straight here in the middle, please. thank you. >> i'm the chief representative in vietnam for the interstate traveller company. it was a wonderful address. thank you so much. so comprehensive. i just -- taking notes from your remarks. the only thing i have a question is in working toward the constructive -- it seems like a fly in the ointment. >> what? >> the main obstacle to working towards constructive engagement with all the variables is that of all the parties to equation, only china -- only chi na continues to violate using violence to intrude into the economic zones of the philippines and vietnam and other countries.

and deny they are doing it. i've been on business trips and i see them come into the economic zone and using violence. >> i think the truth of all this is -- to paraphrase, because i'm conscious that you have a program to attend to. i have to be out the door in a minute. i get the question. i think if you were to go through the analysis of each of the disputes from north to south, each has its own internal character isti characteristics. i would have different resolutions on each of them. having spent some time looking at the underpinning legalness concern i concerning this and the positions of all seven parties, this is a highly variable feast. it's not just that we have

chosen to be neutral. there's a reason to be neutral. that is that the underpinning legal cases are -- if they came to jurisdiction, are so complex. if we had another hour, we could go through each of these individually. i think that would be tiresome for people in the gathering. rather than have an adjudicat n adjudication, i point to the fact that china has a more activist proactive foreign policy in pursuit of its interests and has been the last year or so. it proceeds from a series of perceptions within the chinese leadership about the united states, which i sought to articulate before. the concrete policy challenge is what do we do in response. that's what i have sought to articulate today. i'm sure on the rest of your conference you will have an opportunity to dissect each element of each dispute.

but that is not possible right now. >> one more question. the gentleman here in the yellow tie. >> you mentioned that -- you mentioned that the rhetoric of containment is a misnomer. how would you persuade to the chinese that the u.s. strategic rebalance to asia is not a form of hard containment. >> it goes down to the question of definitions of containment. the alliance structure in asia has existed, as you know, since the '50s and l.dl'40s and was constructed with reference to firstly a resurgence japan in the case of the australian

alliance and then laterally with the soviet union. there's a discourse about more marines going to darwin. there used to be 1.5 thousand marines for two months. well, i would say hold the extradition of the strategic balance put out in london because that alters the equation. it doesn't. it's a normal evolution of alliance arrangements which have multiple applications. again i go back to definitions of containment. it doesn't actually fit the term. there are probably other terms which are better used in the international discourse to describe u.s. strategic responses to china. containment is not one of them. if you are looking at the classic definition of it as framed by cannon and the others in this town in the late '40s.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking mr. kevin rudd. [ applause ] >> that's from the center for strategic and international conference today on asia. they are in a lunch break right now but we will rejoin the conference shortly for a panel on security issues in east asia. while we wait for the conference to resume, here is a look at the joint news conference yesterday held yesterday by hagel and defense minister ludrion. >> as you know, france was the first coalition nation to join the united states in conducting air strikes against isil in iraq. which are enabling the iraqi security forces and the kurdish security forces to take the owe fep receive against isil. american and french forces will continue to work side by side to

support iraqi forces on the ground as french aircraft patrol the skies over iraq and provide valuable intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance on isil targets. and we welcome the united kingdom and other nations participation in these efforts as well. the minister and i discussed how we can continue to build our coalition, strengthen our coalition and support the new government of iraq. i appreciated his insights from his recent trip to baghdad. the united states and france recognize the grave threat that isil poses to our shared regional interests and to our citizens. the recent murder of a french hostage in algeria was another stark reminder of the deadly threats that isil presents to our countries. our discussion today also focused on security challenges in north and west africa where we face surges of violent

extremist, instability and deadly infectious disease. france's leadership in confronting extremist threats is particularly important as the united states continues to provide support to french operations in mali, including airlift, refuelling and intelligence cooperation as we have done since early last year. i updated the minister on the u.s. government's response to the ebola crisis and the u.s. military's operations in liberia and the support of this overwhelming effort. as the french military assists its government responses to ebola in guinea, we agreed to continue to coordinate our efforts across the region. finally, the minister and i discussed the situation in ukraine and its impact on european security. following our discussions at the

nato summit, we agreed on the importance of reinforcing nato allies in eastern europe and strengthing the readiness and capabilities of the nato alliance. a strong and united nato will be critically important to assuring a europe whole, free and at peace. that goal remains a corner stone of america's approach to global and transatlantic security. i want to again thank the minister for his leadership and for his friendship. i look forward to continuing our work together to strengthen this special alliance. thank you very much. >> translator: thank you. first of all for the kind words that you said. for me and also at the same time for your invitation to come here in washington in order to talk

about all of the different facets of the cooperation between both our countries in terms of defense. it's my fourth visit in the pentagon since i've been named minister in may '12. we saw each other in other places. chuck just mention the nato summit in wales. we also saw each other not long ago in normandy before the anniversary of the normandy landings. i came here several times to meet chuck hagel, and every time we have had complicity in our analysis and we understand each other as to the fundamentals. i wanted to underline that. it has been recalled by him. during these talks today we

mentioned isil. you know that in the heart of africa, terrorist groups of the jihadist type are a threat for the security of the liberian states and for europe. and in this area, the cooperation between africans, americans and french people is a determining factor in order to keep maintaining pressure on groups such as al qaeda, groups that keep on trying to come b k back. the intervention of france had managed to push them back. we have set up wider positioning

since august. it's operation bachan. around five african countries, it allows us to contain and prevent terrorist attempts. i would like to thank the united states of america for their support in our action in this area, both as you said thanks to the exchange of intelligence, financial support and a sharing of different capacities. and we agree that this cooperation is going to go on. i told chuck hagel how worried france is about the situation in libya. jihadist groups are getting better in zones that are not

organized, and they pursue all kinds of illicit illegal things it. we hope they will -- this deployment stops, because it favors recruitment and the development of terrorism in this zone. i told chuck hagel that my concern and concern of france is the risk of a connection of a networking between all these different terrorist groups that are acting all over the area from nigeria to the middle east. and we have to prevent all these risks of networking. and finally, of course, we mention the situation in iraq and in syria.

france is facing its responsibility responsibilities in the indispensable fight against isil. france is an active partner in the international coalition. our armed forces are busy on the theater of operation both to support iraq and the kurds against the so-called isil. and since september 15, the french air force has been carrying out strikes in the framework of the coalition to support iraqi forces and kurdish forces. both this allows for intelligence and the destruction of certain targets. the president of france has decided yesterday in a defense counsel to strengthen this positioning with three more

fighter planes and with more intelligence assets, especially the sending of french frigot in the area. i told chuck hagel that in this anti-terrorist struggle, we must together think about the long-term and that in the long-term france will keep all its place. thank you. >> we will start two questions each side. >> thank you very much for the question. first question is for secretary hagel. so far two rounds of strikes by the french air force, they were reported in the french press that most of the strikes planned by the french air force were vetoed by the u.s. chain of command. would you be able to confirm that? the question goes as well for

the minister. >> translator: we have information that some french intelligence allowed american strikes in syria. do you confirm this? has french intelligence by used by the united states? >> thank you. to answer your question, we coordinate -- the united states and france, all of our strikes. the specifics of those coordinating dimensions, i don't know the specifics of any of them. but be assured that the focus, the objective of those strikes is to be effective against isil. and we work together. that means we share intelligence, we share all of our assets on our focus of those

assets to make sure those strikes are effective. and that includes the best intelligence we can share on targets. >> translator: thank you. as to the question about the attack, first, it is true, we have an excellent cooperation in the field of intelligence. and this good cooperation means also that we don't give third parties, even great journalists, any details about our intelligence. this is part of mutual trust. i answered. no, he answered as to the veto against strikes. we have excellent cooperation as to the strikes. it's very transparent as well. >> thank you.

