Winning the War Against Terrorism: Next Steps

November 30, 2001

Transcript prepared from a tape recording

8:15-9:00 a.m.	Breakfast Discussion
	Charles Hagel, U.S. Senate (R-Nebraska)
9:00-10:30 a.m.	CONFRONTING THE TERRORISTS
	Iain Duncan Smith, Leader of the Opposition, U.K. Effi Eitam (Fein), Brigadier General (Reserve), Israel Defense Forces Onur Oymen, Turkish Ambassador to NATO
	Moderator:	Jeffrey Gedmin, New Atlantic Initiative, AEI
10:30 a.m.-Noon	CURRENT STRATEGIES AND WHAT WE KNOW FROM HISTORY
	Jane Harman, U.S. House of Representatives (D-Calif.) Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister Fred Thompson, U.S. Senate (R-Tenn.)
	Moderator:	Jeane Kirkpatrick, AEI
12:00-2:00 p.m.	CONFRONTING THE STATES THAT SPONSOR TERRORISM
	Richard Butler, Council on Foreign Relations   Sophia Clement, French Ministry of Defense   Mansoor Ijaz, Crescent Investment Management LLC   Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute
	Moderator:	Constanze Stelzenmueller, Die Zeit (Hamburg)

Proceedings:

SEN. HAGEL: Well, thank you. I am grateful for an opportunity to say hello and participate briefly this morning. I know you have all been treated to the normal, elegant AEI breakfast. It's inspirational, really. (Laughter.) And it's always fun to be back here, because it is a repository of great thinking and great ability and knowledge, and occasionally you allow a weak-minded senator to slip through the net and come anyway. So I appreciate you allowing me some time.

I don't want to include my colleague Fred Thompson in that weak- minded Senate category, so when he's here this morning, I don't want any of you to misrepresent what I've said, calling him weak-minded. He is not.

Let me comment just briefly on the group of people that you will exchange views with today, because, as I looked over the list yesterday, Jeff, it really is an extraordinarily able, experienced, talented, insightful group of individuals who will have much to share with you.

I don't have a speech this morning. I know you're all upset with that. I'm not sure I could dispense any insightful commentary to this group on the big issues of our time. So what I will do is offer some thoughts, I hope relative to the subject matter and to the theme of your day, and then open it up and talk about anything that you would like to talk about. Mr. Ambassador, nice to see you again. Thank you. Thank you very much.

There is really no one that I'm aware of who does not understand that we are living through historic times. The historic proportions that we deal with minute to minute are extraordinary. That means, of course, unprecedented opportunities, but unprecedented challenges.

Many of you are familiar with and I suspect have even read the great book that Arnold Toynbee wrote years ago about civilizations. And I don't at all claim to have read all of that book. I've read parts of it. But if you read it and if you recall anything about Toynbee's book on civilizations, of those 21 civilizations I believe that he wrote about, he said that the one common denominator for each civilization was challenge and response, challenge and response. And that framed each civilization.

And so it is today. We have a challenge before the world, and it is complicated. It is multifaceted. It is not one-dimensional but rather multi, multidimensional. And that not only requires insightful, courageous, bold, visionary leadership, but it also will require a certain amount of, and maybe at times the majority, of making it up as we go along, not unlike what Harry Truman and Arthur Vandenberg and the United States Congress dealt with after World War II when the world was on its back and the world looked to the United States to do something. Now what do we do? Not again unlike your theme this morning, "Next Steps." What happens next? Challenge, response.

Truman did not have the luxury of deferring those decisions. He did not have the luxury of going to the playbook or the road map or the blueprint. They didn't exist; different times. The world was waiting. And I think we are living, in some ways, at somewhat an analogous time.

History shows us clearly that great defining events in history occur every 50 years, certainly 75, 60 years; it's not exact. But these defining events -- and certainly September 11th was a defining event; it will define an entire generation of Americans, just as Vietnam defined a generation, World War II defined a generation, World War I and the Depression defined a generation. But this has now rippled out where it is not just about Americans. The defining dynamics here are worldwide.

And one of the great challenges I think we have in this country, as policymakers, and what the president is dealing with, all of us, all of us who are privileged to play some role, is trying to come to some understanding with and then grasp of devising a governing infrastructure that now can address all these global dynamics, not just what has been forced on us as a redefinition of world relationships as a result of September 11th. And make no mistake, the world relationships are changed, will change, and what happened September 11th will redefine much of our relationships forever in the world.

I am not near wise enough to figure all that out. But I am, I think, smart enough to understand that that is occurring. That's occurring every day. And we have a momentous opportunity here to restructure, reshape, redefine parts of the world that we might not have had an opportunity to reshape and redefine for a long time, maybe not even in our lifetimes.

And you can take any piece of those -- and this, again, goes right back to the topic of your day, "Winning the War Against Terrorism: Next Steps" -- our relationships with Iran, our relationships in the Middle East, with the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the Caspian Sea energy issue; the two great challenge issues for the United States to get right over the next few years, our relationship with China and our relationship with Russia.

Those are fundamentals that we've got to get right. We must stabilize those relationships, define those relationships. They'll be imperfect, imprecise. We'll make mistakes. But I think that's the great charge of our time, for those of us in office, to get those Russian-Chinese relationships right, not at the expense of the rest of the world or the rest of the relationships, because they all fit together.

Again, if we just focus on what's happening in Afghanistan, before September 11th, it would have been rather difficult to understand or appreciate the kind of relationships and cooperation that are developing in that part of the world, that, in fact, are happening and developing. And why is that more than anything else? Because this president, this secretary of State, Joe Biden as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, any one of us has somehow come into a new zone and orbit -- Senator, good morning. Of new understanding? No, I don't think so.

What has directed this more than anything else is the mutual common denominator, self-interest, of Russia, of China, of the United States, of all organized societies in the world; imperfect, just as relationships that we have with every nation is imperfect, and there will be differences. But it is now through the forces of reality forcing the United States to deal with issues that we've not dealt with before, partly because we haven't had to deal with before. And, not unlike democracies, we tend to defer things.

Winston Churchill, among many of his marvelous speeches to the House of Commons, in one particular speech in 1939 referred to the "jarring gong of reality, the jarring gong of self-preservation." Well, again, I think September 11th surely would fit within Churchill's definition of a "jarring gong." Domestically, everything we're doing, of course, here is adjusting to that, not just protecting against the next terrorist attack but trying to prevent against the next terrorist attack. That embroiders around our relationships in the world.

One of the things that I learned a long time ago from a lot of good people that helped me in life was often I would be reminded in business, whatever I did, of this: Then what happens? So you win militarily in Afghanistan. How do you define victory? But once you've devised that definition, then what happens next?

Well, what happens next is what's going on in Bonn, because none of this counts unless those questions, like next steps, are dealt with, and not dealt with after the first phase is over, the military phase, because the military phase is only one of four components of a new war. That is not unique just to this situation -- military, diplomatic, economic.

And maybe the most important of all is humanitarian, because the humanitarian dynamic, which I think this country has overlooked for a long time, deals generally, not precisely, with the breeding-ground problems that we have, where fundamentalism, radicalism, terrorism get started. And when people have no hope because they are hungry -- they have no jobs, no future -- then something's going to happen, and it normally isn't going to be very good, what happens.

So as these tracks work their way along and as we try to stay out in front of dealing with next steps -- and the question that I was asked and still try to ask myself, especially as a policymaker, what happens next? What happens next is that we must try to do everything we can to put together a governing coalition, not imposed by us, not imposed by the West, that can govern Afghanistan.

It is in our self-interest, obviously, and the self-interest of that entire region to have some stability. And if we can accomplish that, then the other big issues that are attached to what has happened in Afghanistan and why -- and it all goes back always to a more just world -- then we can work on those every step of the way. And again, it comes right back to the point of next steps.

Let me take two specific points and then we'll open it up and talk about whatever you want to talk about. Iraq. I have been asked, I suspect as most of my colleagues, over the last couple of days often, "Are we going to bomb Iraq? Are we going to attack Iraq? Is the president setting something up here?" And I respond by saying, as I have for the last two months, Saddam Hussein is going to have to be dealt with.

Now, how we deal with him should be essentially based on our terms with our coalition, in my opinion. I don't think this president, this Congress, is going to do anything foolish. I don't think there's going to be any unilateral, arbitrary decision to send B-52s over Baghdad and then have the White House call Joe Biden and Jesse Helms and others and say, "Oh, by the way, we're bombing Baghdad." I don't think that'll happen. That won't happen as well with our coalition partners.

We will deal with Saddam Hussein on our terms, on our time frame, with our coalition partners. Now, will that coalition be the same, in the same way, same involvement as what we are seeing in Afghanistan? No, I suspect not. But the reality is, just like there's a reality, in my opinion, on Iran, Iran is not going anywhere.

I have believed for a long time -- and I've spent a little time in that area -- that if you are going to see any full potential coming out of that area, just in the area of energy, you cannot do that without somehow Iran being involved. We are seeing Iran's involvement through third parties, back channels, some cooperation working the Afghanistan issue.

These are new times, new possibilities, new opportunities. It's a new day. Now, that also means that we must stay clear-headed in what we're doing. But it is going to require, I think, when you isolate, for example, on Iran or Iraq, or what General Zinni is doing in the Middle East and Ambassador Burns' efforts, it's going to take a certain sense of bold, dynamic leadership here.

