Transcripts For CSPAN3 Nuclear Policy 20141125

During the 90s and i faced that in 2002, 2003, and we know the importance of the independence of verification. You had it in bilateral agreements, verification with russia and thats long tradition. Thats one thing. But multilateral inspections are needed in cases like iran and like iraq. And in that for that you need impartial independent Civil Servants that are not subject to any corruption, that will not go to do the work with any of the intelligence agencies that are crawling all over the place. So i would like to ask you your view about the importance of independent verification as a third of the many issues you have on your agenda. Thank you very much. [ applause ] thank you very much, dr. Blix. Listening to you, i now realize why you received the award. And thank you for not retire, multiple times. Your honor please. [ applause ] you define what a Public Servant is. So thank you for your service. And thank you for your continuing to push the government and think about the issues in a holistic way. So thank you. You did a nice job of introducing the panel. That was my job but youve done that well, much better than i, i assure you. But i am honored to be here with madame undersecretary. I should say that rose and her colleagues at the state department so im biased a little bit. If im too nice to her, youll be able to define that to me later. But again, we Work Together but i think as dr. Blix mentioned, not only has she been at the forefront of these issues, i should say i worked with her on the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty. And if i think about one of our biggest success of the Obama Administration and working with secretary clinton at the time, that was it. Over great odds. Im just thrilled by the work you did and the energy and working the hill and trying to get us to move forward. So, thank you very much for your service. And as you know, she was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment before coming to International Peace and served as director of the carnegie moscow center. Madam chairman, thank you very much for coming as well. As you know, Allison Macfarlane has led the nrc since 2012, is an expert on regulatory issues around safety of our nations 100 Nuclear Reactors. Shes a docker to rat in geology from m. I. T. Focuses on Nuclear Waste issues throughout her professional and academic career. Prior to taking on this position, she was she was the chairman and served as president obamas Blue Ribbon Commission of American Nuclear future from 2010 to 2012. What is clear to me is i have the lowest iq of anyone on this panel. So, its a little its a little intimidating. But since i get to ask the questions, well see how that all works. Rose, help me think about russia. Obviously all of us can pick up the newspapers and understand that president putin, ukraine, the complications with our bilateral relations, our sanctions that we are imposing on the government, there seems to be an International Outcry for much of the activities. But at the same time as dr. Blix mentioned we have work to do on their nuclear capabilities. Not only to fulfill the obligation of the s. T. A. R. T. Treaty, but we need move forward. Can we walk and chew gum at the same time, can we divide this idea of our sanctions as well as you going to negotiate. Help us think about that issue in a wholistic way. Thank you very much, tom. Thank you, also, to hans blix. Very highly respected colleague and someone ive just admired your work so much over the years. But its a great pleasure to be here today and to be on this panel with tom nides, a very good colleague and my boss when he was the deputy secretary of state and with Allison Macfarlane, who is a good friend, but also somebody who is carrying out a very tough job as head of our Nuclear Regulatory commission. And nobody, i think, with the technical chops to do so like allison does now. So, im really honored to be here today. To get at toms question, hans already talked about the very difficult period we are in now with the terrible crisis between russia and ukraine and the International Communitys profound concern about the way russia has really stepped beyond the bounds of International Law in so many ways. I agree very much with what hans says. It simply cannot be excused because International Law, territorial integrity, sovereignty, these are the basic principles on which the order of our planet is maintained. And so when a country steps beyond them in the way that russia has done is really a cause for grave concern. And so i think the power of the sanctions regime is an important way to impact to the kremlin leadership the dire consequences of what they have undertaken in pursuing their seizure of crimea and since the destabilization of eastern ukraine. At the same time, however and i like to stress that historically we have always found at the very top of our National Security challenges, getting our hands around the problem of weapons of mass destruction. How are we going to address this existential threat to the United States, to our allies and partners and to the International Community as a whole . So for that reason, even in the darkest days of the cold war when we faced grave crisis with the soviet union, we always tried to pursue continuing limitations and reductions in Nuclear Weapons. And this was following the cuban missile crisis which did bring us to the brink of nuclear conflagration. So, i think that was a real wakeup call. And leaders since, on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, have recognized that where weapons of mass destruction are concerned, we need to keep pushing that rock uphill no matter what crises are affecting the bilateral or multilateral relationships otherwise. So in that context we have worked very well with russia over the past year to get those chemical weapons out of syria. We have working in cooperation with them and the u. N. Removed 1,300 tons of chemical weapons and nerve agent precursors from syria and they have not been destroyed. If because of this horrible crisis in ukraine we have cut that cooperation off, we would not be where we are today in terms of interNational Security and preventing chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists in that region of the world. So i think thats a great illustration of what im talking about. New s. T. A. R. T. Is another area where we are continuing to work very hard to implement the treaty in the interests of our National Security, first and foremost, getting the number of Nuclear Weapons down to the lowest number since deployed since the dawn of the nuclear age in the 1950s and well continue that process. Now as to whether we can go farther, we need a dance partner. And at the present time the Russian Federation is not will to pick up the very good offer that president obama put on the table last july, when he proposed to the russians that we pursue an up to onethird further reduction in warheads below the numbers in the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty. New