mr. secretary, so far france has not participated actively in strikes in syria. should that issue come up during your conversation? considering the gains that they have made, particularly where the situation is desperate, do you need additional assistance from countries like france and other allies to beef up the campaign against the islamic state? because things aren't moving as rapidly as maybe you might have thought. for the minister, do you expect that france will decide to participate more actively in air strikes in syria or do you rule that part out completely? >> your first question, yes, we did discuss possibilities of

france's involvement in syria. and i think the minister noted that in his remarks. isil threats to all of us do not reside just in -- within certain boundaries of certain countries. so it was an issue we did discuss. as to your second question, i would go back to what president obama said and what i have said, what chairman dempsey and others have said, this effort against isil, with our coalition partners, both in syria and iraq, is going to be difficult and it's going to be long. there were no misconceptions when we started this that there would be any quick finish.

so the strikes have been effective. we know they are being effective. they continue to be effective. but, again, as the president said, as i have said, this is an enduring, long and difficult effort. >> translator: as to the questions that you asked me from the outset, we at the very beginning of this coalition, it has just started being formed. it is acting but it's just being formed. therefore, we are in a long-term process. secondly, france intervenes as a support to the authorities of iraq which requested it. applying article 51 of the u.n. charter. and france is there because of that request.

and we are in the coalition because of that request. and, of course, we are sharing tasks. >> translator: question to chuck hagel and to the minister. you said that the intervention in iraq would take a long time. according to you, training the iraqi army is going to take how long? that's my first question. second question, do you share the fear of the french minister of the networking of a connect between the terrorists? if yes, what practical consequences do you draw from that, both of you? >> thank you. as to your question on how long, i don't know how long. we know that as we have said

that we are in the process, as the minister noted, of putting together a very effective coalition to strike at isil in iraq of over 40 nations. all 40 nations will be participating in some way. this, as i have noted again, is not easy. it is difficult. but we have every confidence that, in fact, we will degrade and destroy the capabilities of isil. as to your second question on the interconnection of terrorists, whether in north africa or the middle east, terrorists of any kind anywhere always share a certain common

dimension of their efforts. they are not -- they are to build or to inkoencourage or toe a better world, they are there to tear down and destroy and brutalize and kill innocent people. so in my respects, you cannot disconnect what's going on in north africa with the middle east. as you know, there are many dimensions to terrorist groups. many are affiliated with al qaeda. there are independent off-shoots from al qaeda. but all share the same brutal objective. so, no, you can't discount that reality.

>> translator: as to the question of the links between different groups, very often i draw the attention on this particular point. with a new angle from now on, because of the very composition and the very attractivety of isil since they are around 10,000 foreign -- >> we are going to leave the briefing. find it online, c-span.org. >> we're back on the record. so you can turn the cameras back on and any recording devices that you may have. i'm ernie bower. i'm the chair of the southeast

asia program here at csis. it's a real pleasure for me to be introducing our third and last panel today on -- as we talk about asian architecture ahead of the three summits in november, the apec, eas and g-20 summits. we have a terrific panel with us today. i really appreciate these gentlemen sharing their time away from very busy schedules to join us. on my right, we have the newly ensconced david shear who is our assistant secretary of defense for east asia and the pacific. you know that david was -- had come back from hanoi to do this job. he was our u.s. ambassador there. david is an expert on china and southeast asia. i think for many of us who are sort of in the trenches every day on these issues, couldn't

think of a better person for the pentagon to put into this role. next to him is one of the top southeast asianists in the united states. and he also is singapore's ambassador to the united states, ashok mirpuri. he was most recently singapore's ambassador to indonesia. he has been singapore's ambassador to australia and kuala lumpur and has a long career in the singapore ministry of foreign affairs working on asia-related affairs. finally, a good friend and a real hero of southeast asia and asian policy in the senate is chris brose. he works with senator mccain in his office.

previous -- before that he was senior staffer in the senate armed services committee. chris rose through the ranks doing pretty interesting things, including writing speeches for and advising people like colin powell and kond l powell. he has spent a lot of time in asia, more than most senate staffers, unfortunately. without further adieu, what we want to talk about in this panel is architecture as it res to security. i'm going to ask my colleagues to kick it off in the order that we're seated in. and then we will open up the panel to question and answer. david, it's over to you. >> thank you very much, ernie. it's great to be back at csis. it's a great honor to be joined up here with ambassador mirpuri and chris brose. i have been in my job -- my must job at dod for almost exactly

one month now. and i can tell you from my experience during that one month that secretary of defense hagel certainly has a very strong personal interest in asia and east asia, given all of his history. the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense, the under-secretary of defense for policy, my chain of command are deeply committed to the rebalance to east asia and we have seen that most recently in deputy secretary work's travel to the region. you will see senior level meetings and encounters this fall, including coming up security subcommittee meeting chaired on american side by myself and east asia assistant secretary of state danny russell

in tokyo next week. danny and i will also be going to seoul before we go to tokyo. you will see a defense consultative talks with the chinese. you will see military consultative meeting and security consultative meeting with our rok allies. also in november, of course, president obama will be visiting beijing and defense issues will, of course, be part of his agenda in his bilateral discussions with the president. again, the rebalance is among the highest priorities on my agenda as well as on my senior leadership's agenda. and you will see me focusing very clearly on rebalanced-related issues in my earliest days in my tenure. i'd like to share with you some of the issues that -- some of the big issues i will be

focusing on, i think, as assistant secretary of defense over the next months and years. the first one is mod he werizing our alliances and partnerships. there's a lot on the agenda in this regard from the review of the defense guidelines with japan to the issue with our rok allies to updating the defense framework with india, which we mentioned in the joint statement in prime minister's modi's visit. and the fpa with australia. all of these are issues in the strengthening of our alliance r architecture in the western pacific. all of these will guide the way we shape our alliances over the next 10 to 15 years. we will want to finish strong on

all of these agreements, successful conclusion and implementation matters. this certainly will set the stage for closer cooperation between the united states and its important allies in east asia and the pacific. second, very important big issue will be working on is solidifying the military to military relationship with china. secretary hagel had a very good meeting with the foreign minister the other day here in washington. the foreign minister was here to, of course, review u.s. bilateral relations and planning for the president's trip to beijing. as you probably have seen in the strategic and economic dialogue, both sides recommitted to working on a set of confidence building measures and we will be