There's going to be some risk involved in this. We don't live in a risk-free society. We don't live in a risk-free world. And if, in fact, we want to make the world better and more just, there is going to be risk adjusted always and margined into what we are doing.

Well, I'll leave it at that with Iran and Iraq, and you can pursue that if you wish. You've got some tremendous speakers today who will get into that in great detail and who are well-qualified to talk about that part of the world. But I wanted to share with you some of my general thoughts on this.

And I would conclude, Jeff, with this point, as I began. I think we are on the brink of being able to do some historic and imaginary things that would accomplish humanitarian goals that just a few years ago we might not have even thought about. I think the constellation here that we are dealing with is giving us an opportunity, with the stars aligned as they are aligned, if we are wise in how we do this -- and again, it's going to take some bold thinking here and real leadership, central, American leadership -- that we can do something here that will ripple and project out and affect people not just in that part of the world -- the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia -- but have an immense impact all over the world; trade, energy, relationships, economic consequences. All these are mixed into this.

I don't have to tell you, if you look at our economy today and how we have not yet recovered, many industries in this country, in the world, from September 11th. So we must not forget that all of these dynamics are connected. You cannot make military policy in a vacuum, and I don't believe this administration is. And, by the way, I'm very supportive of what the president and this administration are doing right down the line on every issue. I think they've handled this superbly.

Tough issues are ahead. I think they will look back one day on this and find their best days are probably behind them here. It only gets more difficult from here on, because the choices are more difficult. The issues are more difficult. But this can be done.

So I am very hopeful. I am one who believes that everything is possible. And there will be setbacks, and we must understand that and be realistic about that. But in the end, if we stay steady and we're forceful with this leadership, we can accomplish an awful lot for mankind.

So, Jeff, fire away.

MODERATOR: Senator, thank you. Thank you very much. Before we began this morning, I asked Senator Hagel how he was for time, and he said to me that the time was less important; he had deep and keen interest in you and this conversation and he wasn't worried about that.

SEN. HAGEL: I said I wanted to learn something.

MODERATOR: I looked at the two staff members who brought him over here, and they had a different look in their eye. (Laughter.) We're not going to let you down. We're not going to let them down either. We have a few minutes for some questions. What I would suggest is let's take a round of questions and give you a chance to respond to the round in total, and then we'll bring the session to a close to keep you on your tight schedule.

Who would like to be first? If you'd raise your hand. There are hand-held microphones that will come to you. And not only for our sake but for the sake of C-SPAN viewers, if you would identify yourself and your affiliation. Krista, there's one right back here. And also, I urge you to be brief.

Q Peter Range, Democratic Leadership Council Blue Print Magazine editor.

Senator, you said you're with the administration 100 percent on every policy decision so far. Does that include the president's decision to convene military tribunals for non-nationals when he sees fit? And if so, can you defend that policy?

MODERATOR: Senator, if I may, let's hold that and let's take a whole series together.

SEN. HAGEL: Okay. All right.

MODERATOR: Who's next? Yes, right here in the front row.

Q Mohammed Wahby, and I'm the bureau chief of Al Mussawar news magazine, which is Cairo-based. Senator, you hinted something about the fact that America neglected some humanitarian problems in the world and that without, of course, mentioning anything regarding the link between the awful thing that has happened on the 11th, do you also think that America has neglected some political problems in the last 10 months or so which might have contributed to the turbulence now in this area?

MODERATOR: Let's take a couple others, if we have other questions. Martin Walker, right behind you, Christa.

Q Thank you. Senator, when you say that --

MODERATOR: This is Martin Walker of the United Press International. I want a fee for that, Martin.

Q (Laughs.) Senator, when you say that Saddam Hussein is going to have to be dealt with, is there any way of dealing with him short of overthrowing the regime?

MODERATOR: Let's take one more here in the middle, and then we'll give the senator a chance to respond. Right here. Olivia, right here in the center.

Q -- the Financial Times. I wanted to ask, we hear over and over about the meetings in Bonn. Is this working? No. We hear over and over about the meetings in Bonn, the goal that this must -- the aims are to establish a humanitarian government. Why is it we're not hearing more? Why is it we're not hearing more about the goal of democracy generally in the Middle East? And why is it always just humanitarian?

MODERATOR: Senator, do you want to take those?

SEN. HAGEL: Thank you. On military tribunals, I've said publicly that, first, I would have preferred, like I suspect most of my colleagues, that the administration share their thoughts on this issue, would have done that before they made a decision to do that. And I said that because I think we live in a world that is so finely- tuned to public perception, not just domestic but international. And when all the world can tune in to CNN and see a world of war unfold, perceptions turn into reality. And there's an area that we must be very cautious with.

I don't believe that you can take the standard of military tribunals after World War II that has been used generally by the administration as a precedent -- and legally, that's true -- and use that as essentially the core of the precedent to make your point that, "Well, we did this right after World War II with the German saboteurs, so it fits here." I don't think that argument fits, for a lot of reasons. The world was different.

When I said I support the administration's policies on this, I actually did not mean this. It's not that I'm opposed to them, but I think what Leahy is doing here is probably the right thing to do, if we can contain it in a way that we don't make a circus out of this. And we always run that risk in any hearing. But I think we need some thoughtful discussion on it.

And the other point of this, the administration is right. They are charged with the responsibility of the security of this nation. Now, we all can talk about it, and senators love to talk. But we're not accountable to anybody for our actions. The people who send us here, yes, we go back and defend our votes.

But it's easy for me to say anything, because I'm not the one who has to deal with the responsibilities of providing security for this country. They are. Ashcroft is. The president is. So I am not at all that critical of their effort here. It's some fine-tuning here that I think could be projected into the process.

The neglected political problems -- and if I read you right, I think you're speaking in diplomatic parlance for "We have not paid enough attention to the Middle East"; I think that's what you meant. Even somebody like me can pick that up. (Laughter.) But I said a few months ago, and I have said it recently, and said it this morning, this business of foreign relations, foreign policy, as the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee knows far better than I do, is very imperfect. It's very imprecise. You make mistakes. Every day you make mistakes. Powell makes mistakes. We all do.

And if we would have an opportunity to go back and replay how the administration began their relationship to the Middle East, maybe they'd do that. You'd have to ask Powell that or the president. But I'm not that critical of what they have done.

The core factor is -- and they're right on this, in my opinion -- that you can't impose peace on anyone. You can't dictate it. Even the United States, as powerful as we are, you can't do that. Now, we can help frame it. We can help shepherd it. We can lead. We can do the things we need to do and we are doing. And maybe we should have done more of that. And I think it's a fair question. Maybe we should have framed that more.

But what we now need to do is roll forward, as we are. That's why General Zinni is there. That's why Ambassador Burns is doing what they're doing. I spoke to Secretary Powell two nights ago about some of this, and I don't think it is particularly important now, other than to learn from whatever mistakes we've made -- and we'll make more -- is to learn from it and move on and then try to adjust as we go along.

There's no question though that intractable problem, the Middle East intractable problem is part of the universe of issues here. We can't deny that. Do we blame that on what happened on September 11th? No, I don't, no. But it is all part of the bigger picture in my opinion that I was talking about. We want to help settle that. We want stability and peace and justice -- not only in the Middle East, but everywhere.

The question on overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- was that what I was talking about when I referenced we will deal with him? What I was talking about when I mentioned dealing with Saddam Hussein -- first, let's not forget this is not a United-States-versus-Iraq, or United States-versus-Saddam-Hussein issue. This is a United Nations, community of nations against Saddam Hussein. These sanctions on Saddam Hussein are not U.S. sanctions, they're U.N. sanctions. And that's the first part of the, it seems to me, the Iraqi piece here that needs to always stay in focus.

We are moving forward, as you know, the Security Council, through essentially some of the ideas that Secretary Powell put through on what he referred to as "smart sanctions," and I agree with that. I think it's nonsense to be spending time on piddly little things that don't make any sense, and the big issues -- we are letting some of the big ones maybe slip through, the dangerous issues. We know this guy is a bad guy. We know he is very dangerous. We know he's unpredictable. He is in a box now. I also believe things could get worse there. And you talk about overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- it goes right back to your point here, next steps. And my question, What happens next? Could we find a situation in Iraq that would be worse? Oh, I think you could. I mean, you tell me -- do you think Iraq would be better off with the Taliban set-up or a fragmentation of warlords that all might takes pieces of weapons of mass destruction that we are fairly certain that there are some of those out there. Right now, you have got one person in control of it, as best that you have. So my point is not to defend this guy, but to say how we do this must be in my opinion a collaborative effort that we can't do it, the United States alone.

And when we are ready with our partners to deal with him in a way that we think makes sense -- and whether that will be through military means or partly military means, I don't know. That depends on many factors. But the fact that he kicked the United Nations inspectors out of his country in 1998 -- and essentially the world did nothing about it. We deferred that decision. And I don't think you can continue to defer that problem.

