And listen live on the free cspan app. Homeland security secretary john kelly was on a panel with european counterparts fight against terrorism at the Munich Security Conference saturday. In this part of the conference, secretary kelly talked about President Trumps executive order on immigration. This is an hour. So we asked each of our panelists to make remarks for five minutes or so about the security challenges that you see managing your portfolios. These five gentlemen have this battle in their hands. And i would ask minister de maiziere to begin, please. Yes, thank you very much. Later in the discussion i would perhaps remain speaking in english, but for the beginning i would like to switch and to talk in german. Translator from this topic i would like to make five brief remarks. First remark, when i look at the major crises and challenges that we are facing in europe, i have to say it is the euro and fiscal crisis, the challenges that have to do with migration, terrorism, and, of course, the cyberthreat. Euro and migration here, the attendance seems to be that europe is drifting apart. As far as terrorism is concerned, there is at least an opportunity to bring europe back together again. And im working for that. I had hope to maope to make sur happens. So that is my first remark. My second remark, we are now talking about transatlantic relations. And there are many concerns. I believe that fighting International Terrorism is another thing that could get the transatlantic partners back together again, strengthen our relations rather than weaken them. When i talk to my new colleague, john kelly, he emphasize that as well. So i think this is an opportunity we should use. My third remark, at conferences such as this one, the representation is great to call for a new strategic debate, many people say we need something that is entirely new, everything that has been done so far is bad and we need something new. And that will get you a lot of attention, sometimes at least. As far as counterterrorism, and europe is concerned, this is not what we need. I believe that in the past two years, we have had a lot of sacrifices in europe and we had decisions to take. The next two years will be the years of implementation, spectacular, but extremely important. What do i mean by that . We have learned that there are two simple questions to be answered. First question, europe should be the one to decide who can enter europe and who cant and we should be the ones to decide that, not criminal smuggling bands. Thats the first question. The second question, the second objective is europe should know who enters europe, who leaves it. That means we have a legal major legal program, technical prog m program, p r agreement, we have to work on that, entry, exit, register something we need. We talked about in theory, but we need to implement it, that will take about two years. So thats a huge asset for European Security. European needs a system, we have talked about it, we are negotiating it, but we need to implement it as well. And, again, that will probably require another two years. Interoperability of data, we have lots of data we gather in europe, but we do that separately from migration, for travel, for security, for visa. If we pool the data, we would have enough. If these Security Services to the extent that this is legally possible would have access to this data, that would be enormous asset in terms of security. It is complicated, it will take some time, but we have to do it. Now, these points alone enter, exit, p r, esta, interoperability of data, if we can achieve that in the next two or three years, that will be an enormous benefit in terms of security. That goes beyond anything we have been able to achieve in the last ten years. Everything needs to be implemented, we need the political will to do that, we need cooperation from parliament, european parliament, but we dont need any new strategies. Last remark, five remarks after all, four. Im talking minister of the interior and talking on behalf of european interior ministers. In our struggle against terrorism cannot be won by repression alone, we need prevention and deradicalization. We never talked as much about prevention as the last two or three years. Usually it is education ministers, integration ministers, ministers of social development, we talk about that. Were not just talking about foreign fighters. Were talking about home grown terrorism. In germany, recently we had a 12yearold boy who tried to plant a bomb on a christmas market. A 15yearold girl tried to stab a policeman. She was born in germany. Grew up in germany. And became radicalized in germany as well. Deradicalization prevention, thats very difficult. We need to learn from each other, the United Kingdom was one of the first states to start to do this. France, germany, italy, spain, we have had different causes for radicalization and different preventive measures that are necessary, but, again, the focus has to be a lot stronger, the focus of prevention has to be a lot stronger. Something we have not been successful yet is counternarrative for the internet to fight propaganda, spread by the islamic state, because that is tempting to many people. Deadly and tempting, and it is so intelligent. And well done, very often. So far we have not found anything to fight that. We are doing a lot. We do a lot in germany and in europe. But we havent been successful yet. So prevention, deradicalization and education by means of the internet, these are my initial remarks. Thank you very much. Mr. Minister, before i turn over to general kelly, i want to can ask you a brief question. The title of our session tonight is countering violent extremism. If President Trump were here, he would