working on that set in advance of the president's trip to beijing. a third set of big issues we will be working on is knitting together allied and partner cooperation. evan medeiros spoke during his remarks of our partnership, particularly u.s. japan australia and u.s. japan india. but we want to have greater cooperation among our allies and partners in partners in east area. we are gratified to see cooperation between japan and australia and japan and india. we are great to see diplomatic coordination between vietnam, the philippines and malaysia. all of this great will you strengthens security and stability in the asia pacific

and we believe can contribute to the reduction of tensions, particularly in the south china sea. another area i will be focusing on, of course, is strengthening u.s. defense ties. we have seen the establishment over the past few years of the admm plus. we have had great progress in building regional defense cooperation. secretary hagel certainly is very interested in his encounters with his counterparts during dialogue at the admm plus and most recently -- also recently in april in connection with the defense minnesout mini meeting. and we hope that's going to continue. of course, as we work all of

these issues with our partners, friends and others in east asia, we will also want to be working with them to manage disputes and issues that generate tension. i don't need to mention how important maintaining security and stability, particularly in the south china sea, is to us. our position on this has been made crystal clear on many occasions. it's going to remain a very strong focus for me and for my leadership in dod in the coming months. why don't i stop there and let my other friends comment? >> thank you, david. ambassador? >> thank you. congratulations, again, to you and csis for putting together this con frengs to look at some of these bigger pictures in the asia architecture and in

particular security architecture. wanted to look both at the big picture and as an ambassador here, it focuses on centrality. the main reason why the architecture is important is that the region has enjoyed a peaceful and secure and stable environment for several decades. something that many of us in fact take for granted. and these conditions have enabled growth and prosperity, which is a key thing we want to see out of the asia pacific. the architecture is designed to preserve this. in this post-cold war environment, we are seeing dramatic shifts. that's where conversations about the architecture become important. the environment is shifting.

southeast asia in particular is becoming more complicated as a region as we to reposition ourselves in the context of washington and beijing's search for an equilibrium. it's complex. it's more than washington and beijing. there are other powers that continue to adjust the relationship with each other and with with rcn. tensions have risen. there are several potential flash points that have to be managed. that makes the architecture a very important for us to look at. neutral has played a crucial part in maintaining regional peace and security. i don't want to overplay this role in rcn's strategic weight. those of you who know rcn and region, you know this is the -- the central role is due to the fact that we are a neutral platform rather than because we

carry a strategic heft. in the neutral platform, rcn has offered a space for all major powers to discuss issues of concern, to build trust and to promote cooperation. what rcn has done has been to promote an open and inclusive approach. and welcomes engagement of all major powers. it's a critical part is that we are an organization that includes dialogue partners and other major powers with us. this is characteristic in all the mechanisms that we have put in place that is open, inclusive and outward looking. in particular, we value the contribution of the u.s. to all of these rcn-led forum. for more than 60 years, the u.s. presence has been a stabilizing influence that has underpinned

the growth. there are -- we will hear this regularly -- multiple and overlapping structures of the rcn regional architecture that reflect the diversity of the asia pacific region. from our view, this overlapping structure makes the framework more flexible and resilient. let me go through briefly each of the structures that we have in the security area. the first and the longest running has been the arf which was created in 1994 as a forum for security discussions that engage not just major powers but middle and smaller to preserve their stake in the stability in the post-cold war era. it's the only multi-lateral security group in which the dpk participates. another structure we have is the admm plus. which came into force in 2006.

its establishment of the admm was really the commitment of rcn countries to have the military establishments to work together to address transnational security issues. we then expanded this to have the admm plus. it has become not just a channel for dialogue but also an action-oriented avenue for defense ministers from the region and beyond to come together to discuss practical soluti solutions. they have done exercises to pull together militaries into the operations. the third structure is the eas, which we are looking forward to next month which the president will attend. with the expansion in 2011 to include the u.s. and russia, it has brought the powers together. the key focus now for the eas is

really to focus in consolidating for the future. what -- rcn is keen to have brought in is areas of functional cooperation, because these really -- this adds to the agenda and help to build on the architecture in order to keep the mechanism alive and healthy. it adds balance to the structure and ensures that the eas remains a credible forum for constructive cooperation. various ideas in which the u.s. can play a roll in the functional cooperation areas include disaster management, education, finance, energy, which you spoke about earlier this morning. looking ahead at all these structures, a frequent complaint and almost criticism has been that all these rcn centered regional architecture structures have emergent into a spaghetti bowl that people find difficult to unravel. from rcn's point of view, the

mechanisms each play a unique role. they reinforce each other to serve the common interests of maintaining regional stability and growth. the prospective of trying to ration nalize the security arty kek tur into a single arrangement or to try to impose a hierarchy among them will be very difficult. if not impossible. instead, our view is that these regional structures and architecture should be allowed to evolve at their own pace as we improve ways to get better coordination and develop synergy among the mechanisms. in this regard, we have actually welcomed dialogue partners to give ideas for the future of this architecture and taking on proposals and how to improve the existing frameworks. what is critical is that we must ensure that the regional architecture for all the reasons they have been successful is that rcn remains at the core.

keeps a neutral platform and continues to reflect the diversity of the region and remain open and inclusive. i indonesia has proposed a treaty. next week, the eas workshop and security framework will meet to discuss this further. these are some of the ideas of we are looking at how we can make this better. let me say a few words about the u.s. engagement. the u.s. has played a role in the regional architecture and remains a critical and unique component in the future. it's important for the u.s. to stay engaged. this must be broad-base and multi-pronged. the region appreciates the u.s.'s support and has come across in the comments and speeches that have been made by u.s. leaders about how important the neutrality is. rnc and the u.s. share many

strategic perspectives. we should work together to continue to build up the existing institutions and keep the architecture open. we also welcome the u.s. support for key principals like peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law, the right of freedom of navigation and the right of over flight. in conclusion, let me summarize the three principals that rcn looks at regional architecture. first rcn should be at the core in order to maintain rcn unity and cooperation. second, it should reflect the diversity of the region. it should remain open and inclusive. as there are overlapping structures, from our point of view they make the -- the archi follow the agenda rather than vice versa. thank you very much. >> excellent. thank you very much. chris? you want to give the ambassador

a round after mroof applause? i don't want to deny that for you. it was coming your way. chris, over to you. >> thank you. thanks csis for having me here today. i'm extremely flattered to be among the company that i'm in. clearly, you can tell one of these things is not like the other. my first name is not ambassador. by way the making the point further i was telling dave earlier that i my my signature accomplishment on asia this year has been playing some small role in the confirmation of david shear. you can sort of see clearly what you are getting here. congress is not a participant in asia's architecture. maybe you can be thankful for that. what i would like to try to do is give you a sense of how the hill is looking at some of these security challenges. we can back into the asia