The last question regarding Bonn, and why isn't there more focus on democracy being a goal -- I think democracy is all part of it. I don't think there's any question about that. But it seems to me they are addressing the priority items first. The humanitarian items -- those are immediate. People are starving, and a very severe winter will roll in, and we have got to deal with that. We must deal with that. These are more than just perceptual theoretical textbook kind of issues. Sure, everything should always move towards democracy, freedom, market economies. But I -- one thing that I would say in general -- and the last point in how I would respond to this -- one of the things I think our American foreign policy has missed over I don't know how many years is this: Is that we have tried -- because it's been noble and good and just -- to predicate much of our foreign policy -- sanctions, unilateral economic sanctions is a good example -- on the basis of when you become a mini-America, and you have all the rights and freedoms that we do, then we'll deal with you. But if you don't recognize the same tolerances and the freedoms, then we won't trade with you.

And if there's one gap in foreign policy generally it's not a partisan issue at all, in my opinion; it has been that we have tried to standardize our relationships with every nation based on the same dynamics. Every nation comes from a different background, different starting point -- ethnic, religious backgrounds, mixes -- everything is different. Every nation is different. And I occasionally will ask the question -- half the people in this room about 80 years ago couldn't vote in America. So what America do you want to standardize by? When you tell the rest of the world, When you are as good as we are, and you respect the rights of everybody, like we do, then you come talk to us. Eighty years ago women in America couldn't vote. Why did we pass the civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Because we were such a just society? In 1789, when the Senate was formed, in my opinion America at that time in the world, the history of man, represented the best hope for mankind than probably any nation had ever had an opportunity to do. That's my opinion.

But we were very imperfect. Unless you were a landed gentry and a man, you didn't have many rights in this country. We had slavery. We sold human beings. Yet, we were America. So you see my point. We have to be careful here. We should always be the beacon, always represent the best of mankind -- tolerance and freedom and liberty and democracy and market economies. But it takes a process to get there. And I think we do a great disservice for ourselves and the world when we push people back and say, We'll deal with you when we think you are ready. It doesn't mean that we don't hold nations to high expectations and high standards -- we do, and we should. But that's part of I think the overall process that needs to be kept in mind in my opinion in Bonn.

You all are telling me to get off --

MODERATOR: Senator, no, we are not telling you to get off. Your staff is telling me to behave so that we can get you back here at some time.

SEN. HAGEL: All right, well I'll take a question or two more.

MODERATOR: Senator -- I'm going to have to interrupt, unfortunately, because not only has your staff told me that you have to go --

SEN. HAGEL: You've got a panic….

MODERATOR: -- but we've got one of your colleagues here who's going to have to go in just a moment too to vote. So I apologize for that, and I apologize to all of you, because that's unfair. But to keep you on time, to keep your colleagues on time.

Senator, this was a terrific introduction to the day. You quoted Toynbee, I think.

SEN. HAGEL: Yes.

MODERATOR: And I wanted to mention, if I'm right, that Toynbee once said that "nations either have agendas or they become the victims of the agenda of others." And I think that applies to us and the terrorists today. And it's because of people like you, and you in particular, that we can have confidence that the United States is going to be at the center of the agenda. So, Senator, thank you very much. A great pleasure.

SEN. HAGEL: Thank you.

(Applause.)

[END OF PANEL.]

JEFFREY GEDMIN, NEW ATLANTIC INITIATIVE, AEI: Good morning, and thank you all for coming. My name is Jeff Gedmin. I am a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute and executive director of the New Atlantic Initiative.

It is my pleasure to welcome you -- and some of you for the second time - to today’s series of panels and discussions on "Winning the War Against Terrorism - Next Steps." We have truly an extraordinary group, and if I may, before introducing them, tell you that we also have an extraordinary group that brought them together from all corners of Washington and the world on very short notice, and that includes my colleagues, Krista Shaffer and Alana Balaban and their team of interns: Thom, Katie and Holiday. I want to thank them.

I want to thank many of you, including those of you who are not on the panel, but came from far, including Mr. Amai from the Japanese Foreign Ministry; Dean Godson from the Daily Telegraph, who is one of the leading experts on terrorism in Northern Ireland; and others - too many to mention here.

We are, at the outset, under a time constraint, and let me explain. Congresswoman Harman came to us today missing, perhaps, even a vote as we speak, but will have to dash in a moment to represent her constituents. So I am delighted that she is here, and I’m sorry that we have that time constraint, but we have that.

Secondly, the White House is expecting, at 9:35 sharp, Prime Minister Iain Duncan Smith -- (aside) - Iain, did I say that out loud? (Laughter.)

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, U.K.: You can repeat that, if you like. (Laughter.)

MR. GEDMIN: Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the Tory Party, and we will have to keep him on time, too. So what I would like to do is tell you briefly what I think everybody in this room already knows: that Congresswoman Jane Harman is from California. She is an important spokesman on foreign affairs issues. Among other things, she serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, and she has precious moments to be with us.

We’re delighted you’re here. We would like to invite you to make an initial statement and take a couple of questions, and then we’ll excuse you.

Please, the floor is yours.

REPRESENTATIVE JANE HARMAN, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (D-CA): Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning everyone. I have been describing myself in the House as the ranking Democratic terrorist. I’m clearly also the terrorist on this panel because I’ve changed my time of appearance at least five times, and here I am at 9:00 sharp because of the congressional schedule, which is - as I think you all know - beyond my control.

I apologize to the future prime minister of England, by the way - (laughter) - for even speaking before him.

This morning, and the various panels that you have, highlight what is obviously the critical subject on the attention of leaders of every world capital. How we all deal with this will determine, I believe, what kind of world we and our children and grand children live in the next generation or more.

I want to talk about a few pieces of the United States’ position, from my vantage point, and perhaps draw a few contrasts with what I heard my friend, Chuck Hagel, said earlier. As a mother of four children, one of whom is still in high school, I focus a lot on report cards, and I think it might be useful to think about a grading system for the United States at this point, and I’d like to discuss my views in that context.

First of all, let me talk about Congress since that’s where I sit. I would give Congress, in the weeks since September 11, quite high marks for our response, on two grounds: first of all, bipartisanship. It is really happening; or at least it is really happening with respect to some things, and it has not happened in the last decade. And so when you think about Congress’s action on the authorization of use of force, Congress’s action on a supplemental appropriation of $40 billion, Congress’s action on reviewing and then enacting increased legal authorities to conduct our law enforcement and intelligence activities, I give Congress high marks for bipartisanship.

I also give Congress high marks for something that may surprise you: leadership. I hope that the era of small politics is over. The front-page stories of Congressman Somebody or Other and his personal situation seem to be over. I’m relieved; I’m sure he is, too. The front-page stories are now about more sober and more important matters.

So in those ways, I think that Congress gets high marks. There have been some lapses. I thought that the airline security bill fight - this ideological fight about how much federalization do we want - was misplaced. I think we want airline and airport security. That’s what we want, and that fight took up six weeks and wasted enormous time, and as this effort drags on in terms of getting these air marshals in place, we are all suffering from it.

I think we are still in a fight about how to handle laid-off workers, those who have suffered the second most - the victims and their families obviously suffered the most from September 11. Again, I think promises are being broken. That’s an unfortunate lapse in Congress.

We are also having a misplaced fight over economic stimulus. I personally believe that the better way to go would be to start over with our 2002 budget. We need a wartime budget. Britain knows a lot about this. We need a wartime budget that starts with funding the war and starts with funding our homeland security effort, and then ranks other priorities beneath that. If we did it that way, we would certainly have money to fund our priority issues, and I believe also we would not be going back, as we sadly are, into deficit spending, which has as huge economic anti-stimulus effect.

So those are my grades on Congress, and I would note one further thing: that I believe in the next week or so Congress may act on a bioterrorism package, which I think will be a good thing. What will be in it is unclear, but $3 billion or so of spending on bioterrorism is a good thing, and we certainly need it.

My report card for the administration is mixed. I give the administration very high marks - I agree with Chuck Hagel - on our foreign response. I think the military effort has gone extremely well, I think the American public has been prepared to accept casualties, and I think there will be casualties of American personnel. We’ve had one already, sadly - the CIA fellow - but there will be more. We have Americans on the ground, as we all know, in Afghanistan, and the war theatre could potentially expand - we’ve all been discussing this - and there may be more casualties, but I think America understands, the American people accept the fact that there is no casualty-free effort this time around. I think the military strategy has been clear, well executed and well explained. High marks for the foreign policy team.

I also think the diplomatic strategy has been clear and well executed. This is tricky; there is no obvious coalition, no group of folks who will be with us every time, and the way - the nuanced way we’ve dealt with many countries, including, obviously, Pakistan, I think, is very effective. The carrot-and-stick approach that we seem to be applying is good, and the fact that we have, by my likes, improved relationships with the Russians, and - I hope - improved relationships with the Chinese is a good thing. We can’t alienate - we should not alienate those two capitals because, looking down the road even ten minutes, they are clearly people we would rather have as friends than as enemies. So I give high marks for the diplomatic effort.

The third piece of this - shutting down the money for terrorists - is also going well. That is a tricky thing to do. The hardest part is the hawala system, I believe, in South Asia. How you intersect a barter system is hard to understand, but I believe that we are getting a good handle on working with other governments and our international banking system to track the money and shut down the money.

What about our domestic war on terrorism? It could be true, as the president has predicted, that we may lose more American lives domestically than internationally. Certainly that’s - you know, we’ve already lost - depending on how you count - at least 4,000 lives domestically. I would hope we would not lose that many American lives internationally. But at any rate, I give our domestic effort less high marks - or lower marks, and that is because it continues to be disorganized.