s. T. A. R. T. When its implemented, numbers will be 1,550 deployed Nuclear Warheads. That is still plenty of Nuclear Warheads and we have more work to do to get those numbers lower. So the president s proposal would bring our deployed numbers down somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 Nuclear Warheads on both sides. So its a very good proposal, a very good step forward, i believe. But up to this point we dont have a willing dance partner. The russians havent been willing. Even before the crisis in ukraine began, they have not been willing to pick that offer up off the table. So we are continuing to try to make the case with them and also on the international stage. We have the. Nonproliferation treaty review conference coming up. But we will continue to try to work with them and get some further reductions going. Thank you. Well, that was brilliant. I would like, as the owning the microphone for a second, i should tell you as we sit back and look at the precedence thats been written about the issues around syria, much has been written but not enough about the successes of this administration and, quite frankly, the work that you have done to eliminate chemical weapons in syria. That will historically, five years from now, history will be written that we have done the world a great favor. So, dr. Blix, the role russia has played on that has been widely publicized. Do you concur with their role . Do you concur with how they worked with the syrians to get the reduction of those chemical weapons, or did they view it as a way for them to enhance their own position on the world stage . Some would suggest leading to some of their activities in the ukraine. How do you feel about the combination of those two . I think there were great benefits for both sides and for the world in this affair. I do not see the u. S. Really wanting to go in and with a punishing military strikes, bombing syria. Thats what they might have done on various sites, airports, et cetera, and weakened assad. But it would have been a strange thing if theyd done this penalty and thereafter when it was over they say, okay, boys, go back to your fighting now, but fight clean without any chemical weapons. Im not sure that would really stop them but it would have been very awkward. I think what really stopped them was the concern what would develop. Its easy to go in, but you dont know what will develop then. Im afraid that it was not really concern or respect for u. N. Charter rules. I think a punishing expedition would have been illegal. There would have been no support for it in the Security Council. It would have happened without the Security Council support. I dont think it would happen. Now what were the benefits. I think president obama and the u. S. Were taken out of the dlem marks first, by the British Parliament that voted that they would not participate. And secondly, i think in the u. S. Public opinion, the war fatigue and did not want to risk to have more boots on the ground. That was a benefit to get out of this. For the russian side there was another benefit. Russia has two great powers. They have Nuclear Weapons and they have the veto power in the Security Council. And they would like to have such affairs channeled through the Security Council and the organization of interNational Security because they have a seat and influence. So they managed to switch from a unilateral american policeman function to an organized international function where they participate in the Security Council and in the opw. For my part as a lawyer and as someone who wants to see them develop institutions more orderly, i think that was a good part of it. So the world one. It was far better to have the chemical weapons eradicated ail together and without the risk of terrorists grabbing them, than to bomb a few sites and somewhat weakening assad. Ill wrap this series of questions up with one question from me. I was always perplexed when there was a discussion around the destruction of chemical weapons in syria. People talked a little bit, how do you destroy them . Where are you going to move them . They had to be dug up, transported. Rose, dr. Blix, how do i think about that . Well, very quickly, there were socalled priority one chemicals that were more or less direct use, mustard agent, for example, and nerve agent precursors. They were removed from syria and taken to a ship that the u. S. Defense department equipped with a hydrolysis system that basically hydrolyzed, that is diluted with massive amounts of water, these chemicals that then slurry or the remains of that were taken to be treated in a normal commercial industrial disposition facility. And so everything was dealt with in an environmentally safe way. No leakage or problems whatsoever. It was a very solid effort. Then there were a number of chemicals that chemical weapons are very similar to chemical fertilizers. And chemicals that are used in producing chemical weapons are some of the same that go into those industrial processes. So some of the chemicals were not considered so immediately dangerous. They were taken out of the country and taken to commercial sites in the uk, in finland, and also in the United States, at port arthur, and they were destroyed as part of a normal industrial process. So, thats how they were destroyed. Thank you. Youre not off the hook, sorry. Let me just talk a little bit about the work the Nuclear Regulatory commission does. Help the audience think about what you do. When you wake up in the morning and come to work, help this group of scholars understand kind of the role you play today both domestically, internationally as the commission. Great. Thanks for the question. I think this is on. Yep. I really appreciate being here and being able to speak with you all this morning and to interact with you all. Again, as rose said, were good friends. And its a real honor to be here with dr. Blix and with tom. Thank you. So, what the nrc does, the Nuclear Regulatory commission, like other Nuclear Regulatory commissions around the world, ensures the safety and security of Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Facilities in this country. So, it goes beyond just ensuring that Nuclear Reactors are safe and operated safely, that they are constructed safely, but there are over 20,000 Nuclear Materials licensees in the country. They might have experienced some of them during hospital visits. There are a lot of radiographers used in the shale gas fracing field, in oil exploration, in a variety of fields n agriculture, so as well as academia. Maybe some of you have personal experience with this equipment. And these materials. And we ensure that they are safe and secure. We do have an International Role as well thats very important to us. We have both cooperation programs and assistance programs that we do internationally. In cooperation we work a lot with the iaea, the International Atomic energy agency. I was just over there for a week in september for the general conference. And working with my International Counterparts i meet