architecture question. what i would like to try to do is frame it in terms of two questions, both of which appeared on the cover of the economist this year. i think these are the kind of -- the two questions that are kind of overhanging. this was a couple weeks back, very plainly, what does china want. this is something -- as members of congress are looking at the region, they are traveling through the region. i would stress it's a small group. it's not extensive to the entire body. this say question that i think members of congress are confronting. they want the united states to have and believe the united states can have and should have a very constructive relationship with china. they see all of the benefits and all of the common areas of cooperation between the countries. they recognize that -- there's a lot of up side there for both countries together. and yet, they look at a pattern of behavior that is concerning

to them. the pattern of behavior is something like this. it's a series of actions that are not sort of purely diplomatic. neither are they purely military. they occur in a gray area. there appears to be a strategy of incremental creation of facts on the ground or in the air or at the sea. there's a concern, i think, that this is what we are seeing is sort of a long game, an attempt to incrementally move by move change the status quo unilaterally, never in a way that's fundamentally trips a wire and triggers a response on behalf of the united states or others, but nonetheless continues to move the needle such that five to ten years from now we're all looking back and it's a very different region that we're looking at. and i think there's the prevailing view in the congress

is, china thinks about its foreign policy. when people say, well, china surely, you know that you are causing other countries to gang up against you, to criticize you, you are driving them closer to the united states, i think these prevailing view on the hill is, there's intent there, even if we have to infer it from action. that intent is perhaps unsettling, which is this to some extent does reflect conscious action. it's about more than the particular territorial claims that we can discuss today further. it's about a conscious attempt to challenge the balance of power and change it, about changing key elements or challenging key elements of the international order, particularly the peaceful resolution of disputes. and most fundamentally as american is concerns, it's a challenge to the american presence and historical role in asia and commitments to countries that we have either formal treaty commitments or otherwise.

so i think the question that i think many members of congress and the prevailing view in the congress comes back to is, again, what does china want. the second sort of security challenge that i would point out may be somewhat provocatively also appeared on the cover of the economist. what would america fight for? fight is not necessarily to be used literally. but i think the point is, what does america ultimately seeking to do. what are we committed to doing? what are our red lines? and i think as members of congress, congressional staff travel through asia, particularly ones who are maybe less experienced there, they are struck by a prevailing sense and pervasive sense of doubt and question about the united states. this isn't so much a question of questioning america's capability. there's a lot of capability economically, militarily. although, i think increasingly

people are questioning that as we see the effects of sequestration and declining budgets. i think it's more a sense -- this is what people sense traveling through the region. it's a question of america's resolve, commitment, judgment. what it's ultimately seeking to do here. there are different reasons for s-ñ obviously, i think there's the sense of people looking at our opinion polls. obviously, they can discern that americans aren't too into foreign policy at the moment. that may be changing. but there's a question of sort of national distraction to what extent americans are focused on this. there's also sort of the question of national dysfunction. the question of, look, america can't even fix its own fiscal problems. how much are they going to help us when we need them? there's that doubt that lingers out there. look, i would say when it comes to asia and security policy,

there's a lot of bipartisan cooperation. and it really is an area that is somewhat unique from other aspects of our foreign policy where i think there's broad consensus on the rebalance. that being said, i think there's a real question about whether the rebalance is sort of coming into being. that say sense that we hear as we travel throughout the region as well. is this more rhetoric than reality? i think part of this, too, is it's a question about the u.s. response to asia. i heard most of evan's speech. most of it i would agree with. i think the question is not is america doing something. clearly, america is. the question is, is what america is doing adding up to a set of actions unilaterally, bilaterally, that is you fundamentally impacting china's calculus as it presses out in the east china sea, south china sea. there's the other piece, which is that it isn't just about

asia. our sense -- something that many memberless s of congress have b struck about, how much in their conversations on security issues with asian partners, to krain a happening there and how the u.s. is responding or last year the response to syria. the crossing of the purported red line and the lack of oh follow-through. many people in asia asking what are the implications of this for us. maybe it's an unfair question. maybe it's oubds, but it's real. that's something that i think, again, many mongs are very sensitive to. so i would just say in conclusion the architectural issues we are discussing are important. there is a lot of potential for them to resolve these challenges, to clarify views and thinking. but age old problem. geo politics determines the capacity and ability of architecture to function.

when it comes to the geo politics now the questions i try to lay out today are really concerning. there are questions and i think hear in this town we are seeking answers on, trying to come up with better answers on. it will overhang diplomacy and what we are seeing as the region comes foegt in november. >> thank you very much for those remarks, chris. thank you for the panel, for your excellent insights. i would like to start with a question and open the floor. the question is many have argued that the foundation of long-term security in asia is economics. i didn't hear any of you talking about that. i wonder would you agree or do you think it's sort of a separate channel that security thinking is linked to, but it's not related to.

how do you think about it? >> i snuck in one word that said economic. and economists throughout. you know how the whole thing. but, you know, they go together. because we have the morning discussion on the economic architecture. i didn't want to get into all of that. the key thing that obviously is there is tpp. it's top of the mind of every asia-pacific leader, whether or not they are in tpp. even those who are out wonder what it means for them and how can they get into it. those who are in obviously are in the throes of difficult negotiations to get it done. particularly for the u.s., the constant conversation that comes up is when are we going to get this thing done? it really is a key not just

about the economic future of u.s. interests but the strategic engagement of the u.s. in the region. it's a test of how people see the u.s. engage nmt the region. look ahead that's what we want to see get done. we have rcep that doesn't include the u.s. the community comes into force next year. it is a critical thing. >> i want to address your question from a slightly different angle by drawing on my experiences in vietnam. some people said the rebalance is primarily a military strategy. i want to try and counter that impression. in vietnam the rebalance and throughout the region actually certainly brings all of the

tools together to pursue our interests in the region. in vietnam, we were pursuing, using the diplomatic tool the by using the core diplomatic particularly on regional issues within the multilateral context. on the economic side we are negotiating with vietnam as a member of -- as a tpp partner. both americans and vietnamese, i believe, recognize that tpp is not just -- will not just benefit us economically, but it is strategic in many ways. finally, we very strongly promoted defense cooperation with vietnam. we see the fruition of our efforts in that regard with the partial lifting of the ban on lethal weapons sales to vietnam yesterday. so our implementation of the

rebalance in vietnam certainly was multi pronged. again it relied on all the tools of state to pursue our interests. that's what we are doing throughout the region. the if there is uncertainty in the region it shouldn't be uncertainty about the u.s. commitment to continued peace, security and prosperity there. >> thank you. >> just a brief point. i agree completely with what both dave and the ambassador said. tpp is critical to get done. without it, it will be a real problem the u.s. faces. it cannot be one dimensional. the challenge is if you look at it, it is a positive trend. i think the concern is the security trend may be headed if not in the opposite direction, not in the same direction. maybe not fragmentation but rising tension.

