United Nations Security Council Resolution 841

Transcription

>> GOOD EVENING. I KNOW WE STILL HAVE SOME FOLKS COMING, BUT LET'S GET STARTED SO WE HAVE AS MUCH OF DR. LOPEZ'S TIME AS WE CAN. GOOD EVENING, I'M DIXIE ANDERSON WITH THE WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL. WELCOME TO OUR THIRD SESSION OF OUR AWARD-WINNING GREAT DECISION SERIES. WE'RE DELIGHTED TO WELCOME BACK ONCE AGAIN OUR GOOD FRIEND DR. GEORGE LOPEZ FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME. HE IS A NATIONALLY KNOWN AND HIGHLY RESPECTED EXPERT PARTICULARLY ON ECONOMIC SANCTIONS. AND IF YOU DON'T THINK HE WASN'T BUSY LAST WEEK WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN NORTH KOREA, THINK AGAIN. HE HAD NATIONAL MEDIA AND WE REALLY THOUGHT, "OH, NO, HE'S GOING TO CANCEL. "HE'S TOO BUSY TO COME." SO THANK YOU, GEORGE, VERY, VERY MUCH FOR MAKING OUR DATE. WE ARE ALSO DELIGHTED TO CONTINUE OUR LONG TRADITION OF PARTNERING WITH THE NOTRE DAME ALUMNI CLUB OF GRAND RAPIDS. SO FAR, IT'S OVER 20 YEARS AND COUNTING THAT WE'VE HAD AN ASSOCIATION WITH THE CLUB. THANK YOU TO THE NOTRE DAME CLUB FOR SPONSORING THE EVENT TONIGHT, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO WELCOME THE INCOMING CLUB PRESIDENT, KATE NAGENGAST. SO KATE, IF YOU COULD JUST STAND UP. (applause) WE'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK MICHIGAN RADIO, OUR MEDIA SPONSOR. SO, HERE'S THE PITCH-- REMEMBER IF YOU'RE CURRENTLY NOT A WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU MAY JOIN FOR AS LITTLE AS $10 A YEAR. I'M GETTING FEEDBACK-- IS THAT JUST ME? CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME OKAY? >> YES. >> OKAY, IT MUST JUST BE ME. YOU CAN JOIN FOR AS LITTLE AS $10 A YEAR. IF YOU JOIN AFTER THE PROGRAM TONIGHT, HERE'S OUR DEAL-- WE WILL GIVE YOU A $5 CREDIT TOWARDS YOUR MEMBERSHIP, SO STOP BY THE TABLE IN THE LOBBY ON YOUR WAY OUT. HOW CAN YOU PASS THAT DEAL UP? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SIMPLY HAVE YOUR NAME ON OUR E-MAIL LIST WITHOUT BECOMING A MEMBER, ALSO STOP BY THE TABLE AND SIGN UP. WE ONLY USE THIS LIST TO NOTIFY YOU OF OUR EVENTS. WE DON'T SELL YOUR NAME. BUT NOW LISTEN TO THIS SEGUE-- BUT WE ARE SELLING GREAT DECISIONS TEXTBOOKS IN THE LOBBY, $20. THIS IS A GREAT, VERY SUCCINCT, NON-BIASED GREAT BIBLIOGRAPHY. SHORT, EASY-TO-READ SYNOPSIS OF ALL THE TOPICS FOR GREAT DECISIONS THIS YEAR. ALSO FILL OUT YOUR BALLOTS. THE RESULTS OF THESE BALLOTS GO TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE, AND I KNOW THAT FOR SURE. I TALKED TO NOEL LATEEF, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION, WHO COLLECTS ALL OF THESE BALLOTS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. INCIDENTALLY, OUR SERIES SENDS IN MOST OF THE BALLOTS. WE SEND IN OVER 1,000 A YEAR. BUT I CALLED HIM AND HE WAS REALLY EXCITED AND OUT OF BREATH, AND I SAID, "GEE, WHAT'S THE MATTER?" HE SAID, "I JUST PRESENTED OUR BALLOT RESULTS "TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE." SO YOUR BALLOTS ARE IMPORTANT AND PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON DO PAY ATTENTION. TO OUR LONG-TIME PEOPLE COMING TO GREAT DECISIONS WHO VOTE EVERY YEAR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THE RESULTS FROM LAST YEAR, WE HAVE SOME OF THESE, AGAIN OUT OF THE TABLE IN THE LOBBY. YOU'RE WELCOME TO TAKE ONE. TONIGHT, WE ARE AGAIN USING THE ARMCHAIR DISCUSSION FORMAT. DR. LOPEZ WILL TALK ABOUT 20 MINUTES AND THEN DR. DURHAM, THE MODERATOR, WILL ASK SOME FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. THIS LEAVES PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. DON'T BE SHY ABOUT COMING DOWN TO THE MICROPHONES. SO, PLEASE COME DOWN. DR. DURHAM WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN THAT'S TIME. YOU CAN ALSO TEXT IN A QUESTION IF YOU'RE TOO SHY TO COME DOWN. USE THE PHONE NUMBER THAT WE LIST IN THE PROGRAM. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WALK DOWN HERE OR YOU DON'T WANT TO TEXT, RAISE YOUR HAND AND ONE OF OUR VOLUNTEERS WILL COME TO YOU AND GET YOUR QUESTION. SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN MAKE IT ANY EASIER FOR YOU TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE'D LIKE YOU TO DO THAT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION. OUR MODERATOR TONIGHT IS DR. ROGER DURHAM, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE POLI SCI DEPARTMENT HERE AT AQUINAS AND A LONGTIME PROFESSOR TEACHING GREAT DECISIONS, OVER 15 YEARS. PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING DR. LOPEZ FOR HIS PRESENTATION, "GLOBAL INTERVENTION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT." DR. LOPEZ. (applause) >> THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, DIXIE, AND THANK YOU, ROGER, AND OTHERS-- THE NOTRE DAME CLUB AND WORLD COUNCIL FOR BRINGING ME BACK. I SEEM TO BE ABLE TO GET HERE EVERY 18 MONTHS. I LOVE THAT-- IT'S ONLY A SHORT TREK UP THE ROAD. WE MAY HAVE TO SKI OUR WAY BACK IF WE'RE HERE TOO LATE TONIGHT, BUT I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE. I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TELL DIXIE YET BUT THE WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL HERE IN GRAND RAPIDS, I'VE USED A COUPLE OF TIMES-- MAYBE WHEN YOU'RE EARS WERE BURNING WONDERING WHO WAS SAYING WHAT ABOUT WHAT, IS THAT HAVING DONE A NUMBER OF COUNCILS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST AT WHAT WE'D SAY PUNCHING WAY ABOVE ITS FIGHTING RATE. THAT IS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FOLKS WHO COME TO EVENTS AND ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, AND THAT PITCH THAT WE HEARD DIXIE TALK ABOUT-- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE GIVING YOU A HALF-PRICE DISCOUNT EVEN WHEN YOU WALK IN THE DOOR. SHE HAS A CERTAIN KIND OF SALESPERSONSHIP THAT IS KIND OF INTERESTING, BUT I'VE BEEN TO WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCILS IN SAN DIEGO, CLEVELAND, VARIOUS OTHER PLACES THAT ARE DEMONSTRABLY LARGER THAN THIS GOOD TOWN, AND THEY GET MAYBE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THIS AUDIENCE WHEN THEY EXCEED YOU BY A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND IN NUMBER. SO, IT'S ALWAYS A GREAT AUDIENCE HERE. THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC TONIGHT. GO AFTER ME-- ROGER CERTAINLY WELL. ROGER AND I HAVE HAD SOME GOOD TIMES BEFORE TOGETHER ABOUT TOPICS LIKE THIS, AND SO I'M HAPPY TO OFFER A NUMBER OF IDEAS. I'M PARTICULARLY HAPPY BECAUSE-- NOT TO NAME DROP VERY MUCH BUT TOM WEISS AND I-- YOUR AUTHOR FOR THIS SECTION TONIGHT-- WE GO WAY BACK AND WE GO AS FAR BACK AS THURSDAY BECAUSE WE SPENT THURSDAY AND FRIDAY TOGETHER AT THE UNITED NATIONS WITH A GROUP OF EXPERTS ON TOPICS LIKE THIS AND GETTING SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT VERY PRETTY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN SYRIA AND ELSEWHERE. AND I TOLD TOM THAT I WASN'T GOING TO DEFEND EACH AND EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID, BUT THAT OFTEN FLASHING ON THE SCREEN WOULD BE HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER, HIS HOME NUMBER, AND OTHER KINDS OF THINGS IN CASE THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT I JUST COULDN'T ANSWER. BUT I MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT HOME NUMBER, SO CHECK BACK WITH ME LATER ON THAT. LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THAT THIS QUESTION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO SUBSTANTIAL IN U.S. HISTORY, BOTH DURING THE TIMES OF TENSION, WHETHER IT BE DECISIONS TO GO INTO WORLD WAR I OR WORLD WAR II, THE THINGS WE DISCOVERED AFTER