bilaterally with them. Frequently we have cooperative programs where we Work Together. We share personnel. We exchange personnel. We Exchange Knowledge. There are a number of different sort of sub International Programs where we Work Together and Exchange Knowledge but we also provide assistance to a variety of countries as well, countries that are developing their nuclear regulators, countries that are thinking about developing Nuclear Power. We work with them in a variety of ways as well. So one of the real experiences i had was after the disaster in japan. As you all recall, we refer to it as 311, where the fukushima they were hit by two. Both an earthquake and a tsunami and had enormous impact on japan and the people. And the country prior to, that as you know, was determined on a path to provide 50 of their Energy Electricity would be provided by Nuclear Power. So, they were on a pathway because we all know Nuclear Power is a much cleaner Power Generation than many options right now. And once, obviously, fukushima happened, the country stopped their nuclear shut down all the plants. So, help us think about the lessons that we in the United States can learn from how the japanese reacted to the disaster and the things that they may have done right or wrong, and is Nuclear Power the potential of getting japanese back into an area that they need energy from nuclear do you think that is the is that the fast track or a much slower path . Thanks for the question. Is this one working . Thats better. Yeah, you guys were all straining to hear me. So, japan, first of all, i cant speak for the japanese. Im the u. S. Nuclear regulator. But we do work very closely with our japanese counterpart. After the accident they redid, basically from scratch, their nuclear regulator. And we have a very close relationship with the new Japanese Nuclear regulator. Theyve basically been in existence a little over two years and theyve been working incredibly hard to try to develop new standards and get work through the existing facilities, all of which are closed, all the power reactors are closed, and they are in the process of recertifying them. And they have recently issued a renewed license or not a renewed license, but a goahead to the sendai plant. Now its up to the prefecture to approve that. Thats sort of how it works in japan. There were a lot of Lessons Learned from the fukushima accident. And, of course, we in the United States werent the only ones who learned them. We have learned them with our International Counterparts as well. Whats very interesting is that many of the countries with large Nuclear Power programs have basically come to the same conclusions and learned the same lessons from fukushima. First of all, one of the main lessons was that we had never expected at a Nuclear Power plant, which often has more than one reactor, that more than one reactor would fail at the same time. So we didnt have the right preparations in place to ensure that we had backup power for a number of plants, not just one. And so we we in the United States have been asking our plants through an order initially, and now we are doing a rule making, that they ensure that they have this backup equipment. By 2016 they will all have this backup equipment. Many of them already have procured much of the backup equipment. Theyve built specially seismically safe bunkers to put these backup diesel generators and pumps and wiring and piping in, and so they will be prepared for Something Like that. Weve also been asking them about emergency preparedness. That was one of the big problems in japan with fukushima. We also asked them to go and reanalyze the seismic hazard and flooding hazard, both of which were significant issues at fukushima. Dr. Blix thank you very much. Do we have an international pr problem with the use of Nuclear Energy . When you travel around the world, its clear to us, i will just say, nuclear is clean. Its reliable. But do we have a pr problem . Yes, i think we do, certainly. But its very varied. Its very curious why in some countries the resistance is extremely strong and in other countries they take it much more with greater ee qui anymorety. I remember after chernobyl accident, senator said a Nuclear Accident is an accident everywhere. Not only fukushima, at threemile island, what lessons could be learned from that or from the chernobyl accident. Now often chernobyl have you to recognize the ukrainians have not reduced their wish to use Nuclear Power. As i mentioned, about 50 of their electricity is nuclear, so they continue. They were not very shaken by this. Whereas in germany, there was enormous reaction already after chernobyl and the fukushima came, then the Public Opinion was so strong, that mrs. Merkel that they would phase out Nuclear Power rather quickly to the beginning of the 1920s italy and switzerland, have been phasing it out. The italians didnt really have any. Whereas in the uk, they are deciding when gas is coming out for in the north sea, they will go for more Nuclear Power and they decided on building a huge plant with french technology. In finland, swedish neighboring country, theyre also building one new power and have taken the decision on yet another one. Where we really see the big expansion is the far east, is china, it is south korea, its india, and many other asian countries. Iran, as you well know. Turkey as well. Lots of expansion there. And i think that one thing the western world should remember about this expansion is that we feel often that the asian competition is very strong. They have competition advantage in low wages. But are we going to spend an enormous amount of money on solar power and wind power thats coming down in price, thats good, but nevertheless remains expensive. Will not then be another competitive disadvantage for the western industry. I think they should be aware of that problem. Now, the answer to these questions lies in strength, as ms. Mcfaack fair lane speaks ab. I remember that after the threemile island, safety vents were introduced in many plants so if there was overpressure, one could have left out the overpressure. At the same time, catch the radioactivity. I dont think they had that in fukushima, if they could have had it. Theres also questions about the placement of this generator generate electric generators so lots of things that could be learned. And that will have to be learned by the industry that is now in operation. To make it even safer. Three big islands, the accidents we have had in that period but we cannot afford to have more accidents. But for the future, i think its also what i asked you about, namely the innovation. The new generation that is coming on stage. Is it generation three, where its ap1,000, a westinghouse reactor, which im told have a much greater guarantee against core melts, is that generation much superior to what we are seeing now, the generation two . And can we also hope for the generation four that are already on the drawing boards to be more use the energy more efficiently than thorium or uranium now . What can we hope for