Our military and diplomatic strategies are highly organized. Our domestic effort is not because we have, I think, inappropriately refused to give more real power to the Office of Homeland Security in the White House, headed now by former Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge. It is interesting to read that he is preparing a multi-year security plan, he is going to push through - in the next budget cycle for at least $8 billion. He is trying to realign a few agencies, and so forth. But my prediction, as a former White House staffer in the administration of President Jimmy Carter, is that he will fail, and the reason that he will fail is - to use the parlance of these days - turf battles in our government are aerosolized, and you inhale them and you die. And this man - notwithstanding his talents and his great resume and his friendship with the president - will not be able to take on an win every fight or even most of the fights unless the president spends personal time and personal capital helping him, and I would argue that the president doesn’t have that time and that his capital must be better used in keeping us focused on the bigger picture. So I think that Tom Ridge, without certain tools, will fail, and that that will mean that our organizing effort for the domestic piece of this fight against terrorism will also not be effective.

What do we do about this? I think the Congress should enact a law to give Tom Ridge both statutory and budgetary authority. There are several bills pending - I’m the author of one of them - with half of the membership of the House Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis, and what it basically says is the Office of Homeland Security will do a national threat assessment. We surely need that. The Office of Homeland Security will then develop a national - not just federal - national homeland security plan consistent with the threat assessment, matching our resources against our biggest vulnerabilities, and then the Office of Homeland Security will be able to accept or reject - reject - big word - budgets of departments that comply or fail to comply with the national security strategy. That’s the critical part. The ability to reject budgets is the ability to realign our federal - not just national - resources against our biggest threats.

Clearly - (beeper sounds) - oh, goodness. Okay, I’m going to close. Clearly, if we don’t do that, I believe we will never be able to fund an effective and organized homeland security strategy.

Final point: I disagree with Chuck Hagel on the military tribunals. I believe that Attorney General Ashcroft is ignoring, at the administration’s peril, the careful compromises wrought by Congress to the legal authorities that he asked for. Congress did the right things in expanding legal authorities to go after terrorists, but coming after that fact with this broad-scale tribunal idea and unlimited detentions, after Congress acted to the contrary, and this ability - possibly - to eavesdrop on attorney-client conversations is a mistake. Congress was not cut into the deal. While military tribunals, I believe, could make sense off-shore, applied to non-U.S. nationals and non-U.S. - non-resident aliens -- and I believe that we could narrow it to do that, and I’m working on legislation to do that - having this over-broad concept risks the goodwill and the support from America and abroad that we have been carefully cultivating.

So in conclusion, this mom says high grades for Congress, high grades for the international effort, lower grades and now a big, looming question marks for the domestic effort.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

MR. GEDMIN: Congresswoman.

REP. HARMAN: Yes?

MR. GEDMIN: It’s your time, and we want to keep you on time. Do you have time for one question before you leave?

REP. HARMAN: Sure.

MR. GEDMIN: Let’s take one quick question, and then we’ll excuse you to vote and race back to Capitol Hill.

If you raise your hand, the microphone will come right to you, and if you would identify yourself and your institutional affiliation, that would be wonderful.

Everyone is being very deferential about you and your time.

REP. HARMAN: Well, I appreciate that, and I hope - I want to apologize to our colleague from Britain for delaying his time if I have done that.

And let me just say - final point - that it’s important that AEI and those of you who support this organization stay active in this. There is not an excess of good ideas here. These issues are tough. I’m pleased that so many different, talented folks are working on this, and if we stay together and we think creatively, we will not just rid the world of terrorists, but we will figure out a way, finally, to drain the swamp of this abject poverty that breeds the circumstances that drive many of our younger people around the world to become terrorists.

Thank you very much.

MR. GEDMIN: Well, I would like to thank you, Congresswoman Harman. You struggled with a very difficult schedule to be with us briefly today, and we thank you very much.

REP. HARMAN: Thank you. Goodbye, everyone.

(Applause.)

MR. GEDMIN: We will continue now, and I thank the other two panelists for being patient. They will in fact have more time as we continue in a moment, but I would like to introduce Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the Tory Party, a member of the parliament since 1992, a former shadow defense secretary - among many, many other responsibilities and posts he’s held.

Iain, we would give you the floor, please. Welcome.

(Applause.)

MR. SMITH: Terror tactics with this sign behind me, Jeff.

Thank you very much indeed. It’s a great pleasure to be here amongst old friends at AEI, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today. I apologize again for the slight rush, as with the congresswoman, although I must say I do know that - what it’s like when you have to vote. Most of you in this room probably won’t, but those of us who are politicians know when the bell goes you have to get out there and vote even if sometimes you don’t know what you are voting on. (Laughter.) But there you go, that’s democracy for you. (Laughter.)

It is a great pleasure to be here today, but I - we do it really in the aftermath of the most terrible circumstances that took place on September the 11th. Nothing will ever remove from our memories, I don’t think, the image of the horrific attacks on this city here, and obviously, more particularly as well, in New York. And I must tell you that the grief and outrage was felt in the same degree in the United Kingdom, and it was heartfelt because - for two reasons: these were attacks on not just our staunchest ally, but also my country’s, I believe, greatest friend in good times and bad. And in loss of life, it’s quite important to remember that there were also attacks of the worst sort on the United Kingdom because we lost more people in this attack than in any other single event since the second world war. So it is worth remembering it was an attack on American soil, but it was actually an attack on British citizens, as well, which unites us in our determination to do something about it.

And if there’s one thing that stood out since September 11th, it has, I have to say,- been the indomitable spirit of the people here in America - their resolution not to bend the knee, not to give in, and to be determined to see this through. And I think the response of the United States under fire has demonstrated to the whole world why the spirit of freedom and democracy must and will always triumph over those of evil disposition and who use terror.

And such an atrocity, though, whatever else, of itself could not go unpunished, and that’s why, domestically in the United Kingdom, I chose to suspend party politics in their usual guise in support of my government doing what I believe to be the right thing in supporting the government of the United States and our other allies, but particularly the government of the United States in the pursuit of those who have committed this act and others. I think it’s appropriate; it may come in for some observation, but I will stand by it. As long as my government does the right thing then I will back them on it.

And I do believe also that in line with that our aims in Afghanistan have been clear. They’ve been clear from the outset, and the removal of the Taliban regime, as part of the attempt to hunt down al Qaeda, is absolutely critical, and those who complain about that, I think, are to miss the point.

The first of these, the removal of the Taliban, is now not virtually assured, but it’s very close to being done, although I have to warn everybody. Anyone that has ever studied military actions knows that to count your chickens too soon often leads to problems thereafter, so it’s not over, and we must not lose or avert our gaze on that at this stage because otherwise we will lose sight of what we need to do. But the net is closing, therefore, on al Qaeda and bin Laden. We should, of course, not make bin Laden the issue. The issue is terrorist networks, and al Qaeda - they will function without bin Laden or with him. He is part of the problem; he is not alone the problem. And the professionalism, I believe, of our armed forces - both the American and the British - who are engaged at the moment in these search-and-destroy missions - is to be applauded. I think that they have done a remarkable job so far, and I am certain that they will continue to do such a job.

But yet while the war in Afghanistan might be reaching a final phase, the war against terrorism is emphatically not over. If anything, it is perhaps in some way really only begun.

You have called this particular part of the conference, Jeff, "Confronting the Terrorists." To me that encapsulates neatly what I believe to be the overriding joint purpose of our two countries, not just in Afghanistan, but wherever terrorism rears its evil head or finds sanctuary. We in the U.K. have had to face terrorism for far too long. Thousands of people have died as a result of terrorist activity in my country, and frankly, enough is now enough.

If the 11th of September told us one thing, it is that terrorism really knows no limits. There is no weapon that they will not use, no life they are not prepared to take, and we need to realize that these people are fanatics who will stop at nothing. And that is why we must stop them before they can carry out their acts. If we fail now to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, then we will simply be at greater risk once this particular problem is over.

Winning the war against terrorism requires us to fight it on all fronts, and it means tackling the terrorist organizations direct. It means drying up their sources of finance. It means tackling the links, which I think have been understated for far too long, between terrorism and organized crime, and it means dealing with those rogue states, as well, that for too long have been able to get away with harboring terrorist groups and using them for their own twisted purpose.

The clear lesson is that the days of the safe havens are over. We must no longer be able or prepared to tolerate their activity. If that goes for Afghanistan, as it has, it should go just as well for other countries, and we know we can show that they are involved in international terrorism as well. Where these states are unwilling to take effective action against terrorism, they also must be prepared to face the determined response from the civilized world. And I hope that the U.K. will continue to be at the forefront of that response.

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already made it absolutely clear, just over a fortnight ago, I believe - he said we are in this for the long haul, and that is correct. And I also certainly agree with President Bush when he says there can be no further justification for the continuing Iraqi failing to abide by the Gulf War cease-fire obligations to allow U.N. inspectors back in the country to monitor weapons of mass destruction. I got to know Richard Butler very well in the intervening period, and he has made it clear that Iraq has used the three years since UNSCOM left to build up its arsenal to great effect.

So the events of the 11th of September also shattered one of the post-Cold-War illusions: that we no longer faced any direct threats. In fact, the threats today are many and more varied than ever before, from the car bomber to the rogue state with ever more powerful weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical or biological. I think nobody, even those siren doubters, can be in any doubt at all that bin Laden - if bin Laden had been able to lay his hands on some sort of weapon of mass destruction, that he frankly would not have been prepared to use it.