WORLD WAR II WITH THE LIBERATION OF THE TERRIBLE CONCENTRATION CAMPS. WHO KNEW WHAT, WHEN, OR HOW, AND WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING? I WAS A GREAT FAN IN THE '70s AND '80s OF A NUMBER OF LATIN AMERICAN ANALYSTS AND ONE OF THEM A GREAT ARGENTINEAN JOURNALIST JACOBO TIMERMAN, WHO WAS VICTIMIZED BY THE MILITARY REGIME THERE IN THE '70s, WHO IN THE 1980s, WROTE AN INTERESTING COLUMN IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" WHERE HE ASKED THE QUESTION-- YOU KNOW, THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING ASKED IN EASTERN EUROPE AND IN GERMANY IN 1945 TO 1947 ARE BEING ASKED HERE IN ARGENTINA IN THE MID-1980s. WHY WAS IT THAT PEOPLE WHO KNEW DID NOTHING? HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE THAT COUNTRY PEOPLE WHO WERE YOUR COUSINS AND CLASSMATES IN HIGH SCHOOL SYSTEMATICALLY TORTURED YOUR SISTER AND YOUR COUSIN? THIS TENSION ABOUT HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE SEE NOT JUST IMPRISONMENT AND INCARCERATION AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT WHEN WE SEE VIRTUAL EXTERMINATION AND THE BOMBING OF CIVILIAN AREAS FROM THE AIR FOR AREAS THAT CAN'T PROTECT THEMSELVES, WHETHER IT BE DARFUR OR, IN THIS CASE NOW TODAY, SYRIA. THESE KINDS OF THINGS TUG AT NOT ONLY OUR HEARTS BUT ARE OUR GREATEST POLITICAL QUANDARIES. UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS ARE WE OUR BROTHER'S AND SISTER'S KEEPER? PARTICULARLY IN A PLACE LIKE THE UNITED STATES WITH A GREAT PASSION FOR PROTECTION OF THE INNOCENT... ON THE ONE HAND, ALL OF OUR INSTINCTS ARE TO HELP, AND ON THE OTHER, WE ARE A COUNTRY OF FINITE RESOURCES. YOU CAN'T GO BECOMING THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN EACH AND EVERYWHERE. SOMETIMES THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE WOULD LIKE TO STEP UP BUT, AS MANY PEOPLE OFTEN SAY, IF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY WANTS TO STEP UP, IT NEEDS THE UNITED STATES TO BE IN THE LEAD, EITHER MORALLY, TECHNICALLY, MILITARILY, OR ALL OF THE ABOVE. SO THIS QUESTION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS SUCH A BURNING ONE, AND WHETHER IT BE IN THE 1990s-- "WHAT SHOULD WE DO IN BOSNIA OR KOSOVO?" WHAT TO DO IN DARFUR, WHAT TO DO IN RWANDA? THE TRACK RECORD OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ISN'T SOMETHING TO BE VERY PROUD OF, BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO ASK ONE ANOTHER, "HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS HAPPENED "AND PEOPLE DID NOTHING?" AND AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN WE DO THINGS, WE UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THE MILITARY DIFFICULTIES, BUT THE QUESTION OF, "SHOULD YOUNG AMERICANS "BE SPILLING THEIR BLOOD IN COUNTRIES "THAT MOST AMERICANS WEREN'T SURE THEY KNEW ABOUT "TWO WEEKS BEFORE THOSE AMERICANS ENTERED THAT FRAY? "SHOULD WE EXPEND OUR RESOURCES IN THAT DIRECTION?" ALL OF THESE TENSIONS ARE AT WORK. SO I THINK THE CHAPTER THAT TOM HAS WRITTEN ON HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS A REALLY GREAT ONE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO RAISE QUESTIONS FOR US ABOUT NOT JUST THE NOTION OF WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF INTERVENTION, OR AS HE CONCLUDES THE CHAPTER WITH THE FIVE PRINCIPLES THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT IF YOU'RE ON THAT NEWLY CREATED ATROCITIES PREVENTION BOARD THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CREATED. IT'S NOT ONLY THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THIS CHAPTER IS HE INTRODUCES US TO A END OF A PROCESS OF THE LAST DECADE IN THE CREATION OF A GLOBAL NORM THAT WAS FULLY OPERATIONALIZED IN LIBYA CALLED "THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT." THAT NORM, OF COURSE, IS OFTEN LIKE OTHER NORMS... IT'S ONLY AS POWERFUL AS PEOPLE'S WILLINGNESS TO ACT FROM ITS BASIS AND SEE A PROJECT THROUGH TO ITS CONCLUSION. WE HAVE AN INTERESTING CONTRAST IN THE PERIOD 2011, OF COURSE, TILL NOW. THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY DECIDED AS QADDAFI WAS PREPARED TO SEND LARGE DHARMA DIVISIONS INTO HIS CITY OF BENGHAZI, WHERE THE REBELS AND OVER 70,000 RESIDENTS WERE HOLED UP, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CRUSH THESE COCKROACHES, THE SECURITY COUNCIL DECIDED THAT, "NO, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO PROTECT INNOCENT CIVILIANS," AND THEY AUTHORIZED A N.A.T.O. NO-FLY ZONE AND THEY AUTHORIZED A FULL SCALE, THEN, CONCENTRATION OF A VARIETY OF TECHNIQUES. WE CAN TALK IN THE Q&A AND TALK AS THE EVENING GOES ON WHETHER OR NOT N.A.T.O. IN THAT INSTANCE EXCEEDED ITS MANDATE, AND THAT CREATES SOME DIFFICULTIES FOR WHERE WE ARE NOW IN SYRIA. BUT AS THE LIBYA OPERATION BEGAN TO CLOSE, THE SYRIA ONE, OF COURSE, WAS FULLY ABLAZE. AND THE SAME PRINCIPLES THAT MOVED THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO ACTION IN LIBYA... SEEMED TO DEADLOCK BETWEEN CHINA AND RUSSIA AND A NUMBER OF OTHER STATES ON THE ONE HAND THAT SAID, "NO, WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER LIBYA," AND THE UNITED STATES, WESTERN EUROPEAN, AND OTHER COUNTRIES THAT SAID, "WE STILL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT." AND WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THIS SYRIAN SITUATION REALLY PUSHES THIS TO ITS ULTIMATE DEBATE. HOW ARE WE TO LOOK AT THIS AND HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PRESSES A NORM TO BE AN OPERATION AT ONE POINT IN TIME FOR ONE CRISIS AND YET STIFLED AT ANOTHER? IS IT SIMPLY BIG POWER POLITICS OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT OPERATE? I WANT TO GO AND CHALLENGE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT TOM WEISS HAS SAID AND AT THE SAME TIME EXTOL SOME OTHER PARTS OF IT. I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU MY UNDERSTANDING IN WORKING WITH THE SECURITY COUNCIL OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ON THESE AND OTHER ISSUES, IN PARTICULARLY THE USE OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AS A FIRST STEP IN TRYING TO MAKE AN IMPACT ON KILLER REGIMES AND WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHAT THE UTILITY OF THAT IS, AND ULTIMATELY POSE ANOTHER WAY FORWARD, AS THE POLITICIANS CALL IT, IN THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN PROTECT CIVILIANS MAYBE JUST SHORT OF THE NOTION OF FULL-SCALE INTERVENTION. SO LET ME BEGIN WITH THE NOTION OF WHERE TOM WEISS BRINGS US, AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE A NEW NORM DEVELOPING IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WHICH SWINGS THE PENDULUM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN WHICH, AS HE SAYS, "SOVEREIGNTY"-- THAT THING THAT WE WERE ALL TAUGHT IN GRADE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE-- SOVEREIGNTY, THE GREAT DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER, WHERE THE KING, THE PRIME MINISTER, THE PRESIDENT-- WHAT THEY SAY, GOES, IN THEIR TERRITORY. THAT THE NOTION OF THAT IS NOW CHANGED OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. IT'S CHANGED IN THE DIRECTION IN WHICH YES, THE SOVEREIGN CAN BE THE RULER IN THEIR OWN BOUNDARIES, BUT ONLY UP TO A POINT. YOU'RE NOT PERMITTED TO SO DESTROY THE SOCIAL FABRIC, TO KILL THE INNOCENT, OR TO DEVELOP NEW IDEOLOGIES AND MECHANISMS BY WHICH PEOPLE ARE IMPRISONED IN LARGE NUMBER, DRIVEN OUT OF THEIR HOMES AS REFUGEES, ENTIRE SOCIETIES PITTED ONE AGAINST THE OTHER IN MASSIVE SLAUGHTER-- THAT SOVEREIGNTY IS CONDITIONAL. THAT THE REST OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, THE REST OF THE CLUB OF