the future . Thanks very much for that. And thanks for answering a bit more of the question. In terms of the generation three plants that dr. Blix spoke of, in the u. S. We have four reactors under construction. The ap1,000 design made by westinghouse. Two in georgia, two in south carolina. And theyll come online in the next three or four years, i would imagine. We are overseeing their construction quite heavily. We have a lot of inspectors out there every day inspecting the construction of these plants. And china is further ahead, actually, in building ap1,000s. There are two ap1,000 plants in china under construction right now. Theyll start up sooner. You mentioned the french design, the epr design, which is under construction in finland and in france. Theres two under construction there. The plants there, unfortunately, have experienced incredible delays. So, generation three is, lets see how it operates, when it actually comes online. Our job is to make sure these things operate safely. Not to promote them but make sure they operate safely, so well see. We actually at the Nuclear Regulatory commission within a few weeks ago gave a license to a new design, new design certification application we approved for the what they called the esbwr. And that one well see if thats constructed anywhere, too. Its a sort of wait and see. The koreans are building their model of reactor, the apr1400, theyre Building Four of those right now in united arab emirates, a country heretofore did not have Nuclear Power. We work closely with their regulator as well. So, in terms of the generation four designs, which are even more advanced reactor, frankly, they are all paper reactors. They exist only on paper. And its really we have not seen any design certification applications for those reactors nor do we expect any time in the next, probably five to ten years, so thats really further off in the future. In the in between, something you didnt mention is something called a Small Modular Reactor, which is a lightwater reactor design. All the reactors in the u. S. Are lightwater reactors. Its a much smaller reactor because right now in the world, there are only large and extra large reactors. You cannot buy small and medium. The Small Modular Reactors we have been having discussions with some of the u. S. Domestic potential Small Modular Reactor designers. They intend to submit design certification applications in 2016, a few of them, so well see whapdz. Well see if we get those design certification applications because they have already been delayed. And well see how we go forward. So, i dont want to go too far out to the future. The nuclear entry industry is a changing animal. Of course, there are multiple influences all around. Five years ago, ten years ago, we were facing a very different future. The expectation was there would be a Nuclear Renaissance that we would be constructing a lot of power reactors. We at the Nuclear Regulatory commission staffed up for that renaissance. It has not appeared. So, we are now just making sure that we are going to be flexible, adjustable and and im not going to get too far out in front of my headlights, as one of my Staff Members says. Thank you. That was very good answer. Thank you very much. Can we switch geerdz to a much easier topic . Iran. Obviously, with the focus having been on russia, ukraine, now on isis and ebola, many people have not recognized that in less than a couple weeks, on november 24th, were hitting another deadline with the iranians. As most of you know, certainly the people on this panel know, the p5 plus 1, who are the Group Negotiating with iranians have given an extension. It expires on the 24th. Rose, help people understand the key negotiating issues. I think people are a little confused. Iranians are focused on their civilian program. Obviously, our allies are also concerned about them kreegt weapons that could be used against their allies and ultimately understanding of their programs and end goal. So, help us think about this issue holistically and what were doing about it. Thank you very much, tom. I like to think about this problem as having a couple of different parts to it. The first part is now the longrange concern that the International Community has that iran is stepping away from obligations to be a nonnuclear weapon state under the nonproliferation treaty. It says the program that it has pursued to put in place Nuclear Power reactors, to develop its own indigenous enrichment capability, all of that is to produce nuclear fuel for its own Nuclear Power plants. Its a peaceful Nuclear Power program. Yet over the years weve seen many, many hints that, in fact, there could be a military aspect to this program. The fact that iran has built so much enrichment capacity is of great concern because it looks like its way beyond the bounds of what would be needed for a reasonable Nuclear Power program to support the iranian economy. So, there are longrunning concerns. This story has been on you know, unraveling over the past several decades. So, theres some really serious concerns there. I say there are a couple of different tracks here. Hans knows this. The iaea has been trying to work with the iranians to assuage iaea concerns about possible military uses of various technologies the iranians have been developing. And the iaea has been sending inspection teams in to check up on all aspects of the program. But they have not yet been satisfied. Theres that iaea aspect. Then theres the negotiation, the p5 plus 1, that includes the p5, so u. S. , uk, france. China. China, russia, thank you. Germany. Germany as the plus one and eu is at the negotiating table as well. Its a big group of negotiators on our side. But their issues have to do with really trying to get a handle on these big visible signs that iran may be heading toward a military program. I talked about enrichment capacity, trying to get the enrichment capacity shrunk way down, looking at the heavy water reactor that the iranians had been building at iraq. What better use for a big heavywater reactor than for military use to produce weapons. Frankly, its not a negotiation im in charge of. Its been run by my counterpart undersecretary of state, wendy sherman. Shes now working with the deputy secretary will barnes, and the secretary himself, kerry was in vienna to wrestle with this negotiation. So, there are a lot of hef hitters coming to the table to try to get progress. I can see technical aspects are in place but the big heavy lifting is on the political side. Specifically in tehran, will they be able to tat political steps, make the political decisions to bring this negotiation home. Well see how it goes. We have another month or so but it is a very urgent time in this negotiation. Dr. Blix, im getting the hook here, but since youre the one awardwinner at the table, id like to you have the last word on the iranian negotiation and the question is, can we get a deal . I certainly hope we will have a deal because i think at the current time when we have the ukrainian crisis still on, much tensions