this is something that was pointed out. can you continue to have economic integration when you have rising challenges. is that something sustainable or not? >> thank you. the floor is open. start here. this is a gentleman in the front. again, please tell us your name and affiliation if you have one. i have a question for the secretary. you mentioned one of the -- related to the alliances. as you know, b united states and korea plan to announce an agreement when they hold the annual defensive ministers meeting this month. can you tell us about how close

the two countries are to agreement at this point? thank you. >> we agree with you. we are discussing conditions based approach to op-con with our counterpartses. this will be an issue i focus on during my presence next week in seoul. >> right here, the gentleman in the front. >> thank you. great presentation. my name is ema skodin. i just would like to ask the other two panelists to answer to the extent they can the

questions that chris posed. ambassador, in your opinion, what does china want and what would america fight for, in your opinion? [ laughter ] >> well, unlike members of congress, we don't know what china wants. they have become the number one trading partner for all the countries. we value the relationship being built economically. tour is, traffic, trade, investment how to link the areas closer together.

the question that keeps coming up obviously can you have economic integration when you have ongoing security tensions. is there something that southeast asia discusseses with the chinese. talking about the code of conduct in the south china sea, moving it forward. again to use the asean platform to manage these tensions. tensions do arise. how can they work together as a group in the maritimes security space. not all of us are claimants. to work with china, work on the framework where there are certain rules that we all respect and move forward towards. >> i strongly agree with the ambassador on this. it's clear i think one of china's highest priorities is to

maintain an atmosphere and a situation in east asia that allows them to continue growing economically. i think that's probably among their highest priorities. the chinese want to the question is how you do it. that takes us to the second part of the question. among our highest priorities in the region is to maintain and increase respect for the international rule of law. this has been an issue in the south china sea and an issue in the east china sea as well. we will look to our partners and

china to work with us to strengthen the rule of international law in our interactions with the chinese throughout the rest of the year and in the future. >> thank you. i have a question. you have made an interesting comparison between eastern europe and east asia. i want the u.s. to adopt something like the attitude to the regional emergency in these regions. at least to watch carefully.

public opinion or decided by any other factors? look, from where i sit, no. i think the policy that the u.s. is trying to follow in both places is consistent in the the sense that we are objecting to what russia is doing in krain because they are violating the sovereignty of an independent country.

there are different challenges but in some sense, similar. >> gentleman right here. >> you mentioned what would be on proeb's agenda when he visited china in terms of strengthening the relationship with china. also the u.s. just lifted the long-time ban providing lethal weapons to vietnam yesterday. will that create more stability or more unstability in the region? thank you.

>> as i mentioned in my remarks, we want to create a strong stable military to military relationship between the united states and china. at the sunnyland summit in 2013, proeb xi proposed that we explore and we looked at doing that. we are looking at two different kinds of confidence building measures. one is major activities effort. the other is on rules of the ro road, rules of behavior.

we are discussing these we hope to have something positive to say in this regard during proeb's stay in beijing. on your second question, we establish the comprehensive partnership with vietnam in 2013 when president song visited washington. we are in the process of implementing that in all answers of the relationship. we thought it was only appropriate as part of the partnership we look at lifting the given the growth of the relationship with vietnam. we believe this will help vietnam contribute to regional piece and stability. it will help vietnam in disaster

relief and humanitarian assistance, for example. we thought the current progress was sufficient for us to partly lift the ban relating to items relating to maritime security. >> you guys worked on the vietnam issue on the hill. was there bipartisan support for that? >> absolutely. this was something we had been working on. didn't require an act of congre congress. we wanted the congress's

reaction to be favorable. i think what we were able to do, senator mccain introduced a resolution back two weeks ago. had on it as cosponsors, senator pat leahy, senator corker. very key leaders of the senate when it comes to asian issues. asia policy issues. so, yes, there was a very, very good degree of bipartisan support for it. >> the lady here. >> my name is nadia with the liberty times. i would first like to ask, taiwan is asking for the u.s. to build submarines. first of all, i would like to know has any decision been made from the d.o.d.'s point of view? do you think this is contributed

to the stability or the security of this region. thank you. >> providing taiwan with the defense articles it needs to maintain its security. i have been strongly committed to this throughout my career. particularly during my stint as the director or as the dep ti assistant secretary of state for chinese affairs in the state department. i continue to be strongly committed. no decisions have been made yet. as part of our overall on this and a range of issues.

>> thank you. i'm david carl, a business consultant. another way to look at this. actually reflective of factional struggles within the relationship. robust bureaucratic actors that are resistant to party leadership. i have a colleague in beijing who sent me a message last week that he heard rumors of an assassination attempt against president xi. i wonder p if instead of china like a strong state capable of

foreign policy. >> i have no doubt the domestic political considerations contribute to the chinese foreign policy decision-making. i have no doubt that strong bureaucratic interests also contend for influence within the chinese governmental firm meant as they do here. as they do everywhere. part of the chinese aren't transparent about the decision-making. defense relations. part of the effort at engaging the chinese in this area is to help them increase their transparency.

that will be part of the goal in pursuing these confidence-building measures. >> the wonderful speaker from the president's executive office, dr. evan medeiros. he sounded positive about the ability to get tpp done. i wish i felt as confidence as he does. what's your prognosis i mean probability.

what's the prognosis? >> no country is more in the trade than singapore. ambassador? take a swing at this one. >> i heard a tpp will be cone by november. they never specified a year. we have been hearing it every time we come together. i wouldn't hazard a guess of when we are going to get it. how long it's going to take. very different type of economies. one large. the world's largest economy and a small island state. it took a long time to get a

bilateral free trade agreement just between two countries. imagine the complexity of 12 countries including the world's third largest economy. including countries like vietnam that had to make significant economic changes. canada, mexico. you look at the complexity of that. you can understand why it's taking some time to make sure we get a good agreement. that's what the expectation is. we have to make sure what we get is something use ful for everybody that makes sense.

deadline after deadline, november after november. they are working to get it done. the leaders have given directions of what they would like to see done. we are hopeful that as soon as it's ready, there is no reason to keep it away. just trying to understand and appreciate the complexity that goes into putting this thing together. as i look at the process, i'm sympathetic to them. given what they are trying to achieve. >> i can say a word on the domestic politics piece. part of the challenge is it's regrettable that the senate didn't give the administration trade promotion authority. an added challenge to the complex negotiation that's ongoing is that if you are a trading partner of the united states are you putting your best offer on the table if you don't have to negotiate with congress

afterward? i think it can get done. it's too big to fail. when it gets done, not clear. i think commitcally speaking whether this happens there is a window of time to do this in the beginning of next year. if there is the will the agreement to do it, once you slip past that the challenges you get into american domestic politics, where you get into the primary cycle for presidential politics, that plays to the extremes. you don't want this to drag into next year so it gets wound up into american political cycles spinning up again. >> my name is moit field with nhk japan. this is for assistant secretary

sheer. you mentioned you will be going to tokyo and they are unveiling guidelines. i was hoping you would share details with that. particularly if you could touch on that it would be great. thank you. >> we welcomed the jands cabinet's decision to review the collective self-defense issue. i will be going to tokyo with danny russell. we will there hold a session we'll chair for the u.s. side a session of the ssc as well as the sdc.