SOVEREIGNS, WHEN FACED WITH THAT KIND OF BUTCHER LEADERSHIP HAS THE RIGHT TO NOT ONLY CALL THAT PARTY TO CEASE-AND-DESIST BUT NOW NOT HAS A CHANCE TO, BUT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT SAYS, "HAS AN OBLIGATION" TO FIND A WAY TO STOP THE SOVEREIGN FROM BEHAVING THAT WAY TO THEIR OWN POPULATION. THAT DYNAMIC-- THAT SOVEREIGNTY IS CONDITIONAL. THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY DOESN'T HAVE TO TIPTOE TO QUESTION THE ACTIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN WHEN THEY'RE KILLING IN THEIR OWN BORDERS, BUT RATHER THE OBLIGATION TO TAKE ACTIONS TO STIFLE THAT KILLING, THAT'S A COMPLETELY NEW NORM AND CONCEPT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE NORM THAT EXISTED IN THE 1940s IN PARALLEL WITH WORLD WAR II. IT'S NOT THE NORM THAT EXISTED IN PERIODS BETWEEN 1973 AND 1994, WHERE WE HAD TERRIBLE SITUATIONS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS KILLED AND GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MANY CAPITALS IN MANY COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD, OR WHEN WE HAD RWANDA OR A GENOCIDE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A WAR IN THE BALKANS. SINCE THE EARLY 2000s, THIS NORM HAS ARISEN, AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO JUMP TO IT IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 2011 TO OPERATIONALIZED IT IN LIBYA. WHETHER OR NOT ONE THOUGHT IT WAS AN OVER-EXTENDED MANDATE BY N.A.T.O. TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, NOT JUST BY BOMBING THE TROOPS ON THEIR WAY TO BENGHAZI, BUT ULTIMATELY TO HELP OVERTHROW QADDAFI IS THE DEBATE THAT THE WORLD COMMUNITY HAD AFTER-THE-FACT. AND THAT LED RUSSIA AND CHINA ESPECIALLY TO BE STUBBORN THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO SO QUICKLY INVOKE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AGAIN AS SYRIA AND HAVE WESTERN WARPLANES GO AND DUMP ASSAD AND TOSS THIS INTO YET ANOTHER EITHER UNFRIENDLY REGIME TO THEIR INTERESTS OR TOSS ANOTHER SOVEREIGN ASIDE AS IF SOVEREIGNS CAN EASILY BE TOSSED ASIDE. WHY THAT DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BIG PARTIES? WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE RISEN AGAINST WHAT SEEMED, ON THE FACE OF IT, WITH LIBYA, TO BE A RELATIVELY TRIUMPHED PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND EXERCISE OF A DECENT NORM TO PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE. WELL, TOM REFERS TO ONE OR TWO THINGS THAT I THINK ARE INTRIGUING. HE SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKED LIKE VICTORY IN LIBYA WAS PART OF A CONTINUED GROWTH AND EXTENSION OF AN ARAB SPRING, WHERE DESPOTS WERE BEING TOPPLED BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THERE BECAME A NUMBER OF STATES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST WHO FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS WAS NOT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, BUT WHAT HE CALLED "REDECORATED COLONIALISM," AND THAT IS IT'S EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE WEST AND THE UNITED STATES COMING IN AND IMPOSING THEIR WILL ON WHAT USED TO BE COLONIAL HOLDINGS OF THE WEST. WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S ACCURATE OR NOT. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK I HAVE HEARD IN THE HALLS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL OVER THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS THAT I THINK MAY BE EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT CRITIQUE, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK HAS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, EVEN IF, AS IN MY CASE OR TOM WEISS'S OR YOURS POSSIBLY, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT, BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT STATED AS A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE NORM. THE FIRST I THINK IS A CHALLENGE THAT'S BEEN POSED BY BRAZIL THAT SAYS THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IS ACTUALLY NOT SUFFICIENT. WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU BIG OUTSIDE POWERS COME IN, YOU CHANGE THE SOVEREIGN AS YOU DID IN LIBYA, AND THEN YOU SAY, "WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE BIG IMPERIAL FOOTPRINTS LIKE WE DID "IN THE OLD COLONIAL DAYS, "SO WE'RE GOING TO GET IN AND GET OUT." AND THE BRAZILIANS ALSO SAY, "OF COURSE, YOU ALL IN THE UNITED STATES, "WITH YOUR HERITAGE OF VIETNAM OR THE FRENCH IN DIEN BIEN PHU "OR WHERE EVER IT IS, "EVERYONE DOESN'T WANT TO GO IN THERE AND REALLY DO THE JOB "BECAUSE YOU WORRY ABOUT THE DOMESTIC FALLOUT, "YOU WORRY ABOUT YOUR TREASURE, YOUR TIME, "AND CERTAINLY YOUR PEOPLE BEING KILLED. "SO YOU GO, YOU USE HIGH MECHANIZED INTERVENTION "AS IN THE USE OF THE N.A.T.O. AIR FORCES, "YOU MAKE THE CHANGE ON THE GROUND, "AND THEN YOU BACK AWAY." THE BRAZILIANS SAID, "WE WANT NOT ONLY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, "BUT WE WANT RESPONSIBILITY WHILE PROTECTING." FOR EXAMPLE, THE BRAZILIANS NOWADAYS. WHERE DID ALL THOSE ARMS GO THAT QADDAFI HELD? DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY WENT? THEY WENT TO MALI, THEY WENT TO CHAD, THEY WENT TO CONGO. WE ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCING THE MALI DIMENSION AND THAT'S WHY FRENCH FORCES ARE THERE. AND SO, YES, ON THE ONE HAND, THE BRAZILIANS SAID-- THE EARLY HEADLINES WERE, "QADDAFI FALLS, LIBYANS FREE, "LIBYANS PROTECTED," BUT QADDAFI ARMS ARE SOMEWHERE ELSE, KILLING OTHER PEOPLE UNDER OTHER CONDITIONS. YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY, SO DON'T ASK US TO DO IT AGAIN IN SYRIA. OTHERS CRITIQUE THIS INTERVENTIONIST MODE OR "NEW NORM," AS TOM WEISS WOULD CALL IT, BY SAYING, "YOU'RE VERY SELECTIVE. "YES, IT'S TERRIBLE NOW IN SYRIA, "BUT IT'S BEEN TERRIBLE FOR ALMOST A DECADE IN DARFUR. "WHERE WERE YOU? "IT'S TERRIBLE IN THE CONGO. "130,000 DEAD IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. "WHERE WERE YOU? "IT'S TERRIBLE IN THIS COUNTRY OR THAT COUNTRY... "WHY IS IT THAT THE WEST SELECTIVELY INTERVENES, "ESPECIALLY IN COUNTRIES WHERE THERE MIGHT BE THINGS LIKE OIL? "SO DON'T TELL ME THAT IT'S A NEW NORM "AND IS A NEW RESPONSIBILITY. "WHAT IT REALLY IS IS A WESTERN OPPORTUNITY "AND YOU'RE BEING COLDLY CALCULATING. "DON'T COUNT ON US." THAT'S A CRITIQUE. THERE'S ANOTHER CRITIQUE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT AND USEFUL, EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT PARTICULARLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE WEST. WHILE RUSSIA AND CHINA CERTAINLY HAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND MILITARY INTERESTS IN PROTECTING, AT LEAST FOR A WHILE LONGER, ASSAD'S RULE IN SYRIA OR BEING UNCLEAR AS TO WHO THEY WANT TO SUPPORT IN CERTAIN OTHER AFRICAN OR ARAB COUNTRIES, DEPENDING ON THEIR OWN INTERESTS. I THINK THE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE LAST THREE YEARS HAS ACTUALLY BEGUN TO CHANGE THE CHINESE AND THE RUSSIAN POSITION ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE U.N. IN THESE KINDS OF DISPUTES. THAT IS, PUT IN ITS BEST SENSE-- AND THAT'S A STRETCH FOR ME TO DO AND A STRETCH FOR SOME OF YOU IN THIS ROOM-- BUT TAKING THE RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE AT THEIR BEST INCLINATION, THEY ARE SAYING, "WE ARE VERY, VERY STRICT INTERPRETERS "OF THE U.N. CHARTER. "THANK YOU. "WE BELIEVE IN THE U.N. CHARTER IN ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4, "SAYS THAT THE U.N. IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING "INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. "HOWEVER BLOODY A CIVIL WAR WITHIN