probably say we should call the panel countering radical islamist terrorism. And i am interested, words matter in this struggle, whether you think that is unfortunate and makes the job of people like you harder. Why give this question to me, not general kelly. You will give it to him as well, probably. He likes me. Yeah. So the more abstract you talk, but the more error in what you say. So what does that mean what your question means . Problem is we dont have enough relevant data from those countries, where dangerous people are coming. If you register all the refugees, and if you compare this with our data, you will not find enough results. So this is the question that we need, of course, more intelligence, but to ban whole countries perhaps could create more collateral damages and perhaps does not produce more security. So do it as the more precise you do it, the more effective you are. This is my answer. Thank you. General kelly, youre welcome to respond to that, but i know you have other things you want to say. I do. It goes without saying the transatlantic relationship between the United States and europe is unique, important. Just the if you just look at the economic trade, the benefits of the economies is massive. I think it is something on the order of 50 of the worlds gdp is tied up in our relationship. But our mutual investment is even more because it involves our freedoms, our democracy, our human rights and the rule of law. Terrorism in transnational crime threaten these values and our cher ished way of life. Terrorist attacks on our people and our nations and it doesnt matter what nation, what people, are an insult and assault on humanity. Like you, im concerned about the radicalization that leads to violence and terrorism against our societies and against our values. I am particularly concerned about the travel of people to the combat zones around the world, but particularly in the middle east, that are fraught with isil and other groups who may later and are, in fact, returning to home countries in the west to commit attacks against our homelands. As the situation in syria and iraq and other conflict zones change, the return of these individuals to attack our countries, our homelands, will very much increase. To the department of Homeland Security, the organization that im privileged to lead, stands with you, all of you, in our shared efforts against these threats. In the United States, europe, were challenged to invest more resources and counterterrorism in Border Security capabilities. Id like to highlight in particular the work of our European Partners who have increased information sharing including sharing among Intelligence Services, Law Enforcement and border authorities. Passage and progress toward implementation of the eu, passage in name and record directive. Pnr. And enhanced screening of travel is at the u. N. , so eus external borders while complying always with personal privacy rules in the establishment of the European Counterterrorism Center and the European Migrant Smuggling Center in europol. But there is more work to be done. Throughout my kreerks ive been fortunate to work a broad range of International Partners tackling some of the most critical missions. As secretary of Homeland Security, i look forward to continuing this work with all of our International Partners to combat terrorism around the world. Aviation security, critical component to our counterterrorism strategy, aviation has been targeted for terror attacks and still is being targeted for terrorist attacks and there are some vulnerabilities. We saw that on 9 11. And we saw that last year in the bombings at the brussels airport. If you want to protect travel, you have to know who is traveling. Over the years, since 9 11, the United States has developed a very sophisticated vetting process to screen travelers. We collect and analyze advance passenger information and passenger name record on p r. This data includes travel dates, itinerary information about tickets, baggage, and method of payment. It does not include race, religion, health information, or political orientation. Travelers retain the civil rights and civil liberties, principles we all hold dear. Collecting and analyzing this data helps us to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals and other high risk individuals from traveling to my country. This practice allows us to concentrate our attention and resources and those who are most likely to do us harm, or facilitating travel of legitimate individuals. Were quite enthusiastic that our European Partners are implementing the eu passage and name directive, and are working on enhancing their Border Management and a number of ways. We at the department of Homeland Security are happy to share our best practices and do share our best practices and Technical Knowledge as you all move to implement what is a life saving program. If were going to start terrorists from coming into the countries, our countries, with a destructive mission, we need information about who is traveling, where theyre traveling and why theyre traveling. This is the reason behind one of President Trumps executive orders, entitled protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. It was designed as a temporary pause that would allow us in many ways, allow me, to see where our immigration and refugee vetting system has gaps and gaps it has that could be exploited. One of the problems we all immediately we have immediately identified as we do not always have sufficient information to determine whether travelers from certain countries present a risk to the United States. This is a twopart challenge. We do not have strong counterterrorism partnerships of some countries, limiting our