it's our expectation we'll release the interim report on the guidelines. an interim to map the way forward for the ultimate revision of the 1996 guidelines. >> for those who don't know, ssc and sdc? >> securities subcommittee. sdc is the security defense committee. >> i didn't mean to put you -- that's not fair. >> you should see the book he got when he went to the pentagon. the gentleman in the back here. i'm sorry to put you on the spot. >> >> this is a question that from your perspective what is the most important aspect of

this process? and what's the most important aspect or issue from the united states perspective in this whole defense review process. how do you think this review will contribute to the regional security? >> a strong u.s. alliance is a foundation, a keystone for overall regional security. that's been the case for decades. i expect it will be the case for decades in the future. to keep the alliance strong, vibrant and dominican republic we review the guidelines. that's our aim in doing so on this round. >> right. the gentleman back here in the blue shirt.

deploying a third missile defense into south carolina now is controversial. so would you clarify the stance on this issue? additionally our asia pacific commander, admiral locklaer's last week that he endorsed the military taking steps to fuel an rcbm that could be a threat to the u.s. and washington based this week that north korea has completed a major upgrade of its main rocket site.

so would you evaluate is this an imminent threat actually? thanks. >> we are always concerned about a threat to the korean peninsula and discuss it including developments in the missile area. we have made no decision on the korean peninsula. we have not discussed thad deployment with our rok countparts but we discuss generally the issue of the missile threat to south korea and we look forward to working wi

with. >> i was involved in a couple of the meetings while prime minister modi was here from india. i have to say the energy around the visit was incredible. we really haven't talked much about india. i wondered if -- you know, a lot of us who work on these issues see looking at both oceans -- the indian and pacific. what are the pros pecks for india to be a player now across the indo-pacific? anybody care to take a swing. >> i think prime minister modi's visit to washington was successful. those of you who read the joint

statement noticed there was a very strong defense component. the two sides agreed to renew the now 10-year-old defense framework and we will be addressing ourselves to that issue with our indian colleagues soon. at senior levels. we held the first round of the defense trade and technology issue tif just before prime minister modi arrived. this is an effort to increase our technology. undersecretary of defense for acquisitions and technology. frank kendall is interested in pursuing this with the indian side. i think he will be visiting india in the near term.

this is an important aspect of the relationship. we are ready to move forward on it. we discussed the overall military operation including in exercises. i would look to for a stronger u.s. india malobar exercise in the future. these are all positive developments in u.s., india defense relations. we'll be looking to carry forward on the momentum of the visit here by prime minister modi. prime minister modi will have his first outing next month in myanmar.

we bring them in economically, strategic discussions. >> i think the general expectation is while they will play a role in the reason the prime minister will focus on domestic, economic issue as political leaders do. >> i will say briefly, senator mccain and i had the opportunity to meet with him after he came into office. we were struck that there is a lot of opportunity for the u.s. and india to gain altitude in a partnership has lost quite a bit of it.

hopefully this is a good first step. our hope and the hope shared in the congress is that we'll be really ambitious. that we'll have the genuine strategic consultation about what we want the world to look like and bring it back to those questions. obviously, you know, the domestic priorities that the ambassador mentioned will be important for india. that will be a choice for india. when it comes to the issues we are talking about here, one of the things we are very pleased to see is the extent to which india is building relationships with other countries in the region. the india-japan relationship is the one with a lot of that. we see it as valuable and building on what evan had to say today. that the u.s., japan, india can

build that trilateral out. put strategic content into it and elevate it. that would be an enormous positive signal. >> thank you. we started the day with one of the real advocates and prak technicianers of developing modern asian architecture. he talked a lot about constructive realism and a sense that the key for him and the discussion of regionalism and regional architecture is really the need for countries to find a common narrative that focused on public goods you can use to build confidence. i found throughout the day whether we are talking about economics, energy or security issues the panelists in general agreed with kevin that that's

where the progress will be made. i think -- i hope you will join me in thanking this panel and thanking everyone who put the program together. [ applause ]

coming up this afternoon, a town hall meeting in princeton, indiana. president obama will talk with members at the steel plant and answer questions about u.s. jobs and the economy. earlier today unemployment numbers were released for september with unemployment falling. you can watch the president's remarks live on c-span at 3:10. tonight on c-span 2 it's book tv with authors and books on american foreign policy. we begin with a debate on war and the u.s. constitution. book tv tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. here on c-span 3 american history tv with programs on world war one, one hundred years after the great war began we visit the world war one museum in kansas city. then a history professor looks at how soldiers viewed battle experiences. author michael las is ser discusses the music and how

patriotic songs contributed to the war effort. tonight on c-span 3. >> tonight at 10:00, a conversation with john paul stevens. saturday at 9:00 eastern the founder and former chair of microsoft, bill gates on the ebola virus outbreak in west africa. sunday evening at 8:00 on q&a the director of the smithsonian's national museum of african art. tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2 authors john yu and bruce fein talk about war and the constitution. saturday at 10:00 on book tv author heather cox richardson on the history of the republican party. live sunday at noon on in depth legal affairs editor in charge at reuters and supreme court biographer. tonight at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3,

historians and authors talk about world war 1, a hundred years later. saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, former fbi agents on catching the unabomber suspect. sunday afternoon on american artifacts at 6:00 p.m. the 100th anniversary of the panama canal. find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think. call 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org or send a tweet at c-span # comments. join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. last night a debate between mary fallon and democratic challenger joe dormant, the first and only debate they will hold. this is a portion p of the debate. >> in light of recent natural

disasters and school shootings, how do each of you plan to update emergency plans for oklahoma's public school system? >> we want to make sure all facilities including public schools are safe. i received the nra endorsement which i'm proud of. i'm a supporter of the second amendment of the state of oklahoma. we want to make sure we do everything we can to create safe rooms or safe facilities at our schools. that's why i propose allowing local school districts to look at their local needs to decide if they need to enhance their school safety facilities and be able to make those decisions themselves, how much they can afford, what they need to do in the school. i work with homeland security to keep the public aware.