A PARTICULAR STATE, "THAT'S NATIONAL. "IT'S NOT INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. "IF THESE FOLKS ARE CRAZY ENOUGH TO FIND NEW AND INTERESTING WAYS "TO KILL ONE ANOTHER, LET THEM DO IT "AND SOLVE IT AND LET A REVOLUTION PLAY OUT. "OUTSIDE POWERS SHOULDN'T INTERVENE." IN ITS LESS GRANDIOSE WAY, WHAT I THINK HAS REALLY HAPPENED IN MOSCOW AND BEIJING IS THEY ARE SEEING THE CHANGE IN REGIMES THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS UNCHANGEABLE... THAT BEGAN WITH PROTESTS IN THE STREET, PROTESTS GOT UGLY, DESPOTS GOT TOUGH, THINGS GOT REALLY MESSY, AND THE WEST INTERVENED. AND MR. PUTIN COMES BACK TO OFFICE AND HE LOOKS OUT OF HIS WINDOW IN MOSCOW SQUARE AND SEES 25,000 PEOPLE OUT THERE CLAIMING HIS ELECTION WAS ILLEGAL, ILLICIT, AND A FRAUD. SO, ONE MIGHT THINK, "NEVER WOULD THE SECURITY COUNCIL "TAKE UP THE IDEA OF INTERVENING IN MOSCOW OR IN BEIJING," BUT IF YOU'RE A CHINESE OR RUSSIAN LEADER, THE INTERNAL DISSENSION GROWING IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY-- IT DOESN'T TAKE AN EINSTEIN TO MAKE THE CONNECTION THAT IF YESTERDAY IT WAS EGYPT AND THE DAY BEFORE IT WAS LIBYA AND IT MIGHT TOMORROW BE SYRIA, THAT A WEEK FROM NOW, IT MIGHT BE THEM POINTING FINGERS AT US. SO THIS CREATES A HUGE BIG POWER TENSION THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, THAT I THINK TOM WEISS DOESN'T DEAL WITH. I THINK THE ISSUE FOR MANY OF US IS MILITARY INTERVENTION AS THE DEBATING POINT COMES, WHAT? WHEN THE CRISIS IS AT ITS MOST SEVERE POINT, THAT WE ARE WRINGING OUR HANDS AND SAYING, "IF WE DON'T GO IN, LOTS MORE INNOCENTS DIE. "IF WE DO GO IN, MAYBE WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. "SOME OF OUR FOLKS WILL DIE, BUT WE CAN STOP ONE VERSION "OF THE KILLING AND WE MIGHT EVEN HAVE TO TRADE "SOME KILLING FOR OTHER KILLING. "BUT AT LEAST WE ARE PROACTIVE AND WE CAN DO SOMETHING." I'D SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IN TODAY'S WORLD, WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE DETERIORATION OF THE CONDITIONS BETWEEN LEADERS AND THEIR FOLLOWERS, WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE GROWTH OF SOCIAL PROTEST THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA AND VARIOUS THINGS, THAT IN THE DAYS WHERE INTERVENTION BECAME A QUESTION ONLY AT THAT BIG MOMENT OF CRISIS IS ONE THAT WE ACTUALLY CAN BEGIN TO TRACK MONTHS AND MONTHS AHEAD OF TIME. IN FACT, I THINK IT WAS A VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN ASSAD WENT AFTER THE TEENAGERS IN HOMES AT THE START, THAT THIS WAS ABOUT TO BE THE NEXT BIG ARAB SPRING. AND THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, "CAN AWARE AND POWERFUL NATIONS, "ALLIANCES, AND PLACES AT THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL "BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT EFFECTIVE MEASURES "SHORT OF MILITARY FORCE EARLIER DOWN IN THE CYCLE "OF INTERNAL VIOLENCE WHERE YOU BEGIN TO CHANGE THE CHOICES "AND THE CAPABILITIES OF DESPOTS WHO, WHEN THINGS GET ROUGH, "YOU KNOW ARE GOING TO GO AND KILL THEIR OWN PEOPLE?" RATHER THAN WORRYING ABOUT MILITARY INTERVENTION AT THE APEX OF THE CRISIS, WHERE THERE IS ONLY TWO CHOICES-- DO NOTHING AND WATCH LOTS DIE, DO SOMETHING AND NOW START TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DYING AND KILLING AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. WHY NOT HAVE THE CHOICES VERY, VERY DIFFERENT? IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE. WE CAN GO TO THE DOCTOR WHEN WE'RE AT OUR ABSOLUTE WORST AND DYING SOMETHING, OR IF WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE EARLY STAGES AND WARNING SIGNS, WE GO AND SAY, "HEY, THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE. "HOW DO WE INTERVENE IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF MODE "WHEN IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIFESAVING "AT THE MOST CRITICAL MOMENT?" WE KNOW THAT NOW IN TERMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, GENOCIDE, AND PROTEST EARLY WARNING SIGNALS. THAT'S PARTLY WHAT THE ATROCITY PREVENTION BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO MONITOR. NOW, THE QUESTION IS WHAT TECHNIQUES LIE AHEAD FOR US IN BEING ABLE, IF WE FIND SIGNS OF THE TIMES COMING OUT THAT SAY, "THIS IS A SITUATION "THAT'S BEGINNING TO BREW TERRIBLY, "WHAT CAN WE DO TO CUT DOWN THE PROSPECTS THAT LEADERS, "FACED WITH SOME DECENT, HONEST CITIZEN-BASED PROTEST "DON'T IMMEDIATELY GO AND START KILLING PEOPLE?" WELL, ONE OF THE ANSWERS TO THAT, FOLKS, IS ASTUTELY PLACED ECONOMIC SANCTIONS. YOU SEE, BECAUSE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS CAN PLAY A ROLE IN DENYING LEADERS CAPABILITIES THAT THEY NEED TO SHORE THEMSELVES UP TO KILL THEIR OWN CITIZENS, AND I THINK THIS IS, IN PART, BEYOND THE N.A.T.O. BOMBING WHAT ACTUALLY LED TO THE DOWNFALL OF QADDAFI. IN EARLY FEBRUARY, BEFORE THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATED THE RESOLUTION 1970, THE UNITED STATES, EUROPE, CANADA, AND AUSTRALIA LOCKED DOWN $36 BILLION IN ASSETS HELD BY THE QADDAFI GOVERNMENT AND FAMILY BOTH THROUGHOUT EUROPE AND IN INTERNATIONAL BANK ACCOUNTS. WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE QADDAFI WAS ALREADY FACED WITH THE PROTESTS IN THE STREETS AND OUT THERE SHOPPING IN TRIPOLI, AND SOUTH AFRICA, IN A NUMBER OF CAPITALS WITH LOTS OF GOOD ARMS TO SELL, AND BY LOCKING DOWN THOSE ASSETS, HE COULD MAKE GOOD ON PLEDGES TO CONTRACT COMMANDO UNITS FROM SOUTH AFRICA, MERCENARIES FROM CHAD, TONS OF AMMUNITION FROM CHINA AND FROM TUNISIA. HE SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE THE CASH TO PAY. BY DENYING THE CAPABILITIES, AND THEN THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RUBBER-STAMPING THAT AND EXTENDING IT TO HAVE OTHER COUNTRIES DO THE SAME, WE FOUND A WAY TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO MOUNT THE BIG OFFENSIVE AGAINST HIS PEOPLE. WHEN HE DID MOBILIZE IT, HEADING TO BENGHAZI, WE THEN WENT TO THE MILITARY FORCE OPTION, BUT THE MILITARY FORCE OPTION REINFORCING THE SANCTIONS, REINFORCING THE GROWING PROTESTS, MEANT THAT YOU HAD WHAT IN LIBYA? LESS THAN 7,000 TOTAL DEATHS FROM ALL OF THE VIOLENCE AND CITIES THAT ARE MORE OR LESS INTACT. COMPARE BENGHAZI, MISURATA, TRIPOLI NOW TO THE DEVASTATED CITIES OF SYRIA AND WHAT DAMASCUS MAY LOOK LIKE SOON. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS HAS A BAD REPUTATION IN MANY PLACES. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IS NOT A PANACEA. BUT WE HAVE WAYS IN WHICH NOW, WHETHER IT BE DARFUR OR SYRIA, WE CAN TRACK CERTAIN KINDS OF THINGS. LET ME GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE BEFORE I DRAW THIS TO A CONCLUSION AND TAKE YOUR GOOD QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES TO WHAT WE SAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN LOOKING AT THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN'S ATTACKS ON FOLKS IN DARFUR OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS TO REALIZE THAT THIS GOVERNMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNDER AN INTERNATIONAL ARMS EMBARGO, AS BECOME QUITE CLEVER WITH WHAT IT DOES TO STILL CREATE ARMORED VEHICLES. ONE OF THE THINGS IT'S BEEN DOING IS IMPORTING LARGE NUMBERS OF RANGE ROVERS AND OTHER KINDS OF HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED R.V.s AND FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES, IN WHICH THEY BRING INTO THE CAPITAL AND BEGIN TO MECHANIZE AND MILITARIZE WITH CANNONS AND VARIOUS OTHER KINDS OF THINGS. WITH THE WORK OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, WE HAD A BAN PLACED ON ALL OF THESE VEHICLES