understanding of their security postures, and potentially increasing the risk to the United States homeland. And we do not have robust information on the individuals traveling from these countries, limiting our ability to conduct Risk Assessment before they travel to the United States. Two of countries that are named in this executive order are listed as state sponsors of terrorism. They dont cooperate with us. They dont have relationship with the United States like our european allies do. Four of the countries listed we dont even have u. S. Embassies there. No one to help us in the initial vetting process. By contrast, consider the Visa Waiver Program which lets citizens from 38 countries, citizens of all races and religions, that can travel to the United States for business or tourism for up to 90 days without a visa. In 2015, more than 22 million tourists and travelers came to the United States under this program. Thats a nearly 30 that is nearly 30 of all of the travellers that travel to the United States. We extend this visa free privilege to citizens of countries that implement stringent security measures and proactively share information with the United States. People often say relationships are built on trust and they are, but trust is also built on relationships. We trust our Visa Waiver Program partners, because we have relationships with them. With you. And i would like to emphasize security relationships. These relationships help us keep all of our citizens safe. Dhs is prepared to support all of our partners that implement these kind of reforms that improve their security and their board of management. This also extends to refugees and Asylum Seekers identifying refugees through the use of biometric as well as vetting serves them as well as us. Our world is small and getting smaller. We share both dangers and successes, nowhere does this happen faster than in cyberspace. And without going into the details of it, it is a threat that emerged seemingly suddenly and has grown beyond anyones expectations. It is in all of our interests to cooperate against this other form of terrorism, and most of us do. So i think ill leave it with that, david, and take your questions. I want to ask you one question before moving on. The immigration order that you discussed and laid out the rational for, as you and our audience know, encountered legal challenges. First, a Federal District court in washington state, stayed its implementation and then an Appeals Court affirmed that lower court judgment. And so President Trump has said hes going to come back with a new version of this executive order, that will meet the legal questions that have been raised. I know this audience would be deeply interested in any ideas you could share with us about what the new executive order might look like as it emerges next week. I guess i would begin by saying one of the great advantages i had in my life is im not a lawyer. I just dont right a wrong. I take a rational look at these kind of things. It did surprise the United States government that the courts took their action. I dont criticize it, i dont know enough about how they think. But i would tell you that we are contemplating the president is contemplating releasing a tighter, more streamlined version of the first do. And we will have this Time Opportunity i will have opportunity to work a rollout plan, in particular to make sure that there is no one in a sense caught in the system of moving from overseas to our airports, which happened on the first release. So thats where we are in that. So people who have valid visas will be allowed to enter. People who have green cards will be allowed to enter, im assuming. Yeah, it is a good assumption and as far as the visas go, again, if theyre in motion from some distant land to the United States, when they arrive, they will be allowed in. That said, we will have a short phasein period to make sure that people on the other end dont get on airplanes. But if theyre on an airplane and inbound they will be allowed to enter the country. This is just a pause until we look at a number of countries, seven in particular, and look at their vetting processes, how reliable they are and i would tell you theyre not very reliable, and find ways to vet in a more reliable way, to satisfy us that the people that are coming to the United States are, in fact, coming for the right reason. Thank you. That is an answer that is helpful to all of us. Defense minister asif. Thank you. I heard with full attention to the excellency, the president of afghanistan, pakistan against terrorism and we have played a very significant role in fighting terrorism last 10, 15 years along with the rest of the world. But responding to excellency, the president of afghanistan, i must give the narrative of my country that we believe that there cannot be peace in afghanistan without peace in afghanistan. It has to be a joint effort by both the countries to restore peace in our region. And i agree with the president of afghanistan that there are no good talibans and no bad tal pan theyre all bad. Terrorists with any name is bad. So i we, the pakistanis fully support the effort which has been undertaken to restore peace and order in afghanistan, because ultimately it will complement us. And in the last two years since the president took over, we have demonstrate ed that through our actions that we support peace, both in our own country, and in afghanistan. The military operations which started in 14th of june, 2014, brought huge dividends, dividends of peace to pakistan. And waziristan was cleared, the safe havens which were there for many, many years were destroyed, and almost 18 of the terrorism, interde incidents of terrorism were finished. Since last