and rearmament going on, i think we need a one little victory. I think syria was one victory where they managed to get together and tom ko the conclusion. And i think they would be a tremendous help to the International Scene if we discovered that the p5 plus 1 did succeed. Rose naturally spoke with the u. S. Background and she is right, but could supplement that by saying the iranians had one Research Reactor and in which the khomeini came to power, the Research Reactor was the origin, the trigger reactor. When khomeini came to power, they ordered new fuel for that reactor but the u. S. Government then stopped the u. S. Government stopped it. I dont think the iranians got their money back. They had to buy it from argentina. They said we better be selfsufficient. Thats one reason why they started an enrichment. Its right. I agree with rose. They produce much, much more than they could possibly need for the two reactors that will have russian fuel for a long time. They didnt really need that. On the other hand, for the western world to say to the iranians that you have contact with russia, why dont you trust that. The western world does not tell the germans they should rely on russian gas delivery. I can see an element in this that is forgotten is that of pride and humiliation. The iranians feel that once iraq was kicked out by the foreign help, thats the the story they never forget. The u. S. Never forgets the seizure, the occupation of the american embassy. Here are emotions that are deeply ingrained in it. They have to come out of this through practical action. I think they will. The interim agreement reached last year and prolonged in the summer is one that under which the iranians stop producing you a producing uranium. So they have gone down to the level which is needed for power reactors. Stays ing at that is a good th. The other is the international inspection. Not like the one in iraq under the Security Council. But very intrusive inspection. I think they will be able to take that, which i saw being created in the 1990s. Here again the issue i brought up about independence and credible international verification. If they kick out the inspectors, that will be a warning signal. I think that will be enough. Some will never be satisfied with whatever. They would like to close the whole industry all together. I dont think thats very likely to happen. They certainly would not have the support of the general assembly. The developing countries feel going for Nuclear Power is a question of pride and their right. They dont want to be held back by the industrialized world. Thank you very much for your insight. Madam undersecretary, madam chairman, thank you all. I think the breadth of your focus and commitment to the most important issues is an honor to those of us who have served and for those of us who have not served. Let me just end on one quick note. This program that you have all been involved in, someone who worked at the state department and was in charge of the Funding Department is the best return on investment that the state department has. Its a phenomenal program. Its something that i think the country benefits the the world benefits. Thank you for what you did to be part of that. Thank you for coming and thank the panel once again. Lets give them a round of applause. [ applause ] no one tells me. I was told i had to end at 9 40 and had to good out of here. Questions, please. This question is directed thank you. I didnt think i needed a mike since i did drama throughout high school and college. But all is good. This question is directed towards all of you, and specifically dr. Blitz. I agree with you, indeed, that there say fair factor since the chernobyl incident in 1986. Do you not think that perhaps much of the propaganda that circulated at that time and continued of instilling fear in the west as well as the neighboring countries on the border of the wall or the division between the east and the west, a lot has to do with literature, for example, christa wolf, the group 47 and the germanspeaking countries and it may impact they tend to focus on different types of film, but a documentary did focus on the fear factor of Nuclear Weapons and possible nuclear warfare. The second part is, how can we deter this fear that we have towards Nuclear Energy, which i certainly am a proponent and supporter of . Thank you very much. Dr. Blitz, do you want to start . Very quickly. Thank you very much. I think you are right. What is the root cause of the opposition and fear . I think that relates the fear of radiation. Our body, they are geared to warn us against different dangers, eyes, ears, nose. But not for radiation. Therefore, where he particul therefore, we are particularly concerned for radiation. Its everywhere. We should be aware that there are instruments that pick it up very easily. We have to be aware that where he part of radiation. Our bodies are radio contain radioactivity. We know that we rely on the sunshine. We take a little sunshine, we may be tan, but if we stay very long, its dangerous. The same with other radiation, high concentrated, it may be dangerous. We have to explain. As i said in my introduction, it will not be enough to convince. We will need to have an industry that functions extremely well. But you dont have any big accidents. I think where e are on the way. We have an advancement, a new e reactor. Wom there is one in china. Its a small reactor, it cannot have a core melt because of the construction. You may correct me on that. Do you want to add to this . Sure. I think the doctor has hit the nail on the head. Part of the reason for fear of radiation is you cannot sense it. We could be irradiated and we wouldnt have any idea. I hope not. You are right. Bad choice of seats. Unfortunately, we dont, as far as i know have any radiation monitors in the room. Thats the problem. So i think actually one needs to acknowledge the fear. We have seen what happens when you drop Nuclear Bombs on countries. Right . We have seen now a large area of japan made uninhabitable. Thats not something that you can ignore. But i think whats very important to do, especially from a regulatory perspective, is to engage the public. Listen to the concerns. Respond to them. Develop trust. Thats whats important. If you dont have that trust, if you just please listen to me, i know more than you and just trust me because of that, youre never going to get anywhere. I think you really need that engagement. I think thats the kind of thing that will help a lot. Again, lets thank the panel. Thank you very much. [ applause ] while they make their way off the stage, we have coffee out there. Its a break time. We have our poster presenters. If they could make their way to the poster. You have an opportunity to mingle with interesting people. Get back by ten after 10 00. We will start the next session at 10 15 sharp. Thank you. Coming up next, a look at promoting democracy abroad. Then the National Academy of social insurance talks about the future of social security. Later, a discussion on assets stolen from