations will, is the new challenge in front of as because we need now a new local order, a real inclusive, a real inclusive, a real inclusive. in the political order based on dialogue, multilateralism and economic order based on justice and a cultural order based on inclusiveness and accommodation. other regional issues should be referred to in this new global order. thank you very much. [applause] >> probably one of the meatiest presentations they've heard in quite a while. we only have about 10 minutes am afraid to say.

yes. a whole bunch of hands. can you identify yourself? >> i am from the city needs be republished in jerusalem. i want to ask you about the southern part of syria, this is fairly providence. local would be played in that round? >> since the agenda was more in syria, i focused their, though it happens and i region could be understood -- cannot be understood without making reference to palestine. now, there is a new middle east merging. at the core of many of this craze says, is the palestinian

question. therefore in this new era, there should be a new initiative. there should be a new approach to the palestinian issue. first of all, our first order should be reconciliation of palestinian groups. and the last five, six months together with egypt, we are working very hard to unite thought the and hamas and to have one single authority in the west bank because without having one authority, even if one seismic cto, it will be difficult to implement. and i am happy to say that there are some positive development sense as you know that streak there there is an agreement signed between mahmoud abbas in doha. before that, mahmoud abbas had

meetings with encouraging them. this is some good news. they have to support this nation. without such a consolation, there cannot be a meaningful peace process. and in this nation of conciliation, the critical term is all sites except a peaceful resistance. this is a clear indication that hamas is now adopting a peaceful method of politics. but at the same time, mahmoud abbas is accepting a resistance if a country and people is under occupation for so many cases, it is their right to defend themselves to read this, that and the peace of manner and until it peaces been achieved. this is a good news on the palestinian side.

they expect good news from the israeli side had unfortunately, israel didn't see you positive messages. neither to the region, nor even the americans to. you cuties continue the perfect statements regarding palestine is continuing. in the two state solution on is not being defended openly by all members of the israeli government. now it is time to decide, what is the future of palestine? no one can expect this to continue. i have to be very frank here. russia was wrong regarding

syria. america was wrong regarding the palestinian state. if a policy is consistent with the human conscience, with the human vision, today the global society, wherever you go, wherever you want, all human beings, humanity is behind the palestinian state. and all human beings, except some democratic people are behind the demands of people in the area. and these are not contradict tree. as turkey, we will support the palestinian state as possible tomorrow, if possible today, this hour because this nation deserves to have their own state. if there is a need of negotiation for this, then we must come to the table without making projections such as

circumstance. enough is enough. the people i region, including turkey are paying for this because of the providing of the israeli prices. what do they want? to do on wednesday? they are afraid of the democratic rights of palestinians. they don't want one state. do they want to states based on borders? that lasts. and is the capital city of palestine? this is the consent says of the u.n. secretary resolution concent above us. a two state solution must come to the table in said it don't mean new settlements in the palestinian town according to the 1967 borders. if they say that they would be no state, then they have to say it is so thin.

so they know we would have peace and we want to have peace. this new regional environment creates no hope for the middle eastern peace process. i hope everybody will understand this new logic of history and accordingly for having a two state solution where pallas tinian will be together with mutual respect, but full independence and serenity of policy. >> we may have time for one more question today. [inaudible] >> mr. minister, you have a lot of speaking with the iranian government. what is your take on the iranian

attitude? how seriously to take tape the possibility of a military intervention israel number one? and number two, what kind of in vintage with random hack to the negotiation table with the p5 plus one? and finally come how do they explain their attitudes? >> regarding nuclear issue, as someone who deals with issues are a must, six years and especially if you know in 21 we worked very hard for a dl with brazil or i can say i had very sorry. in fact, because of the failure of these negotiations because i know technical details

throughout these negotiations that became a nuclear expert. he cut his event for the last day of negotiations before the tehran agreement was done, we negotiated nonstock 18 hours roundtable. last year we had the last round of folks. i'm last month, i went to tehran. i encouraged and called for another round and they said they accept dean. i spoke with negotiation and she except that we are now working for retiring the next round of type. knowing all of this, i can tell you to problem is not a type of problem. the technicalities of nuclear issue could be resolved in a few days. because it is clear what every man wants his rightful piece of technology.