COMING OUT OF A VARIETY OF SUPPLIERS IN EUROPE AND PARTICULARLY IN LEBANON. THE GOVERNMENT OF KHARTOUM HAD ORDERED 240 RANGE ROVERS, LISTING THEM AS "GOVERNMENT LUXURY VEHICLES," WHEN IN FACT, THEY WERE GOING TO USE THESE AS MECHANIZED KINDS OF MATERIALS IN ORDER TO SEND THEM TO DARFUR, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO REAL PERSONNEL CARRIERS AND REAL TANKS BECAUSE OF THE ARMS EMBARGO. THERE'S WAYS AND THERE'S THESE KINDS OF THINGS, PARTICULARLY NOW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, TRACKING DEVICES ON CELL PHONES, THE MECHANIZED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT THAT A REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT WILL USE TO SHUT OFF THE COMMUNICATIONS OF ITS CITIZENS, ONE WITH THE OTHER. WE CAN LOCK THESE THINGS DOWN IN 24 HOURS, AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE WORKING ON SANCTIONS ISSUES ARE STARTING TO WORK ON THESE KINDS OF TOOLS OF WHAT WE CALL THE "ENABLING DEVICES" OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES TO DO THEIR BAD BUSINESS. AND WE THINK WE CAN BACK THIS SLOWER-- FURTHER DOWN THE CYCLE SO THAT THE BIG MILITARY INTERVENTION ISN'T THE HAND-WRINGING QUESTION, BUT WE CAN DO THIS IN A STEP-BY-STEP WAY AND MAYBE DISABLE THE CAPACITY OF LEADERS TO KILL THEIR OWN CITIZENS. WITH THAT KIND OF POSITIVE APPROACH, I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT TOM RAISES ARE IMPORTANT. THEY ARE CERTAINLY THE ONES WE'RE ABOUT TO FACE IN THE SYRIA CASE. AND WHILE I'M CONFIDENT ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS LIKE SANCTIONS AND THIS ENABLING APPROACH, I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH ONE REALLY BAD SET OF BAD NEWS TO KICK OFF THE DISCUSSION... AS MUCH AS THE U.S. DEBATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS DEADLOCKED ON SYRIA, WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION ON SYRIA, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO GIVE US NO CHOICE. I THINK ONE OF THREE, OR MAYBE A COMBINATION OF TWO OF THESE THREE SITUATIONS WILL GIVE US NO CHOICE. THE FIRST IS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO HOLD ONTO POWER, THE REGIME WILL CAST ASIDE DOUBTS AND WORRIES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER AND THEY WILL, IN FACT, USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST AN ADVANCING SET OF REBEL FORCES. THAT WILL CERTAINLY SPARK EVEN RUSSIAN WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO INTERVENE. THE SECOND CONDITION WOULD BE NOT YET USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS, BUT SUCH A CONTINUED DRAMATIC DETERIORATION OF THIS VIOLENT CONFLICT WHERE CHAOS IS BREAKING LOOSE EVERYWHERE, AND WHAT NOW IS ALMOST 3,000 REFUGEES A DAY LEAVING SYRIA BECOMES 5,000, AND THE KILLING OF ALL AGAINST ALL IS CRASHING IN IN DAMASCUS, AND NOBODY CAN SORT OF FIND ASSAD FOR LEADERSHIP ANYMORE... THAT'S WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WILL GO IN. BUT MAYBE THE MOST BITTER IRONY FOR MANY SYRIANS TRAPPED BY THIS WAR WILL BE THE THIRD SCENARIO, AND THAT IS THE SYRIAN REBELS ARE ABLE TO OVERCOME SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES THEY'VE HAD IN PUTTING PRESSURE ON DAMASCUS AND ELSEWHERE, AND THEY DO, IN FACT, MOBILIZE A MAJOR OFFENSIVE, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS FACED WITH THE TERRIBLE HARSH REALITY THAT THEY HAVE TO STOP THE REBELS FROM SLAUGHTERING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ALAWITES, THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED ASSAD AND ARE OF ASSAD'S ILK. SO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY UNDER CRITIQUE FROM SYRIANS FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS, "YOU DIDN'T COME TO SAVE US," IS GOING TO COME IN AND SAVE THE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH ASSAD, BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T, THERE WERE WILL BE A HUGE MASSACRE. THAT BITTER IRONY CONFRONTS US ANEW WITH SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES AND THE TENSIONS, THE VALUE QUESTIONS, THE LOGISTICS THAT ARE POISED WHEN YOU BRING UP THIS QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. I'LL STOP THERE-- THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (applause) >> LET ME TURN THIS ON. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PROFESSOR. AND LET ME WELCOME YOU BACK TO AQUINAS COLLEGE. AS YOU ALL KNOW, HE'S VERY COMPASSIONATE AND PASSIONATE ABOUT THESE ISSUES, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, I HAVE LEARNED MUCH FROM THIS GENTLEMAN AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT. BUT WE ARE GOING TO START MAYBE AT THE VERY BROADEST QUESTION. THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR R2P, INCLUDING LAWS ABOUT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A LIST OF THOSE LAWS AND HOW EFFECTIVE THEY'VE BEEN? >> YEAH, R2P, AS YOU REMEMBER FROM THE READING, WAS DEVELOPED NOT JUST TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. IN FACT, THE FOUNDERS WERE VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT THEIR FOCUS WAS ON MASS ATROCITIES. THAT IS, THE WORST OF THE WORST VIOLATIONS. IN PART SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE MUCH INTERNATIONAL DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE NORM. SO, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? WE KNOW WHAT GENOCIDE IS. IT'S THE KILLING OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR SIMPLY THE SHARED CHARACTERISTIC THAT THEY HAVE-- THEIR RACE, THEIR RELIGION, THEIR ETHNIC TYPE. JUST BELOW GENOCIDE CAME TO US IN THE '90s, THIS TERRIBLE NEW REALITY CALLED "ETHNIC CLEANSING," WHICH IS AN ATTEMPT WITHIN A SOCIETY TO SELECT OUT GROUPS OF PEOPLE, DISPLACE THEM, KILL THEM, IMPRISON THEM, AND-- AS WE LEARNED IN BOSNIA-- RAPE AND DESECRATE THEM. MASS ATROCITIES, MEANING POLITICAL KILLINGS, SECTARIAN-MOTIVATED KILLINGS. THESE KINDS OF INTERNATIONALLY ESTABLISHED CRIMES ARE WHAT R2P WAS MEANT TO CORRECT. SO IT REALLY PLACES A BURDEN OF EVIDENCE ON THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO MAKE THE CASE FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. YOU'VE GOT TO PROVE THAT THIS IS GOING ON. THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S SO STIFLED THE DEBATE WITHIN DARFUR IN THE LAST DECADE. WAS A JUST A LOT OF NASTY KILLING? WAS IT GENOCIDE? WAS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING? AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HEMMED AND HAWED AND THE KILLING WENT ON. KIND OF FOR SOME, DEBATING THAT NUMBER OF ANGELS ON THE HEAD OF A PIN. WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE IS SERIOUS LEGAL DEFINITIONS. WE FIND THAT IT'S NOT ONLY THE QUESTION OF, "WILL INTERNATIONAL TROOPS COME TO ENGAGE IN PREVENTING THIS?" BUT ALSO EVEN AFTER THE FACT, CAN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OFFER NAMES AND EVIDENCE UP TO INTERNATIONAL COURTS LIKE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TO INDICT THESE PEOPLE, AND AFTER THE FACT, ARREST THEM AS INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS, AS MASS MURDERERS, AND PUT THEM ON TRIAL? AND I THINK FOR THOSE OF US IN THIS ROOM OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE STUDIED THIS OR SEEN IT DIRECTLY, THERE IS OF COURSE AND THEN A REALLY DIRECT LINE BETWEEN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS ALL THE WAY TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, WHERE THERE ARE SOME THINGS, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASONS OF STATE, THERE ARE CRIMES BY WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE. THEY CAN'T HIDE BEHIND THE FACT THAT, "I WAS A GENERAL "AND I DID WHAT I WAS TOLD." >> ON THE POINT OF GENOCIDE, SAMANTHA POWERS IN HER BOOK "A PROBLEM FROM HELL-- AMERICA AND THE AGE OF GENOCIDE," ARGUES THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN TOO LAISSEZ-FAIRE ABOUT THIS. BILL CLINTON EVEN ADMITTED THAT RWANDA MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE. SOME OF US MIGHT FIND ANOTHER ONE. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE UNWILLING TO PLACE HUMAN RIGHTS OR R2P AT THE TOP OF THE FOREIGN-POLICY PRIORITY LIST. WHY IS THIS THE CASE? WHAT'S GOING ON DOMESTICALLY THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT? WELL, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. IN THE '90s, THE REASONS FOR THE LACK OF RESPONSE TO BOSNIA, TO RWANDA, AND THEN LATER ON IN THE EARLY 2000s, TO DARFUR, WAS SIMPLY THE NOTION THAT A VERY BIG POWERFUL COUNTRY ESTABLISHES ITS PRIORITIES, AND THE SMALLER CONFLICTS FAR AWAY, NOT LONG-TERM ALLIES OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT DEEP ECONOMIC OR ETHNIC CONNECTIONS, WE DON'T PUT THE EFFORT IN. I HATE TO SAY THAT IT'S THIS SORT OF CALCULATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS, BUT HOW DO YOU SELL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A MAP OF A COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH AND SAY, "I'VE JUST COMMITTED 35,000 TROOPS TO GO THERE "AND HELP THOSE PEOPLE OUT." IN THE ABSENCE OF A BROAD-SCALE ALREADY EXISTING DOMESTIC CRY THAT WE HELP THOSE PEOPLE, THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO, AND I THINK IT BECOMES EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO DO IN OUR CURRENT ERA AFTER THE SITUATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ, AS WE WELL KNOW IN ALL OUR COMMUNITIES AS WE WELCOME THESE PEOPLE HOME WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY SO WELL, THIS EXHAUSTION. THERE IS DEVASTATION WITHIN THE ARMY RANKS OF THE INABILITY-- NEVER THE UNWILLINGNESS, BUT THE INABILITY TO ACTUALLY CARRY OFF SOME OF THIS STUFF. SO NO PRESIDENT WHO'S A SERIOUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS GOING TO DO THIS. AND I GUESS IT'S ALSO FAIR TO SAY, ROGER, THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BOTH TERRIBLE AND WONDERFUL ABOUT A POLITICAL CARTOON IS THAT IT SORTA STICKS THAT KNIFE IN YOU AND TURNS IT, AND IN ITS PRINTING DAYS, THE "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR" HAD A GREAT CARTOONIST WHO REALLY CAPTURED SO MANY INTERNATIONAL CRISES. AND I REMEMBER IN THE EARLY '90s, HE HAD-- DANZIGER WAS HIS NAME-- HE HAD A CARTOON OF A FAMILY CARRYING THINGS OVER THEIR BACK-- FOUR OR FIVE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE LABEL ON THE BACK, "BOSNIAN REFUGEES," AND WITH THE BOTTOM LINE BEING, "MUSLIMS NOT FORTUNATE ENOUGH "TO LIVE ON TOP OF OIL." AND OF COURSE THE REFERENCE TO KUWAIT AS OPPOSED TO BOSNIA. AND I THINK THAT'S IN THERE AS WELL. HOW DO YOU MAKE A CASE FOR THIS BEING AN INTERVENTION THAT WILL PROTECT AMERICAN INTERESTS? AND I'M NOT SURE WE COULD EVER MAKE THE CASE THAT WE OUGHT TO INTERVENE OUT OF GOODWILL OR MORAL PERSUASION OR ANY NUMBER OF THINGS IN ALL THESE OTHER PLACES. I THINK YOU NEED A SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF "AFTER YOU STOP THE KILLING, THEN WHAT?" INTERVENTIONS TO STOP THE KILLING ARE GOOD. INTERVENTIONS IN WHICH YOU'VE GOT TO KILL LARGE NUMBERS TO STOP THE KILLING, AND THEN YOU'RE THERE FOR A VERY LONG WHILE... NOT SO GOOD. AND THE DILEMMA OF THINKING THAT YOU ARE RELATIVELY ALL-POWERFUL AND CAN CONTROL THE SITUATION FROM THE MINUTE YOUR TROOPS ENTER THEREAFTER, WE KNOW FROM VENTURES FROM VIETNAM ALL THE WAY THROUGH IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN THAT THE BEST OF CAPABILITIES, THE BEST OF INTENTIONS WILL GO ASTRAY BECAUSE THE WORLD IS VERY, VERY COMPLEX. >> WELL, THEN LET'S GET RIGHT TO THE HEART OF THAT DOMESTIC QUESTION THEN. I REALLY APPRECIATED YOUR PHRASE "REDECORATED COLONIALISM." IS IT NOT ARGUABLE THAT THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, AND ITALY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN THAT REALLY GOOD OIL THAT LIBYA HAS AND PROTECTING THAT THAN WE ARE OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'VE MENTIONED RESOLUTIONS 1973 IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY OF 2011. WHERE ARE THOSE RESOLUTIONS TODAY ON SYRIA? AND WHY LIBYA AND NOT SYRIA? >> I THINK "WHY LIBYA AND NOT SYRIA" IS THE BROAD CONCERN ABOUT THE ECONOMIC, THE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR QADDAFI AMONG ALMOST ANY LEADERS, AND THE ABSOLUTE CLARITY-- THE ABSOLUTE CLARITY THAT THOSE FORCES WERE GOING TO BENGHAZI TO COMMIT AN IMMEDIATE SLAUGHTER. AND I THINK THAT YOU'VE NEVER-- WELL, I DON'T WANT TO SAY "YOU'VE NEVER"-- BUT IN RECENT MEMORY, YOU'VE NEVER HAD SUCH A CLEAR MILITARY OPPORTUNITY TO WIPE OUT AN ENTIRE STRIKE FORCE AND CHANGE DRAMATICALLY THE EVENTS ON THE GROUND AS YOU DID IN BENGHAZI. I THOUGHT IN ABOUT MAY OR APRIL, EARLIER THIS YEAR-- EXCUSE ME, NOT THIS YEAR-- LAST YEAR, IN 2012 THAT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE CALCULUS IN SYRIA, THE ABILITY TO STRIKE AT THOSE TANK DIVISIONS GOING ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF HOMES AND POUNDING HOMES, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO BE 15 TURKISH PLANES, A BUNCH OF UNIDENTIFIABLE DRONES, OR WHATEVER IT WAS GOING TO BE, BUT THAT IF YOU WERE ABLE TO HIT THOSE TANKS THEN, EVEN WITHOUT A SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, YOU WOULD HAVE BEGUN TO CHANGE THE SENSE OF INVULNERABILITY THE SYRIAN MILITARY HAD, AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN INTERESTING AND EFFECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL AIR STRIKE TO SEE IF YOU COULD BEGIN TO CHANGE THE CALCULUS, AND CONFRONT ASSAD RIGHT AWAY THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE LIMITS TO WHAT HE COULD DO. YOU WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE THE FULL-SCALE LIBYAN INTERVENTION, BUT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE CONTROLLED EFFECTS IN SYRIA. WHY LIBYA? NOBODY LOVED QADDAFI. AN IMMEDIATE THREAT OF SUCH PROPORTION THAT YOU COULD HANDLE, THAT ACTION MATTERED. AN ABILITY TO PROBABLY GET THE JOB DONE IN A RELATIVELY EASY TIME WITHOUT A LOT OF FORCE HITTING BACK AT YOU BECAUSE QADDAFI HAD ALREADY CONTROLLED AND ALMOST DECAPITATED HIS OWN MILITARY TO KEEP HIMSELF FROM RULE. >> BUT SYRIA HAS LESS OIL MONEY, IF YOU WILL, LESS ABILITY TO BUY MILITARY. ASSAD'S DONE ALMOST THE EXACT SAME THING. IS IT REALLY JUST ABOUT THE OIL? >> NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST ABOUT THE OIL. I THINK IT'S ABOUT THE CONFIGURATION OF SHIA VERSUS SUNNI BALANCES WITHIN THE REGION. I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH HAVING VERY POWERFUL FRIENDS THAT HAVE KEPT THIS GUY AFLOAT MONETARILY. PART OF MY RESEARCH GROUP, WE ESTIMATED THAT ONCE THE SANCTIONS REALLY KICKED IN FROM THE E.U. AND THE U.S. ON ASSAD IN LAST SPRING, WE THOUGHT WE HAD SIX MONTHS TOPS. HE'S GOT TWICE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NOW HE HAD BACK THEN. WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? WELL, IT COMES FROM IRAN, IT COMES FROM HEZBOLLAH, IT COMES FROM SMUGGLING, IT COMES FROM THE RUSSIANS. THE RUSSIANS ARE PAID AHEAD MAYBE 15 MONTHS ON THE COMPUTER, THE ARMS DEALS, AND THE OTHER CONTRACTS THAT THEY HAVE WITH THEM. THEY'RE KEEPING HIM AFLOAT. AND ONCE HE HAS THAT MONEY, HE CAN BUY OTHER KINDS OF THINGS, AND IN PARTICULAR, HE CAN BUY LOYALTY. YOU KNOW, REMEMBER THE-- I THINK, I GUESS, ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES, QUITE HONESTLY-- THIS IS WHERE THE PERSONAL BECOMES VERY POLITICAL. THE IDEA OF A LIBYAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. SITTING AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL WITH TEARS COMING DOWN HIS EYES, HAVING DEFECTED FROM THE LIBYAN REGIME, AND SAYING TO THE BIG POWERS, "DON'T LET THAT SO-AND-SO KILL MORE LIBYANS. "DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN." AND THEN, THERE BEING LARGE NUMBERS OF LIBYAN GENERALS THAT WERE DEFECTING. THAT CHANGES THE CLIMATE AMONG POWERFUL STATES OF WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO. WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN SYRIA. THESE FOLKS HAVE STAYED LOYAL, THEY'VE STAYED TIGHT, THEY MAY HAVE ALL BEEN BOUGHT OFF. THEY MAY ALL OPERATE UNDER THE MIRAGE THAT IN ANOTHER WEEK, "THIS IS OVER, THIS IS OURS." >> AND OF COURSE, EVEN THE ARAB LEAGUE HAS SANCT-- ER, KICKED THEM OUT OF THE ARAB LEAGUE. >> YEAH. >> THAT'S A BIG DEAL. >> IT IS. >> JUST TODAY-- LET ME READ VERY QUICKLY-- FEBRUARY 18, 2013, THE UNITED NATIONS INDEPENDENT PANEL INVESTIGATING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN SYRIA TODAY CALLED FOR "URGENT ACTION TO ASSURE JUSTICE "FOR THE CRIMES COMMITTED, ADDING THAT IT WILL SUBMIT "A LIST OF NAMES NEXT MONTH OF THOSE BELIEVED TO BE "THE MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATROCITIES. "BUT THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS "IN THE SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC HAS CONTINUED TO DETERIORATE." THIS IS JUST TODAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE COULD BE AN INTERVENTION WITHIN SIX MONTHS. WE'VE GOT NAMES. WHY DON'T THE BIG POWERS ACT NOW? YOU TALKED ABOUT WHY LIBYA, BUT WHY NOT NOW? I MEAN HERE'S THIS REPORT TODAY. IS OBAMA, OR OBAMA AND OTHER LEADERS REALLY THAT... >> IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE OPPOSED TO THIS. YOU KNOW, EVERY ASSERTIVE MOVE COMES WITH A COUNTER-BALANCING COST AND THAT'S A DILEMMA. THE OTHER DILEMMA, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN NOT INTERVENING NINE MONTHS AGO, IT'S MORE COMPLICATED NOW, IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY KILL YOUR WAY IN. IT'S NOT JUST-- IT'S JUST NOT BOMBING FROM THE SKIES. YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO KILL YOUR WAY IN, WHICH MEANS A SIGNIFICANT CONFRONTATION LIKE WE HAD IN IRAQ. THAT'S NOT A PLEASANT OPPORTUNITY. AND WE CAN'T CONTROL OUTCOMES. >> AND IN IRAQ, IT WAS MUCH MORE UNILATERAL. YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE WORLD IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN, BUT PROBABLY NOT THE WAY WE WENT ABOUT IT. >> AND BECAUSE YOU WENT ABOUT IT CERTAIN WAYS AND HAVE HAD THAT EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, SEVEN TO TEN YEARS, YOU'RE NOW IN A DIFFERENT SPOT. YOU'RE MUCH MORE RELUCTANT. MUCH MORE RELUCTANT. >> WHILE I'VE GOT YOU, I WANT TO ASK A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION. >> UH-OH. >> JUST WAR THEORY AND R2P ARE VERY CLOSELY RELATED, PHILOSOPHICALLY. REALLY, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? WHEN IS WAR OR PROTECTION JUSTIFIABLE? IN JUST WAR THEORY, WE TALK ABOUT JUS AD BELLUM-- JUSTICE OF THE WAR, JUSTICE DURING THE WAR, AND JUSTICE AFTER THE WAR. CAN YOU RELATE THESE TWO CONCEPTS SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THEM A LITTLE BIT BETTER? >> SURE. RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT FOCUSES ON THE DECISION TO PROTECT INNOCENTS THROUGH A VARIETY OF MEASURES, AND WHEN THOSE DON'T WORK, THEN ULTIMATELY TO MILITARY FORCE. SO IT RUNS SIMILAR TO JUST WAR THINKING IN THAT JUST WAR SAYS THAT MILITARY FORCE SHOULD BE THE LAST RESORT. BUT I THINK SOME OF THE COMPARISONS STOPS AT THAT POINT BECAUSE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, ONCE IT SAYS "THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE AT RISK THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION," WHILE IT WANTS TO ENGAGE IN THAT MILITARY INTERVENTION SUPPORTIVE OF THE LAWS OF WAR, IT'S ALL IN. IT'S ALL IN UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE. IN JUST WAR APPLICATION, YOUR DECISION TO ENTER BECAUSE IT'S A LAST RESORT, THE JUS AD BELLUM THEN GETS FILED AWAY AND SAYS, "THIS LOOKS LIKE A GOOD WAR," BUT THEN YOU'RE IN THE JUS DURING WAR WHICH MEANS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KILL YOUR WAY IN, HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CIVILIANS AND MILITARY? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, ACCORDING TO JUST WAR CRITERIA, MAKE SURE THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR GOING TO WAR IS THAT CONDITIONS WILL BE DEMONSTRABLY BETTER HAVING GONE TO WAR AFTER. SOME WOULD EVEN SAY THAT YOU CAN GUARANTEE A JUST PEACE AT THE END. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW YOU CAN GUARANTEE A JUST PEACE IN A COUNTRY THAT YOU'VE HAD VIRTUALLY NO RELATIONSHIPS WITH AND HAVE NO AFFINITY WITH. NOW, AN ARAB INTERVENTIONARY FORCE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT AN AMERICAN OR EUROPEAN... THAT LOOKS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. >> DO WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS CONTRIBUTE TO THE JUST PEACE AFTER? YOU MENTIONED NUREMBERG AND OF COURSE THE TIE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. >> YEAH, THE ULTIMATE CONSOLATION AFTER TERRIBLE SETS OF KILLINGS-- THAT WE NOW CAN HOLD PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE. IT WILL ALWAYS BE ACCUSED OF BEING VICTOR'S JUSTICE, IT WILL ALWAYS BE ACCUSED OF BEING SELECTIVE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF IT WERE TOTALLY ABSENT, THEN WE STAND FOR NO JUSTICE WHATSOEVER. I MEAN, LET'S REMEMBER EVEN IN TERMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND OTHER TRIALS THAT 30 YEARS AFTER PINOCHET'S TERRIBLE BEHAVIOR IN CHILE, FINALLY INDICTED AND TRIED. LOTS OF PEOPLE TRIED IN ABSENTIA. THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND VARIOUS REGIONAL COURTS GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO BUILD A BLOCK BY BLOCK BY BLOCK NEW EDIFICE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN KILLING. IT'S NOT A PERFECT STRUCTURE, IT'LL NEVER LOOK LIKE DOMESTIC, BUT IT GIVES US A COUPLE OF MORE BLOCKS UP THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE. >> AND OF COURSE, THE PINOCHET CASE WAS THE OTHER 9/11. 9/11/1973, PINOCHET TOOK OVER CHILE WITH AMERICAN SUPPORT. WELL, LET'S SWITCH GEARS VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN EAST ASIA OVER THE WEEKEND OR A FEW DAYS AGO. NORTH KOREA AND SANCTIONS-- AND I WROTE IN MY NOTES, "DO THEY REALLY WORK?" SANCTIONS. SO, YOU WERE QUOTED BY A NUMBER OF MEDIA OUTLETS AS SAYING THAT THE MESSAGE SHOULD BE, "YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH US, DEAR BEIJING, "AND CREATE A BILATERAL LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK WITH THE SAME GOALS "OR ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE IN AN UNPREDICTABLE WAY," TALKING ABOUT CHINESE LEADERSHIP IN NORTH KOREA, AND I THINK YOU LABELED NORTH KOREA "THE HERMIT KINGDOM." CAN YOU GIVE US SOME MORE CONTEXT ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS? >> SURE. THE THEORY BEHIND ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IS THAT YOU IMPOSE ECONOMIC COSTS ON A COUNTRY OR A TARGET WHICH CHANGE THEIR POLITICAL CALCULATIONS. THE COSTS OF DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED BY THE TRADE OR AID THAT YOU'VE NOW TAKEN AWAY, OR THE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL PENALTIES YOU PUT ON