arab spring countries. Here is our prommin iprogra. A look at how one community is handling the influx of young undocumented immigrants. Efforts to provide children with education and health services. A discussion on cronyism and government. Thoughts from the hungry minds speaker series, colorado. Here is a preview. So long as we view governments role as essentially dividing us, which is the affect, dividing us into warring factions or Interest Groups, corruption will be the rule or the use of force against one person, one person against another and warring Interest Groups and legal plunder is the only option. A better world for the term that people refer to or the term that they use, i would say instead of crony capitalism it suggests that capitalism, which is the system of freedom is leading to this the better term is crony statism, statism being the syst system in which you are subordinated to the group or state. But thats redundant in my view. The real essential evil here is that form of government. Its statism. If you want to pinpoint what the problem is, when people talk about cronyism, its the view that the state is supreme and individuals are subordinate. If we want to fix this problem, the only solution ultimately is, i would sum it up as leave us alone. Join us tonight on the cspan for interviews with retiring members of congress. Tom harkin and howard coble. This thanksgiving week, cspan is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. Watch the interviews tonight through thursday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. I have often said the republicans have a legitimate argument here in that they are not being allowed to offer amendments. Theyre not being allowed to offer amendments because they filibuster bills because theyre not allowed to talk. Its a chicken and egg thing. Just get rid of the filibuster but guarantee to the minority in new rules in the senate that the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill thats on the floor. To that legislation with reasonable time limits for debate. The late henry hyde i wont kwaulqualify by saying most eloquent in the congress. He told me one time, i think i remember this correctly, im not wild about this impeachment. But he said, there are 23 americans serving active prison sentences for having committed perjury. He said, how do you justify that and then turn a blind eye to the president . He said, i cant do it. I will always remember henry saying that. On thursday, we will take an American History tour of various native american tribes. Thats at 10 00 a. M. Eastern following washington journal. Then at 1 30, attend the Ground Breaking ceremony of the new Diplomacy Center in washington with former secretaries of state. Supreme court justices, thomas, o and others this week. The Foreign Policy Research Institute and the Cannon Institute looked at efforts to promote democracy around the globe. We will hear from a former ambassador, head of the National Endowment. Hello, everyone. Thank you very much for coming. My name is christian caryl. Im the editor of democracy lab, a joint venture between a magazine and we cover transitioning democracies, democratic transitions around the world. Because thats my subject, i have been asked to moderate the second panel. When i was asked to moderate this panel, i found myself thinking about a moment a few weeks ago when i was in rwanda. I found myself having drinks in a very nice outdoor cafe with a general, one of the members of the ruling party of rwanda, who was very upset with the flak they have been getting on human rights lately. As you probably know, they have a very tough autocratic regime. But they are very good at on corruption issues, on governing issues. They are a darling of the International Donor community. This general wanted to take me to task. You and the west have your own ideas of democracy. We have our own notions of democracy. You cant tell us what to do. You cant go on criticizing us forever. The really fascinating thing was that unlike perhaps a chinese or russian in this situation, he was not my enemy and didnt see himself as such. He was quite proud of his countrys record on a number of things. He wanted contact with the west. He wanted to see rwandans educated in the west. He wanted westerners there. It was a very, very interesting, complicated mix of things. And i thought of him when i was asked to moderate this panel, which is in some ways the panel about tactics. The last panel was very much a panel about the big picture, about vision, about strategy. This panel we would like to talk about how you would get it done. So, for example, when i was talking to my general, i found myself wondering, how do you go about promoting democracy in a country like that . Do you try to cultivate Civil Society . Do you educate do you train lawyers . Do you promote free media . Do you actually just forget about those things and concentrate on Economic Development . Its those sort of questions that we would like to focus on in this panel. For that reason, i dont want to talk any more. I would rather give the floor to the experts. So i think the best thing for me to do is to hand it over to the esteemed sarah bush. Lets have a big round of applause for her and the other members of the panel. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be a part of this. Citing conference. Its an honer to discussion these issues with this panelist and with awful you. So as our moderator noted, in this panel, in contrast to the previous one focusing on questions like whether the United States should promote democracy, im going to be focusing my remarks on the topic of how the United States should promote democracy. I think this nuts and bolts question of how the United States should promote democracy is vitally important. Although, its one that has often been i think overlooked in the debates that we have been having about democracy promotion in the big picture over the last decade or so. But i do think that it the devil is in the details when it comes to democracy promotion as it does with so many things. If were not promoting democracy effectively or if we cant promote democracy effectively, then we probably need to reassess whether we should promote democracy at all. On the flip side, if democracy promotion works, then i think its really hard to argue that it shouldnt be part of the Foreign Policy picture. So im going to try to focus my remarks on the question of what we have learned about how to promote democracy after three decades. Im approaching this question from my perspective as a University Professor and as someone who follows the large and growing body of research on the topic and im grateful that other people who are on the panel with me can speak from their rich personal experiences working in this field. So from where i stand, the perspective from the researched on democracy assistance is effectiveness is mixed. So i will start with what i think is the good news. From what i see, american democracy assistance works on average at aiding countries to democratic. There