red hat have a like other nations, but she will comply with npt and iaea regulations and they will check. what he wants and p5 plus one comment that is they should not be a nuclear military technology they should be certain assurances for both sides to be giving futures. for turkey, we don't want to have any nuclear military power, neither in our region or the world. but at the same time, we don't want any limitation regarding the allotment aeschylus democratic militia. technical details are so easy. the problem is there is no strong political deal in paris and not since i've mutual trust. on one side, it is coming of

course to negotiate, but there is a huge discussion in the air and because it became an issue, so a possible deal should satisfy iranian thomas unions. on the other side, she is working hard, but she has to satisfy the parameters of six other countries. in these countries sometimes they have different pollutions. i can see if two negotiators come together with full mandates, it could be the results. and in 2010, what you want to achieve is confident in mutual trust. if the deal is implemented, 1800 gt at iranian arrangement is, did amount of would have been so

minimum so that they would be a possibility if 20% frenchman and a 20% enrichment. his days 20% enrichment has been achieved, this is a full guarantee assurance they cannot we a military technology. this issue could be discussed. s. perez is strong political view. so there are three options. negotiations is the only meaningful option, which can create the results, but genuine negotiations, not negotiation this in a period i talked to both sides, stay in one room. discuss everything and then you can go.

otherwise, in six months and other regional parameters are coming. new intentions are emerging. new inquisitions emerging. one decision put everything on the table with full mandates a can assure you because i know both sides concerns and assumptions. second options, sanctions. in 2010 instead of an admin did the deal, sanctions were important. in two years, iran produces much not only you started the enrichment of any you come the sanctions being imposed. by turkey is so interested because the sanctions and dissension. and the military strikes aimed at telling you, military strike is a disaster. it should not be an option,

especially in a historic turning point in the region. we don't want to see another huge tension because it is not just a region invention. it is not reasonable. it is not feasible. nobody will think that a certain time there is one place, why attack. even that was wrong. but from the says. in this case it is unfeasible it would be against it. we will never, never endorsed any military strike for tension in the region. regarding syria, i spoke with them. very friendly. the terminology is interest. the shire as sod once said this is a fight between. nationalists and islamists.

it was a statement between the arab nation and islamists groups, then worries i ran? and what is it bleak, the ultimate union of arabs? the arab league is supporting people. iran is supporting an arab nation at this. these types of ideological orientation is wrong. at the end of the day, including iran, all contests should be shorting solidarity with the people. i hope they would understand that it is better to be on the right side of history and on the right side does the syrian people rather than the posing this demand. those who are opposing -- those who are assisting or afraid to present demands of the people, they will be losing in the

future because as i said from the very beginning, this is a difference between those who are understanding the history and human conscious and those trying to resist against the history. whoever is listening, the spiderman or other countries are saying they reduce if they risk against. thank you very much. [applause] >> please let the foreign minister get out because we got to get him out. i apologize to all of those who. we just ran out of time. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> chief treaty negotiator rose train for attacks about the implementation of future at the strategic nuclear reductions process. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome to the brookings institution. my name is stephen pieper. i am a senior fellow year and also to rector of the arms or initiative cannot be sharing the two panels we have today. please if you have a cell phone come either turn it off or sent it. and i can't, i would also like to express gratitude to the scholarships fund, which is generously supported any arms control initiatives and mix of insight as possible. last sunday, february 5, the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty had its first opportunity in the fours.

and what i've noticed that arms control agreements if they get a lot of attention with their signs and attention during the ratification process enough for me for the radar screen and certainly fico back to april 2010 when president obama and instead i've spent the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty it got a lot of attention and in the last several death 2010, when the treaty was being debated as part of the ratification process, it got a lot of attention. and in february of last year and february 5, secretary clinton exchanged the gratification with a good strategic foresight and you really haven't heard a lot about it sent them. so part of this objective today is to correct that and talk about what has happened in terms of implementation of the treaty last year a man will also take a bit of it equip you forward, what sorts of things might

follow on the new start. our first panel is a trick excited speakers from the u.s. government. i'm not going to do the new bios because you have it on the program. rose gottemoeller, the acting secretary for arms control and national security. from the joint staff, mike elliott deputy director for strategic stability and i'm a fiery, ted garner from office of secretary senior adviser to the under secretary of defense for policy for arms control and stability. but i think we had feared that this is really the core of the leadership had negotiated the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. this by the way is the treaty. it is associated protocol in all of that and ask us quite a production. but they really produced the history and we are delighted to have him here now to talk about what is happening. so let's start with you and what has happened over the past year.