As I’ve said before, proving one threat does not disprove another, and many of these threats we are currently facing we are defenseless against. That is particularly the case when it comes to ballistic missiles. It makes them weapons of choice for terrorist or rogue states bent on blackmail or even simple carnage, as we saw.

So traditional methods of arms control, clearly, obviously want to be pursued, but they alone cannot solve the problem. Stemming the flow of military technology to these countries may delay their ability to develop weapons, but we cannot guarantee that it will halt it. Preventative defense is also necessary, and this is the reason why I support the program for missile defense that the USA has been discussing and has been working on. I hope my country will play a full part in that in due course.

Confronting the terrorists must mean all terrorists. As far as I and my own party are concerned, terrorism is indivisible. What happened in the United States is the same as that which has been carried out in the United Kingdom, as I have already said. It is worth recording that over 3,600 people have died as a result of terrorism associated with Northern Ireland. As Northern Ireland’s First Minister David Trimble and I argued last week, there is no moral difference whatever between those who planned and carried out the attacks on the Pentagon and the twin towers or those who have planned and carried out bombings in Enniskillen, Omagh, Greysteel and countless other atrocities over the last thirty years within the United Kingdom. Nor is there any difference between the illicit trade in drugs that helps to finance the terrorist operations of al Qaeda and the illicit trade in drugs that sustains the activities of some Republicans and Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland as well.

Over the years, the IRA has clearly established links with international terrorist organizations. Much of its weaponry was supplied courtesy of Colonel Qadhafi. In August, three suspected IRA members were apprehended in Colombia, suspected of collaborating with narco-terrorist groups already operating there.

And even with the current cease-fires and the IRA act of decommissioning, which is most welcome, the terrorist threat from dissident groups remains nonetheless high. When Gerry Adams said in New York recently those who support us know the difference between what’s been happening in Ireland and what’s been happening in this city on the 11th of September, I say he’s wrong. There should be no equivocation about our response to terror of whatever sort. We agree that because a person has a violent past it does not mean that they cannot have a future if they renounce violence. We accept that. We want the peace process always to succeed, yet we must never fall in to the trap of those who would claim that there are different categories of terrorists, or worse still, good terrorists and bad terrorists. Do that and, I’m sorry to say, I think we are a short step from giving legitimacy to all terrorist violence. The dead of my country are testament to that.

In conclusion, I just have to say that I do not believe this will be an easy road. It will not be a quick journey for any of us, but the United States and Britain, I think, have been together for too long to weaken now. It is always together in the defense of freedom, and it remains so today. We must be strong in the face of the tragedy of the 11th, relentless in the pursuit of evil, resolute in the fight, and just in the victory that we surely will achieve.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

MR. GEDMIN: Iain, thank you very much. As I said before, the White House is waiting for you. Do you have time for one question?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I do.

MR. GEDMIN: We’ll take one question. And I’m going to indulge myself and I’m going to place the question.

Iain, you referred to Iraq -

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. GEDMIN: -- and Richard Butler, and your own views that Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime and the program of weapons of mass destruction pose a real, compelling and imminent threat.

In the discussion in Washington, among those who either oppose an intervention to end Saddam Hussein’s rule or who are skeptical about pursuing that course, it is often argued that we would lose the coalition if we tried to do so, and in particular, our European allies, including Great Britain, would not be with us. And so I’d like to ask you if this administration made the case - clear, serious and compelling - that this is what we wanted to do and we needed you with us, would Europe and Britain be with us?

MR. SMITH: Well, I can’t - I can’t speak for other countries, but I have discussed the matter with the prime minister, and his view to me - and I think more publicly - has been that, first of all, he supports the statement by President Bush that the Iraqis now must allow the inspectors back. He also recognized, I believe, that there is a particular and distinctive threat now posed by Iraq, which is clearly, obviously greater by nature of the scale of what they do and what they possess. But I think the point is if, as you describe it, clear and compelling evidence exists - which I believe there is, but we must see more of it - then I think and believe that Britain will want to do its level best to support the United States.

But I don’t want to jump from A to B because I think what we have to say is that all of these things - these different nations that are in this so-called category of rogue states - there are different approaches to each of them, and there are stage-by-stage approaches. We need to look at how we start to put and mount the pressure on them much quicker with the ultimate objective of bringing them back into the embrace of the civilized world and thus get rid of the threat, or make sure that they understand what the alternative is if they don’t do so. And I think that is a process that’s got to be clear. So I would urge the United States to make certain that it puts on record all its understanding and knowledge of what’s been going on, the links with terror organization, the way in which they’ve operated in and out of these countries, the way in which the weapons of mass destruction are being developed, our knowledge of the extent of the arsenal, what they are working on in terms of missiles, which many of us have believed for some time. That should be made much more public. I think people should understand, and I think if that is done, anybody of a right mind will want to support the United States.

MR. GEDMIN: Iain, I am told that the White House is eagerly awaiting you. Thank you for your time this morning. All the best.

MR. SMITH: I’m sorry not to hear the other contributors.

(Applause.)

MR. GEDMIN: Thank you very much.

We’re going to continue now with our next two speakers - distinguished and individuals who have extraordinary expertise in the subject - with the subject at hand: one from a Jewish state called Israel, and another from a Muslim country and democracy and friend of the United States -

AMBASSADOR ONUR OYMEN, TURKISH AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Secular country.

MR. GEDMIN: A secular country called Turkey.

Let me introduce first, to my left, General Effi Fein, who is, among many things, a veteran of the Yom Kippur War. He commanded Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, he fought the Intifada in Gaza, and is always interesting to listen to - not only for his experience, but as a strategic thinker. And so, first, welcome to you, Effi Fein - someone who has been with us before, and it’s good to see you back.

And then sitting to my right, from Turkey, but who comes to us from Brussels where he holds his current post, and that is Onur Oymen, who is currently Turkey’s ambassador to NATO, but has in the past had a range of portfolios. He served in the finance ministry, he served as ambassador in places like Bonn and Copenhagen, and it’s not the first time, either, that you and I have worked together, and I think we saw each other last in Istanbul. Thank you for coming - both of you - a long way to be with us, and we’re delighted.

Effi Fein, let me give you the floor first. We’re eager to hear what you have to say, and then we will take you, Ambassador, and then we have ample time for a very good round for discussion.

So, General Fein - yes, please, if you would take it from there.

GENERAL EFFI EITAM (FEIN), BRIGADIER GENERAL (RESERVE), ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and I want to thank you for inviting me to participate in this very unique conference. I will not read a written speech because I want to look directly to your eyes and share with you, as briefly and as humbly as can be, my experience and my perspective of the problems the world is facing and, of course, Israel being in the front of this conflict in particular.

I agree with Senator Hagel, who said we are now in historic time. But the question is still there, hanging in the air: What is the meaning of this historic time? Why is it really now a historic time? Is it because America was - first time in its history was attacked on its American soil? Is it because the number of casualties? Is it because you feel now very strong feelings of revenge and willing to punish those who caused this horrible disaster in the twins and the Pentagon? I don’t think - none of these points really justify to call it historic time. I am concerning about everyone who died in the twins, but terror is not a new issue in the world, and my British colleague just reminded you that thousands of people died in Britain, thousands of people died in Israel. People are dying out of terror attacks in Israel daily.

So what really makes it historic time? And we all feel that this is a very different era now. And I want to address it to the most maybe scary area, most unexplored area, which this society, being a western society, is to a great extent trying to escape from looking directly to. And if I can predict, I would say that the 21st century will be remembered as the post-secular century to a great extent, you must understand, and it took me quite a long time to understand the nature of the people and of the cultures which millions of people are part of it that you are now confronting with. They are religious people, they are people who’ve got a religious message, a religious mission, and to a great extent, your society, your culture is representing secularity, and that’s why emptiness and hollowness of values, and clarity in its utmost. And you must understand it, and if you miss and you fail to understand it by very much focused on what should have been done militarily, then you will fail and you - and when I say you, the rest of the world - will fail to cope with this challenge. And that’s what really makes it a new era, historic time - is religious debate back on road, and you must understand it. It has nothing to do with the experiences you had with the communist ideology; even with the fascist ideology. It is something that is really challenging the foundations of your culture.

And even if you will be very strong, and even if you will be very successful militarily, it is a call, it is a voice that you cannot ignore. Those people who launched the attack over the twins, over the World Trade Center told you, and it’s tens of millions of those who told you that we don’t think the center of the world is trade, we don’t think that the center of the world is military power. We have got another alternative agenda, which to a great extent is challenging yours.

I don’t mean by that that immediately we are in a religious war, but your policy and your national security assessment will have to use now new terminology and to assess new elements and new dimensions to understand your enemy, which America always underestimated and always failed to understand deeply.

Maybe the only challenge in a very embryo, shape you have seen of that kind was while fighting against Japan in the second World War, and you, America, dealt with that challenge by using non-conventional weapons. So scared and so gloomy were about the possibility to defeat that this society, which was so committed to its religious - I would say national - a combination of national and religious thoughts that you couldn’t even think about defeating them in a conventional way, and of course, I don’t mean that you will have to use non-conventional weapons, but you must understand that it is - from that point of view, it’s a very new era, very new issue. It’s not a terror. It’s a combination of religious - of religious who now has manipulated over millions of people, who does not have a chance in the world - even if you will give all your money to be even close to your standard of living. They are now sticking their noses to the vitrine of your lifestyle, and they know that if they will have to compete or to find a compensation for their standard of living by your criterions, they will never make it. So religious - belief in God is a positive element to make people who cannot be so wealthy as you - make them happy, give them hope and life. And you cannot, and there is not any money in the world that can buy this hope by pouring money or other things, so religious is a very important tool, it’s a very important element to make those people who will never be able to share the wealth and the enterprise you have - to give them hope.