was a study conducted by a highly respected and independent scholars to investigate the subject of usaid program effectiveness. They found both in the report that they were commissioned to write as well as in a peer review study published by a journal based at Princeton University that on average u. S. Aid programs do have a causal a positive causal impact on democracy. But they noticed a lot of challenges to identifying this kind of affect. So one of the challenges they noted is that the countries that get targeted to receive democracy aid are not selected at random. They tend not to be like the countries that dont receive aid. That makes it hard to make a good comparison to gauge the effectiveness of the programs. They also noted that it can be hard to agree on how to define and measure democracy. Although we have a number of indicators from Freedom House and from the qualify project among others that do give us excellent measures of democracy, we worry that these indicators may be at such a high level that its difficult to assess the impact of programs in the way that we need to do to know under what conditions they are effective. Another problem that was noted by the study is that some of our Historical Records on u. S. Democracy and governance programs are poor. So there are a lot of challenges to identifying their impact. But no matter how the scholars sliced and diced the data, they found it good. The news gets better because it wasnt just this group of people that find this relationship. Numerous other independent scholars have replicated the findings. People like james scott and kerry steele and others. Not only do they find democracy aid seems to be positively associated with this, they find democracy aid seems to help countries that are emerging from civil conflict, maintain a fragile peace by reducing political uncertainty. I think that speaks to some of the debates from the Previous Panel about fragility and uncertainty. Although theres all this good news, theres also some bad news. From where i sit, although the sudden did is seem to show it works on average, we dont have a fully compelling understanding of why it works and under what conditions it works. Thats tricky. Without that knowledge, its hard to figure out how to avoid some of the headline grabbing worse Case Scenarios of the past. Its hard to know how to design programs better in the future. I wanted to offer some tentative ideas here about the conditions under which democracy promotion seeps most likely to succeed. Im sure others on the panel are maybe some of you can and will disagree with me. Which is fine. I would like to propose what i would call the three ds of democracy assistance effectiveness. The first d is donor interests. This is already something that we have talked about in the Previous Panel. Donors interests matter a lot for democracy aid. One of the emerging consensus findings is that conditionality by which i mean the linking of punishments and rewards to demands for improved democratic conduct, it can really work. An excellent recent book has been published on the subject of democracy promotion and elections. Here im quoting from her and saying that she found that its rare that normative criticism alone can influence a leader with a track record of electoral misconduct. Aid alone is often unsufficient. Instead, countries democrat advertise when the United States and other western countries bring out the carrots and sticks. Although this is an obvious point, it is worth repeating here that democracy promotion activities face an uphill battle in the countries where the United States doesnt want democracy. From my point of view, it makes sense for a u. S. Government agency to concentrate scarce type and money and other resources in the countries where the u. S. Is willing to back up democracy assistance with other tools of pressure, be they conditionality or diplomacy. Otherwise, i worry that democracy promotion can end up playing into the hands of undemocratic leaders, the people who you would want it to challenge. My second d for democracy assistant is delivery. To have a shot at supporting Democratic Change in countries where the United States has competing interests, initiatives that have insulation from the u. S. Government like the National Endowment for democracy have to be an essential part of the formula. Although, im sure many people in the room have experience with this, that american ngos that receive government funding to work on democracy in a developing world, although they may have some suspicions that they have to face, i think is really important from the perspective to use strategies insue lated from the u. S. Government. Doing so prevents competing Foreign Policy objectives from overwhelming the programs good intentions of promoting democracy. Funding democracy outside of the u. S. Government is often the best strategy, because doing so ties the u. S. Governments hands and prevents it from interfering in programming decisions. Otherwise, here i return to my first d of donors interests, its too easy for donors interesting to swamp good intentions. I think there are a couple of other aspects of delivery, my second d that are important for democracy assistances efficacy. Will mention one here. We could go on. In my own research, one of the thing iz have looked at is how difficult it can be for donters to keep track of results overseas and how sometimes this can lead organizations to focus a lot of energy on programs that seem likely to produce quick, quantitative outputs and outcomes which may not be the same programs that are most likely to democratize countries. Its important to have it delivered in ways to help them monitor success so that they dont end up having to encourage organizations in what a former speaker termed the Democracy Technology to teach to the test instead of innovate. My fellow panelist Melinda Haring has written about the importance role that competition can play in helping officials keep track of results overseas. I hope thats something she will pick up in her remarks. My third d is design. One of the most consistent problems that i have seen be devil democracy assistance in the middle east as well as in other regions of the world is that sometimes the u. S. Government whether for conditions at home or conditions in the country where the programs are taking place, u. S. Government is not in a position to support directly support activities that are genuinely likely to promote democracy. Many of the u. S. Government efforts that i have seen in the region are quite tame. Theyre not very confrontational towards the status quo. They may take on issues like promoting womens inclusion or local governance in an undemocratic environment. I think that these types of programs may be good and right. In my own research in jordan, i find that these programs can have very positive affects. However, i think that these kinds of programs are more questionably democratizing. Although it may be the case that they plant the seeds for Democratic Change in the future, i think the jury is