>> quite a bit. thank you for the introduction because i think it gives the audience a good sense of how we the treaty team feel about it. it would save a gaffer to get a negotiated and ratified by the u.s. senate, by the russian state and the council and get it into force. the fact it cannot drop out of sight to everybody but the implement these in the u.s. government. this is a very welcome opportunity today in a bit of a celebration as far as i am concerned at the first birthday of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i'm delighted to be here with mike elliott and ted warner again as already mentioned by steve they were right very close partners, leadership team of the delegation on the u.s. side of the start bb and 29 and 2010. we are really, i would say, triumphant and we have many other people from the agency involved assault.

as it was on the russian side. the russian site at it is involved in the treaty on their side. i wanted to start by talking a little bit about implementation of the treaty, what is happening in very general terms. i'm going to dig down deep to give you more details about how the inspections are conducted and give you a detailed of the seriousness that the effort and then type will pick up and talk about the future admin q&a time comes to hand the baton around in terms of how to answer your questions. first of all, i would just say that we realized going into negotiation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that this is going to be different than the last one negotiated back in the early 1990s, late 1980s, the s.t.a.r.t. treaty was a treaty

that was really born right at the end of the cold war was brought in at the end of the cold war had a very important role to play and that helped us to bring the nuclear forces of the soviet union in the russian federation united states is through that period of important transition in an portland is really way. we in this treaty would be much different in that it was the first treaty negotiator gone after the cold war had ended. so there were some different things they really had to do that are. one was we were thinking about going lower. the president made clear in his initiative speech from april of 2009 that we would tend to go the word and a step-by-step process. so we wanted to ensure that this treaty foresaw a the fisa process and gave both sides flex ability in the future to go

lower. the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty preserved the ability to determine their strategic nuclear force structure, giving both sides of the ability to maintain forces in a way that best serves our national interest. so that was an important task and one that was very important to the cold war nature of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. new start has a strong and flexible in limitation machine that gives us great site and to decide strategic war system. it is worth emphasizing that the out at that the measure for implementation of the needs are treaty, with a verification are the types of measures are totally reciprocal. the same obligations are on the shoulders of the united states, as are the russian federation. the bear that in mind as we talk to the treaty that these obligations are totally in. the inspection process i will say idea that pat and going for

me to play. i would say in general the implementation has been conducted in a very businesslike and pragmatic manner. this was the attitude we had the negotiating table in geneva and has definitely carried forward into the implementation process both on the russian side and the u.s. side we have been keeping focus on problem-solving, being pragmatic we go about it and it really again is quite suited to the post-cold war era we are now in, we we had really some serious security issues you must address some of sides in continue to address regarding forces but we go about it in a pragmatic and problem-solving kind of way. so, throughout this first year of the treaty are in a post from five to february's text and attribute is entered into force on february 5 of 2011 when minister lovecraft and secretary clinton exchanged the paper to bring the tv into force.

we just ended the first treaty year. we really kept pace with each other on inspections. i've been joking it was a bit like tagteam. first the federation would announce an infection and that we would announce on monday would, so we kept pretty steady pace with each other throughout the year and each conducted 18 inspections, which is what we are allowed under the treaty. ..

>> this was the first time we've got a good look at the rf24 and the united states russian federation have been sharing a mountain of data with each other. over the course of the first tree year we have a say 1,900 cahal with vacations' open a new s.t.a.r.t. treaty they have helped us to keep track of the movement of a beach others forces and a change of status for each system. for example, notification is

sent out every time i have the bomber is moved out of country more than two to four hours away exchange information at a greater rate under the s.t.a.r.t. treaty by way of comparison 2009 was the last tree the year it went out of forced december 2009 and the first year for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty was from 2012 so comparing those was to 90 8.5% up of those number of notifications exchange. top of the exchange of a comprehensive database wants every six months. and combined with the notifications to create a living document every six months the two strategic forces and throughout the

course of the six months day and day out we update the status of said database, the strategic forces to have good visibility into the nuclear force is once again which is good for mutual confidence which is the whole point* of the exercise. the data exchange provides a much more detailed picture of the arsenal we have had in the past also vice versa as well they are getting a look at our forces better than in the past at -- in the past and of course, we both pass up the exchange of information with their own national technical means of satellites and other platforms that we used to back up the boots on the ground also the others that take place under the treaty.

>> spending the last couple weeks in geneva with the implementation which is now back for the third time that we have good news member telemetry as a tough issue there were some issues left hanging but they needed to be wrapped up in the implementation and process of this week they were in geneva those three agreements that wrap up the issues and if you're interested, i am not recommending but if you are this year on the website and if you want to talk more to talk about the telemetry. >> i will not say much but i

will say one point* may be to build a foundation for the next phase so the preamble is part of a step-by-step approach leading to negotiations so is thinking through the next ups and it is a very good foundation swing through the implementation of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty helping us as we move forward into the phase but as an appeal to all of us and you have heard this from me in the past but the next three the takes this into the more challenging direction of obama's signed undue s.t.a.r.t. treaty april 2010 and next should focus on reductions of three