And here I come to the second point. This Islamic religious terror, which now, to a great extent, is reinforced by the capability to have in its hands weapons of mass destruction - this is - this unique combination is a real challenge. There will be terror attacks, some more people will die. You cannot stop it all. But America now has got to be focused, to have not only 100 percent effort, but 100 percent success to avoid that combination of weapons of mass destruction in the hand of people who are motivated religiously in a very extreme way.

This is the strategic challenge. You will not be able to kill all the flies, but you will have to deal now with a swamp, and the swamp has got a very special nature. It’s not the terrorists we faced in the past, the PLO; it’s not even the terrorists the British were facing in Northern Ireland. It’s a culture which is challenging your lifestyle, and you cannot kill them all, you cannot diminish them all. So I think the most important point is to realize that there is a religious debate with the Islamic world itself - and it’s not by chance that maybe the - my Turkish colleague said, "a secular Turkish state." Turkey is not a secular state. Turkey is a very unique, impressing effort to combine a moderate version of Islam into modern technology and modern know-how of the western world. And to a great extent, Turkey and maybe India and maybe Egypt are representing an effort that if we shall fail to help and we shall fail to encourage, then we shall have the extreme version of Islam, as I said, a very bitter enemy for the western culture in the future to come, and I say there is no - so far - monolith Islamic world, but there is a very crucial, very important debate within this world, and it is a debate in religious terms that America and the western world should not fail to understand and should not underestimate the importance of which side.

Millions and millions of young people - and I think that in the Islamic world more than 70 percent of the Muslims in the world are younger than 30, and it’s a great challenge what version of Islam will dominate their minds, hearts and souls, and god forbid, if we fail to understand it and to support the right side of the Islamic debate, and it’s something very new, I think, especially for this country, to pave its way, as far as its foreign policy is concerned, with religious problems, with religious arguments, with religious feelings, but no way, really, to find a long-term-view policy without getting involved with this challenge.

Terror is not a genetic error, it’s not a hobby. It’s a tool to carry out strategic policy, and that’s why again I think that we shall need - we shall be in a need of a very unique, delicate policy which, on one hand, will not allow by all means this capability of using weapons of mass destruction in the hand of that very extreme version of Islam.

On the other hand, this policy should not, cannot, and as I said, I hope will not be a war against Islam, but as I said, supporting this part of Islam which is very far, religiously, from thinking about you, about us as the enemy of their ideology and belief.

What is the meaning of drying the swamp instead - or not instead, but side-by-side of killing the flies? The swamp is, first of all, those regimes who adopted that very extreme version of Islam, and by doing so, they are now the background, they are now the supporters of infrastructures, materiel, intelligence and hide and harbor for those organizations who are carrying out those terror attacks. And those organizations are not the swamp. They are the flies, they are maybe a big group of flies, but they are not the swamp. Those regimes who are openly declared to be those who are supporting this terror must get down before, and we are dealing now with the Iraqis in a very, very delicate situation. You Americans maybe want to attack them, but those who may absorb the non-conventional attack, whether - if it’s biological or chemical, may be the Israelis, may be Israel - (audio break, tape change) -- negligence of this point, that Saddam Hussein will take life insurance for his regime because nobody will dare to deal with him. And he was very close to it when we, Israelis, attacked his nuclear reactor, and being condemned at that time by most of the world. And we all know that the Gulf War wouldn’t have even taken place if Saddam Hussein had, at that time, nuclear capability.

So, it’s a very delicate situation now. I think we are in the last moments not to let those regimes escape from a combined effort of the world, led by the military strengths and leadership of America before we shall have some areas, some islands of those regimes which nobody will dare to deal with because they will claim, and maybe will have, capability of non-conventional response. It’s the last time. It also may happen in some other areas in the Middle East. It may become Syria, which already have got non-conventional weapons, okay? The launching means - I mean the missiles cannot hit America, but they can hit Israel now. And again, it’s a very unique balance now because if you attack Syrians, and they may attack Israel back in chemical weapons, then maybe we should not do that because of the very special relations between Israel and America.

So, some regimes in the Middle East, and in some other places of the world, may get life insurance if we don’t deal with them now. So that’s one element or one phase of drying the swamp.

The other element is the propaganda, indoctrination and education, which is using Western technology, and to a great extent, al-Jazeera satellite, which now is manifesting all these various extreme ideas into the hands and the minds of millions of those young Muslims which I’ve just mentioned. It’s a constant, ongoing, long process of brainwashing of millions of people’s minds in the world that many of the Americans were not aware that they exist. Now, when they are gluing to their television screens, they understand that it’s not just a remote place in an unknown corner of the world, but it’s a new claim, it’s a new challenge, which may become a mortal threat for the free world, but also may represent a chance to bring out a different type, a more moderate, a more shifting element of Islam, as I said we can see in Turkey, maybe now in Egypt, maybe in Jordan, and it’s not easy. Those regimes do not sleep well at night, being challenged by that very extreme version of Islam, which is the enemy of all us, Israelis, Americans, Turkish, Egyptians, and people who really want to see the world as a safe place where our children will be able to see the sunlight - you know, the sunrise for the next decades and the next generations to come.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

MR. GEDMIN: General Fein, thank you very much. And we look forward to the round of discussion. I think there’ll be very many questions for you.

Ambassador Oymen, I believe that I misspoke earlier in introducing you, and mentioned that among your many posts you had held a senior post in the Ministry of Finance, and I meant to say Foreign Affairs. But of course, when we have someone as distinguished as you, I always want to expand your responsibilities. I apologize for that. And you have the floor, please.

AMB. OYMEN: Thank you, very much. Anyway, since the Foreign Ministry is always short of money - (laughter) - in a sense you are not wrong by mixing those two ministries.

Well, Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, it’s a real honor and pleasure for me to be able to be with you today and to share with you some thoughts on this terrible issue of these times.

On the 11th of September, we were in a NATO informal luncheon with NATO ambassadors and the secretary general. All of a sudden, we got the news of this horrible attack against American targets in New York and Washington. An immediate shock, an immediate reaction has emerged, but perhaps more important, an immediate sense of solidarity has emerged.

We were discussing terrorism issues at NATO for many years, and we have produced a few papers on terrorism, and they were presenting terrorism as a new social threat. But that day we realized how important it is to act -- to react together against terrorism. No wonder the same evening we took our first NATO decision condemning these attacks and also expressing our determination to consolidate our efforts to express our solidarity and cooperation.

In the last couple of years, Turkey was in the forefront in arguing in NATO that we should intensify - further intensify our efforts in combating terrorism. So, if you saw some references in NATO documents, NATO resolutions on terrorism or reference to terrorism in NATO papers, you should be sure that Turkey had always its fingerprints. But what happened in America has completely changed our minds, because many allies were thinking until that moment that probably terrorism was not the main issue we have to discuss in NATO. There are other organizations responsible. After all, NATO has several mechanisms for consultations. But what happened? The following day, on the 12th of September, we took the decision of the Article V, which means that we all considered that these attacks are attacks addressed not only against the United States, but against all our countries.

So, this is the first implementation of the Article V decision or the Washington Treaty in the last half a century, and it happened on terrorism on which many allies were reluctant to discuss as NATO business. Since then, in every meeting of the NATO Council, terrorism and the attacks against American targets, is the number one item. It’s more important than Macedonian, more important than Kosovo, more important than everything.

So, in a sense, it was an eye-opener. And I can tell you - I’ll come back a little on the night that I mentioned - but I’ll tell you that no other country can better understand your feelings, you reaction, and your sense of revolution against these attacks, because these attacks, with a very high number of victims, made America number two country among NATO countries as regards to the casualties of terrorism, number one being Turkey. So we have lost more human beings, we have lost more victims, more innocent people than America in the last two decades. But it happened in a longer time. And while it happened there was no live television coverage. Therefore, there was little attention in the world public, but the number of Turkish women and children and babies and teachers and religious leaders, and so and so forth, is much higher than the victims of the 11th of September.

Therefore, I can tell you, and I repeat to you, that no one else probably can understand your feelings as good as the Turkish people. But being here, I don’t want to use an excessive diplomatic language. I believe that in a friendly environment, it is our duty to be frank with you. I must tell you that throughout these years where we were suffering from terrorism, we have not seen the same understanding that you have seen for America, we have not seen the same support, we have not seen the same solidarity. On the contrary, in some circles in friendly countries, people taught that, well, if we had terrorist attacks, probably we did something wrong; probably it’s our fault. So, perhaps we had some shortcomings, and those people who killed innocent civilians might have some justification. So, if you want to stop terrorism we have to correct our mistakes. It’s up to us to stop terrorism, not up to terrorists to stop their methods.