still out on whether or not thats the case. So in my view, democracy is sis tans seems most poised to have a positive affect with countries with generalen opposition movement. To wrap up here, because i think im running out of time, you can view the core components of u. S. Democracy promotion from a Glass Half Full or a glass half empty perspective. Im going with Glass Half Full for today, at least. And i think one of the things that makes me optimistic about the future of u. S. Democracy promotion is the recent push towards aid transparency. There are a number of initiatives in this realm. One of them that i will highlight is a recent u. S. Aid funded ada ta which is gathering data on u. S. Government aid projects. Ada taid data is leading new ca studies of democracy assistance and foreign assistance, many of which are modelled on the research of Award Winning economist esther deflow. I think this Movement Towards looking at the microlevel, trying to have more transparency in the allocation and design of foreign aid and really looking agent the details of how programs work on the ground overseas, of course, its not a panacea for any of the political problems identified in the Previous Panel, however, if democracy promotion is here to stay and i imagine that it is, i think this kind of detailed knowledge is just what we need to understand the questions of why and under what conditions aid will work and until were finished looking through these case studies, i will leave with you my own speculation about the three ds, donor interests, delivery and design. Thanks for that. Lets go to tsveta for her words. Thank you so much for including me in this conversation. I think im one of the few relative optimists in the room. For that reason, again, im especially grateful to be here since sometimes it feels that there are fewer optimists left nowadays than there were some time before ago. My own work is on the democracy promotion efforts of the center in Eastern European countries, members of the european union. So those would be poland, czech republic, slovakia, baltic countries. This work has provided me with an unintended but i think valuable and unique perspective on the effectiveness of democracy effectiveness. I would like to give you a sense on how they are promoting democracy and what that teaches us about the effectiveness of u. S. Assistance. Then i will move on to briefly reflect on the effectiveness of the center in Eastern Europeans themselves and then what are the potential Cooperation Opportunities i see between center and Eastern Europe and u. S. In the field of democracy promotion. Now, what i have learned about promotion is that some n some countries it started almost immediately after their own democratic break through. And it was championed by some of the same people who organized those domestic breakthroughs. So given the nature of those of regime change in central and Eastern Europe, Civil Society has played an important and driving role in terms of democracy promotion both as implementers of such support abroad as well as champions and sad voe cats for their states to invest in supporting this. The central and Eastern European countries have leverages their channels as well as various citizen diplomacy forums to support this and have leverages their membership in the nato. A number of the central and Eastern European countries have started providing democracy assistance but its more on technical than the financial side. So in some we have several of these countries that have began supporting democracy primary in their neighborhood. They have emphasized diplomacy and regional multilateral diplomacy. Their efforts have tended to be limited in terms of the number of recipients and the Geographic Scope of recipients to a few neighboring countries. Those are points i will come to later come back to later in my presentation. At this point you may wonder what if any role the u. S. Has played inner counsencouraging promotion. I have seen two types of impact. The first one is that in a number of the conversations that i had with key civic activists and Foreign Policymakers, i kept hearing a common refrain, which is to use a quote from one of my interviews, we have a debt to be repaid. So most of the people i talked to express a belief that they should themselves support democracy abroad because they received such support from a number of countries in the west and especially from the u. S. So what that says to me is that u. S. Democracy promotion in central and Eastern Europe has mattered because some of its recipients are still active domestically. Those were some of the key ngos. And secondly, u. S. Democracy assistance and promotion more broadly has mattered because it has had multiplier affects. Some a direct recipient of assistance are now providing assistance east and southeast. A second way in which i have seen u. S. Democracy promotion matter is in the specific activities that are undertaken by the central and Eastern Europeans. They have a very political approach to supporting democracy abroad. By that i mean that they seek to often types in general seek to build a reservoir of democratic actors in the recipient institutions who would push their country in a more democratic direction at opportune moments. In other words, the central and Eastern European appropriate is like the u. S. Approach except with less emphasis on elections. To the extent that the u. S. Has again similarly built sought to build and empower political actors in central and east he were europe and we have a number of practitioners and academics arguing it has done that, we have seen that it has succeeded. Because the central and Eastern Europeans who were empowered by the u. S. In part and who are now seeking to share some of the best practices of their own democratization experience, including best practices that were developed by the u. S. In fact, again, thinking to the conversations i had with a number of those individuals, they often times shared that it was external and primary u. S. Support that helped develop a sector of political actors in central and Eastern Europe. Those are actors that would have probably been under developed or missing because of the nature of their work and its opposition to powerful domestic political and economic actors. Again stepping back, what that tells me is that u. S. Democracy promotion has mattered but also the specific activities through which it has been implemented has also mattered. Because it has produced enduring domestic actors. It has empowered enduring domestic actors. The caveat here is that some of those actors are struggling to survive. They have the withdrawal of u. S. Support have become somewhat dependant on eu funding. But they are active and they are an important part of the domestic debate in those countries, which again i think is a positive sign. At this point i want to pause a little bit and say that i trust these findings primarily because i did not ask the central and Eastern Europe yaps about the u. S. Role in supporting democracy in central and eastern