categories. first is for the reduction of nuclear weapons that is always outlooks in the past from deployed system is a missile or a bomber loaded on it. then of course, prepared for operations god help us a better necessary but also look at a category of non deploys strategic nuclear weapons held in storage facilities also the strategic nuclear weapons. sometimes those are called passive and the president has laid out very ambitious goals and it is an appeal to us all to be thinking about how to go about it with the concept and the procedure and the verification and technique might be to be

required for this more ambitious phase of negotiations so now i will turn that directly to mike. >> maybe you can describe the impact of the treaty on the u.s. strategic forces? out the military handles? >> thank you again from the introduction but also inviting us to participate in this session it is always good to get together because of this relationship resell building -- building on this negotiators put the treaty together on the u.s. and the russian side the military who hast to carry through the actions and if prating this is a challenge in constant communication as i am sure of the russian counterparts it is up to

them to take interpretation and the words are blurred. saw to talk to the various mechanisms of the treaty including the hands-on business of running the inspection and how that plays out if the tenants of the treaty are being match. but we have been a working diligently to carry out a wide range of exhibitions to show a particular systems look like common demonstrations, how we do specific procedures, we have gone through some eliminations four specific delivery vehicles and along the way we have the opportunity for both sides to have inspections for both countries. in addition what underpins

this is a series of modifications, almost 2,000 if rationing gathered together from the military services and pass through the state department transmitted to the russian federation and surprised to of weapon movements to point* out a feature of this treaty to do that is when we make them notifications we use what is the unique identifier, it is the basis of the fall accounting system during this environment. win from time to time uncertainties come up, we wrote tin in anticipation of day of bilateral commission as it is known. i won't dig into what they do specifically the other

than the note they have had three sessions so far beds they were tear early issues in terms of understanding what they meant to put this together and if you have specific questions is said deputy commissioner in the third of the bcc for crow crow . so we thought you might be interested have the military goes through my main military amen full-size but i will focus on the u.s. perspective for this of how we go to the process of doing an inspection. the first thing you need to understand in the process we declare data twice per year those declarations of the systems, strategic delivery vehicles and warheads located arden tata a large

way as a staff shot twice per year. what of the things that will be done is we will give them to the inspection team as they have the specifics of that particular base and in relatively great detail. the process of inspection is to use a statistical sampling process to confirm what the database does and over the period of those inspections carried out over 10 years gives both companies -- countries to confirm bull's-eyes are complying with the treaty. how this works, as you probably read, both sides have the right to posture their forces the way they wish in terms of the number of each delivery system and how many warheads are on each one and how they are

located and the notification process lets you know, where they are going so when this section is called the they should have a good idea what they expect to see. no doubt know to some of the things as the inventory have been taken off to have the conversion of all bombers so they're no longer capable of nuclear warheads. at the same time we're in the process of taking their remaining peacekeeper icbm launchers of the elimination process in beginning the process of eliminating 50 icbm launchers that were not used during this part of

this treaty. also we have the opportunity to reduce the number of reentry vehicles. and will soon start the process to the east coast and those activities are transition to to the database it changes each week for each month search and they. and we're headed down to the limits of 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles that the icbm in heavy bombers and cardis part of the forces of both sides of they can operate effectively have to move the systems back a fourth.

in a tuesday 3/8 to be a matter of the launcher and flowing through to the database that the inspectors see when they get there. with it being a true snapshot to verify the treaty in prior to the intended arrival from the point* of entry is you their washington dc or san francisco for the united states. the base personnel are used as the interco part of a broader inspection team with the threat reduction agency and members said each

particular unit as they are selected. when the inspection team from the federation and notifies of their intended arrival and pointed been shade this is through the reduction agency who populate the database available or a web site available of the military base is out there the russian federation has initiated the inspection and process. that they may be vulnerable for an inspection. when the team arrives at the base they notified the escort team within four hours of their arrival at that time the escorts notify the specific base to be inspected.