So, this was the mentality. You will not believe that many groups have been established in Western Europe to support these terrorists. There were a lot of articles in the Western press saying that Turkey was wrong here, Turkey was wrong there. So they criticized our methods combating terrorism, but very little criticism to terrorists. We had some people going all the way to some Middle Eastern countries, where the terrorist groups had their base, to meet the terrorist leaders, to look how they can understand their cause, how they can appease these terrorists.

This was our story, ladies and gentleman, and now we hope that things will change. We will reset our minds and there will be a new mentality, a new frame of mind in our efforts to fight terrorism. And therefore, we are very much in favor with your policy of globalization of combat against terrorism, and a sustained coalition, a sustained fight against terrorism all over the world. And we also believe, with you, that there is no gray area, there is no - you say that you are either with Americans or with terrorists, there’s no gray area, you cannot have a half-hearted support. It’s exactly what we say. It’s exactly what we were saying until now. There is no good terrorist, bad terrorist. But I must confess to you that in some official meetings, I heard references to "soft terrorism," like soft drinks, like soft murderers. If you kill people you are a murderer. You cannot say that I’m a murderer but I’m a soft murderer, like a soft drink, or "decaf terrorists." So, there’s no such a thing. So, we must all agree that terrorists are terrorists without any qualification.

Finally, in NATO we came to the conclusion that we should condemn terrorism without any qualification. In NATO documents you will not see a qualification - an adjective before terrorism. There is no such thing like international terrorist, there is no such a thing like Islamic terrorist, there is no such thing like ethnic terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, and this is our common understanding in NATO, at least now. So, we have, we believe, to intensify our efforts and to find ways and means of effectively, intensely combating this terrorism without tolerance. Our motto should be, zero tolerance to terrorists.

Where are we now? Do we have enough lessons from these attacks of 11th of September? Are we meaning what we say when we say that we are fighting now terrorism without discrimination, without restriction, without qualification? Are we there? My answer, my frank answer would be, not yet.

Our American friends have published a few lists of terrorist organizations, and they registered some of them to the United Nations. The first two lists contain the names of terrorist organizations directly linked to al Qaeda. But in the third they kindly put also terrorist organizations that are not directly linked to al Qaeda, and we are very, very thankful to our American friends for doing so, and we hope that very soon they are going to register also this third list in the United Nations to set an example for the rest of the world.

The European Union, another important organization, also started to take some actions, which is good. They fixed 37 new measures to be implemented against terrorism. That’s also good. But I must confess that we are not in a position to say at this moment that all measures taken by the European Union are meeting our requirements at this moment. To start with, the list of terrorist organizations - the third list of the American government does not have yet a mirror in the European Union. We have not seen a similar list at this moment from the European Union.

Second, they have kindly established a joint committee with the United States. That's good; a very positive signal. At the same moment, we -- as Turkey we proposed to establishing a special ad hoc committee between NATO and the European Union to combat terrorism, to coordinate our efforts. We are still awaiting a positive answer. We still are not able to establish this committee. Why not? Well, it’s a question but I don’t have the answer.

Furthermore, you have arrested a number of suspected terrorists of different categories in America. We hope that in Europe also they will do the same, but so far most terrorists operating against Turkey have not been arrested, repatriated, or tried or punished to the level - to the extent that we wish. Therefore, we hope -- we expect that our European colleagues will also take appropriate measures.

To conclude I would like to say that to the best of my knowledge, with due respect to Israel’s General Eitam, Turkey’s a secular country, and secularism is one of the articles of our constitution that cannot be changed. And it is one of the biggest achievements of Ataturk. It doesn’t mean that an overwhelming majority of our population is not Muslim. They are Muslims. But to say the truth, that we don’t want to mix religion with the states of the government, therefore we are a secular country. Our people is a Muslim people, but we are of the opinion that terrorism has no religion. Terrorism has no ideology. Terrorism has no ethnic origin. Terrorism is terrorism. And are we going to call ETA terrorists as Christian terrorists, IRA terrorists as Christian terrorists? They are not. So, terrorism has no religion, no ideology and no ethnic background.

Last word. As the United States, you have done so much for us -- for Turkey, for NATO, for other countries in several fields, including in combating terrorism. Now it’s our turn to help you, and you can count on us.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

MR. GEDMIN: Ambassador, thank you very much.

We have time for a discussion round and questions. Not only for us here in the room but also for viewers with us today from C-SPAN, would you wait until the microphone reaches you, would you identify yourself and your affiliation?

Also, I always feel a little bit hesitant. When you mention the good news that we have a wonderful C-SPAN audience with us, that always seems to be an encouragement to some that a question is not a question but a statement of six or seven minutes in eight parts with footnotes. So I’d ask you to keep it one-part questions, and brief. And we’ll take the first. I'm looking for - right here in the front row. And we’re waiting for a microphone.

Q: My name is Paul Mann. I'm a reporter for Aviation Week and Space Technology.

Question for both of you. What are the origins of much of the Arab and Islamic world’s inability to develop what the West thinks of as modern economies and modern democratic governments? And to what extent do you see a connection between that inability and this new terrorism, this new take-no-prisoners terrorism?

MR. GEDMIN: Let’s go ahead and take that one then.

General?

GEN. EITAM (FEIN): You made the point that in most of the Islamic extremist - Islamic states, a very, very slow, if at all, development of democracy has been done, and very slow, if at all, technology has been done. And no doubt, there is something - again, I make it very clear, in this extreme version of Islam, which really avoids those societies from coming into a more developed concept as far as technology is concerned, and as far as a political system is concerned. It’s also something that America and the rest of the free world, including the moderate Muslim states or Muslim societies -- and I don’t come to very detailed legal points as far as Turkey is concerned; it’s a Muslim society -- this point will have to be very carefully analyzed, not in order just to condemn them and say, you are backward, you are inferior, we shall show you the light. The problem will have to be very carefully analyzed in order to understand what are the inherent problems which this culture, with this version of religion, is ringing with itself that makes those societies so extreme and so, I would say, far from what we think should and could be the right thing or the right way to cope with values and more clarity on one side, and technology on the other.

There shouldn’t be a confrontation between those two, by the way. Everywhere where you can see that some countries shift into a more balanced equation of technology and their old heritage, religious or another, there you can see that extreme Islam is their most bitter enemy. You can see it in India, where they succeeded in an enormous way to shift. And I remember when I was younger, people said India will be the place where people will starve out of hunger. It didn’t happen. They combined a very unique fantasy, which can make people happy by being part of their old heritage, and on the other hand, really being able to adapt some modern technology and some modern approaches towards American and Western know-how.

You can see it in Turkey. You can see it in a hesitant way, but maybe very consistent, in Egypt. You can see it in Lebanon, which was destroyed because it was guilty to try and shift something which will work together, Muslim or religious heritage, with some modern elements of the Western society. You can see it of course in Israel. Israel is, to a great extent, a target of those terrorists because it represents a very courageous effort to shift its old tradition, its old heritage, its old religion, with modern elements. You can see it everywhere, even Russia, which stepped towards a more moderate version of adopting this Western technology with some Muslim elements within it, is now to great extent a target for this extremism.

So, it will have to be analyzed very carefully. I agree with you that it’s there. I agree with Salman Rushdie, not with everything he said, but this version of extreme Islam is to a great extent responsible for this unique phenomenon of terror we are facing now. And I agree with my Turkish colleague, terror doesn’t have religion, terror cannot be divided into good or bad terror. But this terror, this Islamic terror, is different. And not the IRA and not the PKK and not the PLO, in their most extreme version, were not ready to destroy the whole world. You can find now suicide volunteers, suicide bombers in the West Bank by having to whistle. I know that there is no lack of volunteers. They are ready to kill themselves daily, hundreds of them, thousands of them. And that's actually what they do. In the last four days there were four suicide attacks in Israel. Eight people got killed. No problem to find people who will be ready to die and to suicide. It’s not the PLO, it’s not the PKK, it’s not the IRA, it’s an entirely different version which really comes from an entirely different background. They are very much willing your deaths, our deaths, more than they want their own lives.

So, the only very fundamental assumption we had in the past wars, or even dealing with the traditional terror organizations, that people are ready to die in a battle but they are not ready to die 100 percent; they are not ready to take one-side missions. This comes from that nation of extreme Islam, and that’s really what will make them to use weapons of mass destruction if they will have them in their hands. It’s not the PKK, it’s not the PLO. I must make it very clear that you are facing a new type of a challenge which using the word terror may underestimate or may hide and lose us as far as the nature of Israel. It’s not the terror as we knew it. And I just tell you, I met the Hezbollah and the Jihad Islamic in the battlefield, and I met the PLO -- I made 30 years of fighting terror - entirely different type of people who are motivated by entirely different ideas, and that’s why they are ready to do very different things.

So, I agree and I tell you that without being very precise about what is the mechanism in this extreme Islam which makes it to be what it is, we may fail to understand the whole phenomenon.

MR. GEDMIN: Thank you.

Ambassador?

AMB. OYMEN: Well, thank you very much indeed. It was a very pertinent question, and I thank you for that.

If you ask Professor Huntington, he will tell you that democracy and Christianity go hand-by-hand, so there's no chance in the Islamic world to see democratic governments. So we proved the contrary in Turkey. Turkey, with an overwhelming majority of the people being Muslim, we are a democratic society. We have established our multi-party democracy more than half a century ago. And we are also a liberal economy.