we had a tragic episode that happened in the state of oklahoma this week that shook us down to our foundation. we want to make sure oklahoma is aware when there is a threat that we address concerns quickly and that we keep our public informed. i guess to say that we are doing everything we can to make sure we have an emergency plan in place. we have initiated that many times. i was lieutenant governor when we had the building bombed back many, many years ago. i was there during a difficult time and moment in oklahoma's history. we are going to do what we can to make sure we are safe as citizens and protect our second amendment rights. >> thank you very much. representative, you have 90 seconds. >> thank you very much. sometimes talk is cheap on this. we need leadership. we need action to respond to this. four years ago when janet barissi took over in the state

department of education, one of the programs she eliminated was the emergency hotline to call for issues facing the school. we saw that was one of the first suggestions to reinstitute. the board has backed up the policies we have seen go through the school policies that hurt our schools. we must see real action, real leadership that will sit down. i championed that. we had a meeting. invited school superintendents and teachers and parents from all over the state to discuss what we could do bet per. we must encourage students to look for situations and work

with the school administrators. i want to see more resource officers in the schools. partnerships between the municipalities and the school districts to have that mentor position, that law enforcement officer in the schools to help provide safety and security. we must work to make sure our teachers have the right resources. we cannot continue the cuts. >> recent polls list the race as solid republican. watch the entire debate and dozens of others any time online at our website, c-span.org. >> university of central florida professor jonathan matuzitz attempted to explain the various causes of terrorism. he spoke about theories in florida. the professor previously taught at a nato affiliated military base in belgium. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> good evening. welcome to the president's speaker series on behalf of our host president john johnson i'm mark bernier, the moderator. terrorism has become a way of life for many people in the world. there are reasons why it happens. that's the theme of the talk. in a town hall fashion discussion we'll talk about the author of a new book. then we'll take questions from the audience about the 15 points he brings up. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to introduce our guest for tonight on terrorism and communication, the author of the new book on the same topic. ladies and gentlemen, dr. jonathan matusitz. >> thank you. [ applause ]

thanks for being with us. a little bit of background. what led you to write about and teach this subject? >> most books on terrorism are in political science, criminal justice, very few books are in communications. in fact, there was no big book mixing both fields, terrorism and communications. i took the opportunity to write a book and they said yes, we will publish it. >> we are going through the 15 points. i'm asking the doctor to outline examples of how and why this happens. there are various forms of terrorism. terrorism that happens on the domestic front and international terrorism. to begin we have just come off the olympics. the number one worry was

terrorism there. >> sochi is located where the sar kassians lived. they were an ethnic north group and in february of 1864, it's 150 years before the olympics. they were discriminated and many killed by russians. the main concern was terrorism as a form of retaliation. >> we are thankful there were no major incidents. there was a war just outside of the perimeter. were you surprised there were not acts of terrorism. >> the russian secret police was good at foiling terrorist attacks. >> ornlally from belgium. >> that's correct. i was born and raised in belgium, like dr. evil. >> how many languages? >> i used to speak french, dutch

and english. i haven't spoken dutch in 15 years. now french and english. >> what got you to this country. what brought you here? >> the land of opportunity. >> all family back in europe? >> i wanted to discover america. i'm a movie buff. watching all these movies. finally, i got here in 2000. we have been living here 14 years. >> from belgium i went to alaska to get my master's. went to oklahoma. as it was looking for jobs, they hired me in summer of 2006. i have lived here for seven and a half years. >> it was about two years ago. they were in the audience. came up and gave me his card. i started watching the classes you were teaching and events you were doing at ucf.

we talked with homeland security. this is how we came tonight. >> it's good to see adults and a lot of young people. thank you for being here. >> let's talk about the 15 points and go through one at a time. give examples of where in the world these reasons are beingle employed. i'm going to do religion at the end. i will just tell you it's huge. it opens up for several other things. you just oppression as one of the reasons why terrorism exists. give us examples, please. >> the best example today since the 1990s until today, oppression leads to revenge. a lot of terrorists say the russian army oppresses them. a lot of men are killed by the russians. a lot of the widows become suicide bombers. we call them the black widows

like the spiders. if you follow the metaphor, a widow can kill you. they feel oppressed and want revenge against the russians. most of the suicide bombers in chechnya are female. this can take on all kinds of life. >> historical grievances refers to iran. it's a group of people that wants to get even with the enemy though the wrong was committed a thousand years ago. for example, the bask terrorist group. they live in spain and france. they want to regain their territory. they want to have their own independent state. they sthat france and spain stoe their territory.

the ira. they want to get back. their main slogan is grit out. >> years ago we would hear about terrorism in ireland. we don't hear as much now. have they settled grievances? testimony the ira is barely active today. some have become members of the british parliament. they were big in the '60s and '70s fluchltz. >> i was reading another part of american history. i want to stay with this for a moment. during the early part of the last century, there were terrorist acts from mexico into the united states. there was resentment, i guess, grievances of the territorial takes by the united states and the purchases of land. i think it was black jack pershing committing terrorist acts over the texas border. >> absolutely. mexico. the main concern is the mexican drug war.

a lot of the mention mexican drug lords are joining groups with like hezbollah. headquartered in lebanon. >> stay with it for a second. what's in it for them? don't they know how dangerous folks can be? >> they operate on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. a common enemy for hezbollah and mexican drug lords is america. sometimes enemies join forces because they have a common denominator. >> these are part of the reasons. violation of international law. >> that's the perception that some of the western countries didn't fulfill their promises. for example, great britain promised the palestinians that the palestinians would have a lot of rights and the palestinian people feel that britain betrayed them. that's an example of the one you mentioned.

during the treaty of versailles. there were talks about granting autonomy for the palestinians. for arab countries. they felt those promises were not full filled. there are a gazillion examples under that rub rick. does it fall under the international law violation? >> it falls under the second one. historical grievances. the serbs and croats have always fought. the serbs killed a lot and raped a lot of the women. from 1992 to 1995. a war that killed a hundred thousand people. >> wow. relative deprivation. >> it's code for poverty. in places like gaza and the west bank some people made four to five dollars a day. their life on earth, as you can

imagine is miserable. because they live in abject misery they will join suicide commandos and martyrdom operations which is code for suicide operations. your family is being promised up to $2,000. your siblings get scholarship for college. that would be poverty. look at it this way. they came from rich families in saudi arabia. the main leader there was some correlation. >> what's the reaction from the students. i saw a channel nine report about your class. they were all supportive. do they understand everything that you're giving them?

they take culture, online friendships. they move from these classes to terrorism. some of them are taken back. they are offended by the topic. it's intense. >> i should have asked you up front. how do you define terrorism? >> the guillotine was used on anybody disagreeing with the government. the leaders of the government of terror were called terrorists. the word was used for the first time by the people themselves. we are the terrorists. that was in french.

the first time the word appeared in english was 1798. at the end of the 18th century. terrorism has 212 definitionser. for some people if i brush you i'm a terrorist. for the chinese a monk from tibet. they call themselves martyrs, hero heroes. two scholars from holland looked at all the definitions. they said they will look at the commonalities among all definitions. they found out that in 83.5% of the definition it is the word violence appeared. in 65% of all these 200 definitions the words political goals appeared. in 51% of all these definitions the words causing fear and terror appeared.