now although they had some hints there could be an election coming they have clear instruction they will be inspected and it must be delivered within 24 hours of the selection of the base that they go to. and negative is he commands they prepare to receive the inspection team and the opportunity to fully exercise their rights under the treaty this could be asman dain have quarters available and the base building office and then to have rooms for those on the base to make sure that we're doing routine operations

within one hour of notification and any movements of these vehicles they have to be stopped and the lock down. each element of that criteria is met with the inspection team and the inspection team within 24 hours to bring them to that particular base and the day to day operations guy for any unit commander for anyone who has to participate knows precisely what they will do to facilitate the russian inspection team ability and allow them to do that and to

sell the system ready to look at that inspection team that walks through the process. of this includes and then the in the operations to remain seized appropriately and as you can imagine end and to have the opportunity to fill all of their rights at the same time they have a responsibility to protect from a security standpoint those things that are not correct did from that inspection is a half due diligence may walk through that process. there is basically two types

of activities that will have been starting with the icbm those are relatively similar on the icbm side the warhead assembly has to be selected from the russian inspection team to be told the mayor arrive at the base of many different missiles are out there in place and to be told precisely how many warheads are on each one of the san the russian inspection team leader fix which one to pick and to select a assuming there are empty launchers to confirm but when the may 9 steam goes under observation from the russian inspection team to the particular launch your designated to go through a process to separate the front section

from the icbm to put it in a specially configured vehicles that protects the front end section from the elements. i will point* out during this period of time the russian inspection stations factors must be offered that fall opportunity that nothing is removed so is exactly what was said and it may never seen as a difficult task butted north dakota chain urie when goodyear and stove go sideways at 30 miles per hour you have to remember there is a strong need to protect the weapons systems from a safety standpoint. to give them the opportunity to see clearly what is there a to make sure they protect

the weapons system at the same time. as there given the opportunity and as we say the system has read turned the inspection team moves off the empty lunch her and returned to the main operating base usually a have the opportunity to do some cultural even to then negative will tell you it is a trip down to the local mall filled with shopping certainly given the opportunity to have dinner. transfer station back to the point* of entry and it takes a little bit of pork and everything worked right direction inspection team reports with precision what they did the u.s. support team will correspondingly

say what they observed during this period of time. and then submit the detailed process there may be the ambiguity of raising as to what went on during the process and inspection team writes down in detail what the ambiguity was in and wait to see if they're able to give a response to the russian team at that time what the situation is. for those things that are not able to work out to on site they may burped out from that commission that they work through whatever the issue is in some time from procedures to stand in

a different place to see the im are clearly over it was not absolutely clear budget each one of these things is not unusual and dollars a worker in a short period time. is the first relates to those they were good like to inspect the configuration to give the opportunity to designate going through the same process and as they are at the pier and an empty launcher on the submarine they have the opportunity to look at that. said of in the early 90's the bombers on both sides

there is not the situation tucci clear how many weapons are among the bombers but the reality is zero is the number and through the process we declare the numbers there that would-be vest federation and and what the bombers to the process. to see procedures in terms of the ambiguity to go back to the point* of entry. in reverse come with the u.s. military with an asset reduction agency goes through a reciprocal process that viggo series each of

their facilities to go through basically the same process and cultural events. >> thank you. do want to offer comments on the bilateral commission but also the president describes new start as a step come me and would you like to toe with u.s. government does to follow? >> i welcome the opportunity to see my colleagues again and perhaps i see them all too often at the pentagon but rose a and i our paths cross much less frequent a. i came back on wednesday from the bilateral commission meeting of two

weeks in duration. the treaty says you should meet generally two times per year. if you don't want to meet to you could agree to do less and also to a notification reprocess and into more. we met twice during 2011 and once here in the calendar of 2012 although i guess we were still in the session at the time of the birthday. just a couple of things. the of the cc 25 people we have representation from all of the components simple science the ministry of defense and ministry of foreign affairs in those who worry about the nuclear weapons themselves on the russian side and on the west

side representatives from the department of state, under various portion of department of defense from strategic command which is the overall operational command that has oversight of the strategic nuclear systems from the office of secretary of defense rockingham of representatives from the services are other specialist and a couple of examples of what we have had handled and then meetings of the b.c. see rose made reference to the treaty that within the first year it is up to the bilateral commission to fill out details to do the exchange of tell a metric information and that monitors the performance of the of miss altering test launch and the telemetry here, and the information that is used by the testing party to monitor the performance of the missile.

and it is an opportunity from the other side to get to insight into the case of the missile and we had to reach a couple of the agreements and told playback equipment and recording media in those demonstrations were held midsummer and within the wake of that we're like to have an agreement of how future demonstrations by the weak come pleated that earlier this week and the other thing we had to do the portion of the flight that telemetry would be exchanged going from point* taxer point* why if you're interested to go to the state department website you

can see the actual agreement with a carefully crafted language on precisely what portion of the fight -- flight which telemetry is provided. at the beginning of each year you have to make an agreement on a calendar year previous of which number of flights you will exchange. we completed the decision on the exchange coming week include did in early 2012 flights conducted during 2011 and the other thing about vcc is we end up with the ambiguities especially after the first year. we were building on the experience of the hole inspection and process to outline, we were verch