Therefore, I believe that the case of Turkey demonstrates that Muslim countries or countries with Muslim populations can well be a democratic country and market economy. In America, while referring to Turkey, you are referring most of the time to our strategic importance, strategic location, geographic position. You refer less to our democratic values. And I believe that Turkey can well be used as a springboard of democracy towards the region.

Do we have examples? Yes. In the early ‘30s, the then-king of Afghanistan, precisely Amanullah Khan, came to visit Ataturk, and said that we want to establish in Afghanistan a modern society, using Turkish model. Can you help us? We said yes. And Ataturk has sent hundreds of teachers, professors, doctors, and we have opened schools, and we started to modernize the society. And we have a long tradition. We gave hundreds, thousands of scholarships, and they started to become a modern society. But you know what happened afterwards. So, we cannot say that the Afghan population, by definition, is condemned to be a non-democratic country. They started already in the 1930’s with modern dressing and everything. The second example being Iran. The father of the shah came, again, to Ataturk and asked exactly the same question, and Ataturk suggested to him to start with democracy. "How can I make Iran a modern society?" Ataturk said, "You have to start with democracy." Therefore, I believe that the spread of democracy in the region will be a big achievement for all of us. And we are there to set an example for this spread of democracy.

There was a very pertinent question a moment ago by the representative of Financial Times, I believe to Senator Hagel, about democracy. And he said that even in America eight years ago we were not a perfect democracy, which is true; which is true that you cannot expect overnight to turn into Switzerland in the Middle East, but you should not forget that all over in the world, democracy progresses. There are comparative studies saying that in Latin America, in Africa, in the Far East, democracy is progressing, with one exception, the Middle East. Why?

So this question I believe we all, including yourselves, should ask to ourselves. So why is there little progress in democracy? We should come to the conclusion that we don’t need only good friends in this part of the world, but we also need countries not having authoritarian aspirations or authoritarian regimes. It is in our interests. And those things are not incompatible. So democracy and friendship are not incompatible. This is our message. It’s a matter that we have to reflect upon together with you.

MR. GEDMIN: Ambassador, thank you.

I see a lot of hands and shortage of time. We’ll take as many as we can. Meg, let’s start right over here, please. We’ll take several together.

Q: Ariel Cohen, the Heritage Foundation. I have a question to both panelists. It is sort of the conventional wisdom in Washington that the driving force for the pool of terrorists, for the personnel that volunteers for suicide missions, is poverty. Then you would assume that most terrorist movements today would be prevalent in the most impoverished parts of the world, such as Africa or parts of India or maybe the poorest parts of China. However, this is not the case. So would you please care to comment on how you see the connections of poverty and terrorism, and whether, as Congresswoman Harman said before, "The strategy to combat terrorism now is to eradicate poverty," quote, unquote. Thank you.

MR. GEDMIN: Ariel, thank you.

Let’s hold your fire and we’ll take a couple of others. Meg, right to your left there.

Q: Hi. Ira Stoll from SmarterTimes.com. A question for General Eitam.

You are emphasizing this distinction between the current form of September 11th terrorism and the PLO and the PKK. Isn’t there a risk there of giving people a false sense of confidence about the PLO and the PKK, which, after all, have a lot of similarities with the kind of terrorism you’re talking about? They’re funded by some of the same countries; Yasser Arafat in some cases giving a green light to attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah getting funded, arms shipments through Syria. I mean, is that a slightly false distinction that you’re making there?

MR. GEDMIN: Right here.

Q: I’m Mica Backfish from Handelsblatt, Germany’s Business and Financial Daily. I have a question to the general.

You said that moderate Muslim states like Egypt have to be helped, to prevent them from turning into extremist states. But doesn’t that mean, given the fact that the Egyptian secretary of State in these days said that, "Terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza is legitimate" -- he’s speaking about resistance against foreign occupation. So where is the common denominator in the fight against terrorism, and is there one a

MR. GEDMIN: Let's break there and give the two panelists a chance to reply.

Mr. Fein, do you want to take a first crack?

GEN. EITAM (FEIN): I would respond to the question about whether if Arafat and his background as the leader of the PLO in the past really make him now a more -- it makes the PLO, the PKK more legitimate. The answer is no, with a capital "N." Of course not. But again, while looking over the terror and again saying terror is indivisible and terror is terror everywhere in the world, it doesn't free from us from having a more precise and a more mature and a more a professional analysis of terror. Killing innocent people is something that cannot be divided into good or bad. But what represents a strategic threat, what represents a new era as far as terror is concerned is that very unique combination of extreme religious version with the very consistent effort to bring it into a capability of weapons of mass destruction. That's really what represents the new face and what makes their time, as I said, a historic time. Killing innocent people is not a new issue. Trying to destroy the world, trying to destroy humanity, and that's what we're dealing with in this version of terror is something very new.

It doesn't mean that we don't have to cooperate to diminish and to combat terror with old faces. But we shouldn't underestimate or decline the new challenge we are facing in front of.

As far as Arafat himself, I want to say I will not bore you by my biography. I resigned from the Army, the IDF after 30 years on a background of a very deep debate I had in Israel as far as the future and the nature of Arafat. Arafat is not any more the leader of the PLO. Arafat is now the leader of the greatest terror consortium in the world. He inspires terror from all types, especially now, the terror of this type which I have just described, which is threatening the whole world. It's not any more a Middle East issue. It's not any more Israeli-Palestinian issue. It is a worldwide issue.

And I want to add one more point, which, again, makes things much more complicated: sending General Zinni and negotiating or pulling people to sit together nearby the table. Two years ago, a year and a half ago, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95 percent of the West Bank. He offered them self-determination, an independent state. And they rejected this offer because of two things which Israelis rejected and will reject, I think, for the foreseeable time. And those two elements cannot be explained by any rational analysis. Israelis refused to give up sovereignty over a small hill in Jerusalem, which does not have any strategic importance whatsoever. But for the Israelis, it's their symbol of Jewish identity of their state. And, I think, no way to see Israelis, Jewish people giving up this hill, which has got only religious Jewish historic importance.

So the focus of the war in the Middle East between us and the Palestinians -- and I don't see the Palestinians giving up the Holy Temple of Mountain --

So everything was settled. The land was settled. Security was settled. Self-determination was settled. And that point, which cannot be defined in other means, was now, and is, the obstacle. And the other thing, which, again, is a very broad consensus in Israel: we shall not allow Palestinians to come back into the post-'67 war boundaries, borders of Israel. We are not willing to undermine the majority of Jews in Israel. What do we care if they are a Jewish majority in Israel, if those Palestinians who will come will be educated people and civilized people and will have a significant income? Why have we got to refuse for this massive immigration of people back to Israel? Because Jewish majority is not something that you assess or measure by simple Western means, by simple Western analysis of numbers and ratio of people in the population of the state. The state, the state of Israel deserves to exist only, in the eyes of the majority of Israelis, if it's got a majority of Jews in this piece of land.

So, again, it's a very delicate combination of rational elements with very deep religious arguments. So everybody will think about solving the problem in the Middle East and to ignore those elements just would raise his hands and relax.

So from where it stands, the Middle East is the core and the greatest challenge for settling the problem, while being able again to come and discuss and analyze some religious element within this country. I know it scares many people in America to death. It scares many people in Israel to death. But all the efforts to ignore this element will bring it to a dead end. That's about terror and the terror, the Palestinian terror. It's now, to a great extent, all about religion. It's diversions which dominate now the Palestinian struggle. It's nothing of the PLO, as we knew it in the past. If at all we could think about it as a secular national movement, it does not exist at any more. It's not on the agenda any more. Arafat does not speak about it any more, and that's the real problem. Again, it's not easy, but at least we put the -- we have to address the right questions to the right place.

As far as poverty is concerned as a source of terror and extremism, I'm not sure it's true. I'm not sure it's true. We have an experience with the Arab Israeli citizens, which are the most prosperous Arabs, I think, in the whole world. They live in 50 years of an open society, democracy, civil rights. I mean poverty is a very relative thing. But they live in a relatively prosperous society, and they have educated. The more educated they become, the more prosperous they become, the more extreme they become. So I don't see any sign of moderation coming through the Arab Israeli population after 50 years of being part and somehow shifted into what may be regarded as a Western democratic state. It didn't make them moderate whatsoever. So it's not so simple. It's not a single element like poverty, which makes this very extreme version of terror to come. Poverty there: I don't think it's the key element or a single element by which this problem can be explained.

Egyptians are an enormous pressure, enormous problem. So they signed a peace treaty with Israel. They keep this peace treaty, although it's called, but it's kept very strictly as far as the details of the agreement. And I said before, all these regimes -- in Jordan, in Egypt, in Lebanon, and I hope Turkey is much more stable than those countries. But those regimes are very much scared about their capability to cope with this very strong Islamic feelings, which are coming from the people, from the bottom. And the more the Palestinians, and especially Yasser Arafat, seem to be winning that battle to defend Jerusalem and to defend the holy places of the Muslims in the holy land, the more he, like bin Laden, like others inspiring the Islamic Arab streets within those moderate countries, and to a great extent they are now activating like detonators that may blow this stability, which is very shaky, very young, of those moderate Islamic regimes in the countries which I've mentioned. Don't be misled by that. Egypt -- the Egyptian version of secular, pro-West regime is a very fragile phenomenon. And the rest of the countries I've already mentioned.

Thank you.

MR. GEDMIN: Thank you