we had a definition that was comprehensive and most would agree on. terrorism is the use of fear and terror in order to reach political goals. >> were americans in our history ever accused of terrorism against each other? i think of the klan, sometimes acts against native americans. what are some examples of terrorism within our own country? >> definitely the kkk. definitely. the lynching and they have a special knife called the bowie knife like crocodile dundee and they would slash people's throats. just by looking at their practices it makes them a terrorist group. you have the aryan nation. it's a neonazi group. very racist against blacks and jus. we have tim mcveigh, the oklahoma city bombing perpetrator.

he was only 26 years old when he committed that horrifying act. this is where i got my doctorate, close to the oklahoma city bombing. i went to the site in 2002. it's in the boondocks. instead of choosing a sky scraper or the empire state building he chose a building in the boondocks because he knew he would receive attention from anybody. when i lived in belgium i didn't know what oklahoma was. is that a uh new band? finally oklahoma was on the map. it took a sad terrorist act to put oklahoma on the map. >> is there something happening -- to stay with that for a moment. is there something happening in this country that's making people act out more in terrorist fashion? >> i would say that law enforcement in the u.s. has gotten better at foiling terrorist attacks. if you look at the fbi statistics of terrorist attacks, they have decreased sharply. the number of attempts at

killing people has increased. so there is an inverse relationship between the number of terrorist attempts and the number of successful terrorist attacks. >> do the people who are terrorists somehow think maybe i won't be the one that's caught? or i won't have to sacrifice my life in the name of terror? >> in some cases the terrorist doesn't think am i going to get caught? do i care? i want to fulfill my mission. they want to reach their goals. >> something you wrote called hatred toward global hegemony. >> it's a scientific term for power. it's like an anti-western sentiment, an anti-american imperialism sentiment. we call it hatred of the west. a word used by the grand ayatollah khomenei. it is a terrorist sentiment against the world trade organization, against mcdonald's. a lot of the kfc restaurants

have been blown up in pakistan. they don't like the idea of barbie dolls in some countries. they see it as cultural invasion. they are against it. are agains. going through the 15 reasons why terrorismists, you outlined one of the reasons as financial reward. how often does that happen? >> it doesn't happen often. most terrorists don't get wait for what they do. they don't get the financial gain, but their family, most of whom live in poverty get financial rewards. in south america, there is a group in columbia called farq where the armed forces are and they are notorious for abducting people for ransom. they will abduct political figures and get a million dollars. >> stopping for a moment, all

terrorism is active violence. sometimes it's internet and  and other things to put fear and suppression to people. is this going to be a new wave of terrorism that such more common? those things that strike through the internet and financial communities? >> cyber terrorism happens on an hourly basis. most is insignificant and the pentagon gets 5,000 times a year for example by the chinese group. lf side of things is really good for authority warting terrorism attacks. they can cause millions in dollar. that doesn't happen often. >> do you talk about an emt as a method of terrorism to wipe out the electrical grid of a country. >> it stands for the electromagnetic pulse like a bomb, but does not explode on

the ground. it explodes up in the air and anything that works on electricity or waves like this crew or your car or cell phones stops. when they are launched in venezuela on+++gi at least you know it. >> you know when talking to a couple of leaders we have the

ability to do it ourselves. some of these developing country who is don't have what we do might just launch one. >> if you launch on developing countries, they will accuse us of using nuclear weapons on them even though it's not a nuclear weapon against the geneva conventions. under that, you should use tanks and rifles and nothing like the nuclear weapons. >> going through this material quickly because i want to give an opportunity for questions for jonathan. a number of the 15 reasons why terrorism exists is racism. you have an example and i saw on you tube of the texas aryan brotherhood. >> it's a neonazi group that forms in an american prison. in a lot of american prisons, there groups that form. when they get out of prison, they have the cells that

coalesce and lead to that group. it has been on the fbi list of terrorists for the past 20 to 30 years. built by association. they have nothing to do with your enemy directly. madrid, spain, they had their own 9/11. march 11th, 2004. al qaeda killed 200 people bombing four trains. why? why kill spanish people and curists? because spain had troops in iraq. of course people like win osama bin laden were upset. as a form of retaliation, they helped george bush and the troops in iraq. that would be guilt by association. that could be an example where

by they are considered the west. the leader is on the same side as great britain. they have various african countries a day. >> support sympathized. >> that is when you kill people to expand your support base. until osama bin laden killed people on 9/11, very few people knew him even in the muslim world. he became a household name after that event and he saw support increase. >> where were you? >> i was in alaska sleeping in my dorm. alaska here is when it's 10:00

here, it's 5:00 in the afternoon. i was shocked like everybody. >> did you stay in alaska? >> after alaska i went to oklahoma to get my doctorate. >> the immediate period, did you feel the need to leave in. >> i was scared, but not enough to leave the country. >> mortality. >> it's not something they encounter every day. it answers how should i die? i would imagine that most people in the country want to die as old as a turtle when they are 150. in some cultures people want to be recognized for who they are and die as a martyr. in the gaza strip and palestinian territories when a suicide bomber accomplishes their mission successfully, his or her face is being shown on

billboards and leonardo dicap cap rio and shown on the main street for years. for them it's like social status. >> they are not here anymore. they are dead. they did this so they can be famous. >> did you think they care? they don't care. they want to please their god and their culture. >> they are sacrificing themselves? >> absolutely. this is how they want to die. it's a flash of civilization. some of these people don't think the same way. if you look at suicide bombers, this is what they are going to say. we love death the way you love life. narcissim. it's a way to commit terrorism. there people who have a big ego.

they made themselves known and lead a terrorist group so that the world will pay attention. >> you can give me an example of that? >> an example of this was the red arm faction. it was a german terrorist group before i was born in the early 70s. these were successful students. they had a bright future and a promising future. i don't know if they were bored with life, but they decided to join and to create the terrorist movement and anti-capitalist movement. anti-vietnam and now everybody knew who they were. that's a good example of narcissim. >> sensation seeking. >> sensation seeking follows the same train of thought. you have bungee jumping and skydiving and for some people you join a terrorist group. like the movie good fellahs. you teach somebody how to be a

marter guy. it just expands. these sound like gangs and really act out. we have some of that here. i'm trying to think there is a number for the visit and a group that will identify with the number. it's their pockets all-around the country. >> they do it out of sensation. the failure to achieve diplomacy. that is the death of the states. when diplomacy fails and when two enemy entities meet and try to reach an agreement and after a few years, possibly for a few decad decades, no agreement has been reached. what do they do next? use terrorism. and do people come in before religion and communication doesn't work, you can't work out your differences. >> when diplomacy fails,

sometimes people resort to terrorism. >> the attack on pearl harbor. it began world war ii for the united states of these 14 so far. what would you define that as? that was terrorism. an attack on us. which of these would go back? >> i wouldn't call it terrorism with the act of car. it was a surprise attack. it was heinous. but it was the japanese imperial army basically dropping bombs in pearl harbor. i couldn't call it terrorism. more of an act of war. a surprise attack. >> that doesn't define -- >> not in that context. >> this is the big one. religion. >> well, religion as most of us can imagine is a massive motivator for a lot of groups to do what they do.