THEM. IDEALLY, SANCTIONS WORK WHEN COUNTRIES THAT IMPOSE THEM HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTERACTION. BECAUSE NORTH KOREA IS PARTLY A SELF-EXILED STATE, AN AUTHORITARIAN STATE WITH A PARTICULARLY NARROW COMMUNIST TRADITION. IT'S NOT A HIGH TRADING STATE WITH THE UNITED STATES AND WESTERN STATES. SO THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS, IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL, HAS TO OCCUR WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE ONE OR TWO STATES IN WHICH THEY'RE HIGH TRADERS, WHICH ARE THE CHINESE. NOW, THE CHINESE HAVE A PARTICULAR KIND OF PROBLEM IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WITH NORTH KOREA. NORTH KOREA WILL COLLAPSE IF IT DOESN'T HAVE CHINESE SUPPORT. THE CHINESE, BIG POWER THAT THEY ARE, RIGHTFULLY THINK WHEN WE TELL THE NORTH KOREANS, "NOT A GOOD IDEA TO DO THAT," THAT THE NORTH KOREANS WOULD SAY, "OUR BIGGEST ECONOMIC BENEFACTOR "SAYS DON'T DO THAT, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T." INSTEAD THE NORTH KOREANS TURN AROUND AND SAY, "YOU CAN'T TELL US ANYTHING," AND THEY GO AHEAD AND DO IT ANYWAY. SO THE FOLKS IN BEIJING ARE KIND OF SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS, PARTICULARLY UNDER THIS NEW LEADERSHIP, THAT UNDER CONDITIONS OF MAXIMUM POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SWAY THAT THEY OBJECTIVELY HAVE OVER THE NORTH KOREANS, THEY GO AND THEY LAUNCH ANYWAY, THEY GO AND EXPLODE NUCLEAR TESTS ANYWAY. AND MY ATTEMPT IN THE QUOTES FROM LAST WEEK WAS TO SAY THIS IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UNITED STATES TO PUT THEIR ARM AROUND THE CHINESE AND SAY, "WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH A COUPLE OF COUNTRIES, TOO. "THEY ARE TOTALLY ADEPENDENT ON US, "THEY CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT OUR BENEFICIARY STATUS, "POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY, "AND THEY NEVER DO WHAT WE ASK THEM TO DO. "THIS IS WHAT BIG POWERS CONFRONT. "HOW ARE WE GOING TO MANAGE THIS PROBLEM TOGETHER?" AND THE PROBLEM TO MANAGE IS NOT JUST NORTH KOREA AND WHAT IT'S DOING, BUT THE RISING ATTITUDE IN SOUTH KOREA AND JAPAN THAT THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH A NORTH KOREA LIKE THIS IS FOR US TO NUCLEARIZE OURSELVES, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO STOP. SANCTIONS AGAINST NORTH KOREA ARE NOT SO MUCH AIMED AT NORTH KOREA, IN REALITY, AS AT CONSTRAINING THE NETWORKS THAT GET NORTH KOREA MATERIALS TO BUILD BOMBS. NORTH KOREA DOESN'T HAVE ANY INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY TO BUILD CENTRIFUGES, TO EXTORT URANIUM, TO BE ABLE TO THEN RUN A URANIUM BOMB. THEY GET THAT STUFF FROM INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIERS THAT MAKE LOTS OF MONEY IN THE TRADE OF ILLICIT MATERIALS. WE NEED CHINESE, THAI, AND OTHER COOPERATION TO SHUT THAT OFF. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SQUEEZE NORTH KOREA ECONOMICALLY INTO POLITICAL CHANGE, BUT WE CAN CUT OFF THE SUPPLY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BUILD THESE KINDS OF THINGS. >> YEAH, THAT RESOLUTION 2087 PASSED IN JANUARY, AND IT NAMES NAMES. >> YES, FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL NETWORKS THAT HAVE HELPED FACILITATE THIS ILLICIT TRADE. BUT THERE'S PROBABLY ANOTHER TWO DOZEN OF THESE THAT THE CHINESE KNOW WELL THAT THEY CAN SHUT DOWN IF THEY ARE WILLING TO COOPERATE IN THIS KIND OF VENTURE. TODAY, OF COURSE, THE EUROPEAN UNION GENERATED NEW SANCTIONS WHICH I THOUGHT WERE INSTRUCTIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE BANNING-- THEY ARE CALLING ON ALL STATES AND EUROPEAN STATES THAT DEAL WITH STATES THAT DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA TO BAN THE MOVEMENT OF GOLD, DIAMONDS, PRECIOUS GEMS, AND FORWARD-BASED FINANCIAL NOTES. IT'S KIND OF AN INTERESTING FINANCIAL AND CASH SQUEEZE THAT WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS. >> WELL, I WOULD ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO YOU. SO, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, GO AHEAD AND LINE UP AT THE MICS. TALK ABOUT R2P AND MALI. FRANCE'S INTERVENTION, FRANCE'S RESPONSE. AND I GUESS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF MULTILATERAL AND UNILATERAL RESPONSES AND THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREIN. >> I THINK IT'S INSTRUCTIVE ABOUT THE BRUISES THAT THE WEST HAS TAKEN AND N.A.T.O. COUNTRIES HAVE TAKEN ABOUT THE OVERSTEPPING OF N.A.T.O.'S MANDATE IN TOPPLING QADDAFI AND LIBYA THAT THE FRENCH INTERVENTION WAS RATHER MUTED WITH REGARD TO R2P LANGUAGE. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF EVENTS ON THE GROUND, THE DETERIORATION OF CONDITIONS, THE RISK TO CIVILIANS, THE POTENTIAL GROWTH OF TRANSNATIONAL EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM, LINKS TO AL QAEDA-- IT HAD ALL THE CODE WORDS OF THE '90s IN THE LAST DECADE, BUT NOT R2P. AT BEST, IN TERMS OF AN ADVANCED ETHIC, IT'S THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS, P.O.C. THE P.O.C. NETWORK IS AN IMPORTANT ONE, AND THE U.N. PASSED AND THE CONGO AND OTHER THINGS, BUT THE FRENCH WERE VERY, VERY RELUCTANT TO USE THIS. SO I THINK IT'S INSTRUCTIVE THAT DESPITE TOM WEISS'S CONCERNS, THAT THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY IS NOT JUMPING UP TO THE NORM. THE NORM IS ONLY A NORM IF PEOPLE CONTINUE TO FOLLOW IT. >> IF I MAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW ORGANIZATIONS ARE ONLY AS EFFECTIVE AS STRONG STATES WANT THEM TO BE. >> YEAH. >> YES, SIR? >> LOOKING AT A LOT OF THE CURRENT CONFLICTS-- WE HAD BOSNIA, THAT WAS AN ETHNIC CONFLICT. WE HAD A VERY STRONG LEADER PRIOR, WE HAD TITO. WE HAVE HAD STRONG LEADERS EVEN WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN THAT WAS ABLE TO KEEP ETHNIC VIOLENCE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING AT A MINIMUM. ONCE THOSE LEADERS ARE GONE, EITHER BY U.S. INTERVENTION OR OTHERS, THERE SEEMS TO BE A REVIVAL OF THE, I GUESS, "ANTI" WITHIN THOSE TWO COMMUNITIES, WITHIN THOSE TWO ETHNIC COMMUNITIES WITHIN A COUNTRY. BOSNIA HAD IT WITH SERBS. IRAQ AND IRAN, YOU HAVE IT WITH THE TWO, THE SHIA AND THE SHIITES. WHEN THE U.S. COMES IN, OR A STRONG POWER, WE ARE THERE FOREVER, BECAUSE OF THESE ANIMOSITIES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR GENERATIONS, HUNDREDS OF YEARS. HOW DO WE THEN GO IN AND STOP THIS VIOLENCE AGAINST HUMANITY WHEN WE ARE GOING TO BE THERE FOR THE NEXT AS FAR INTO THE FUTURE AS WE CAN SEE? BECAUSE WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THE STRONG LEADER IS ABLE TO SUPPRESS THAT, AND AGAIN, I'LL USE YUGOSLAVIA AND EVEN SADDAM HUSSEIN THAT WAS ABLE TO SUPPRESS A LOT OF THE INTERNAL VIOLENCE THAT WE SAW ONCE THOSE LEADERS WERE GONE. >> THANK YOU. DO WANT TO DO ONE BY ONE, OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A COUPLE? OKAY, THIS IS WHY ANY INTERVENTION IN MY MIND NEEDS TO BE U.N. OR REGIONALLY ORGANIZATIONAL-BACKED. FIRST, BECAUSE IT OUGHT TO INCLUDE IN ITS TROOPS AND ITS TECHNICAL AND OTHER ADVISERS THAT COME IN AFTER THE TROOPS AS MANY PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE ETHNICITIES, RELIGIONS, AND OTHER CULTURAL DYNAMICS THAT OPERATE THERE, BECAUSE UNLESS YOU CAN TALK THE LANGUAGE AND WALK THE WALK, YOU ARE IMMEDIATELY DISCOUNTED AS HAVING NO SENSE OF THE HISTORICAL GRIEVANCES AND THE LIKE. SO YOU LOSE AT FIRST BASE RIGHT AWAY. THE SECOND THING YOU NEED IS YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE PARTICULAR OUTSIDE COUNTRY BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ESSENTIALLY REPLACING THE REPRESSIVE LEADER. OKAY, A MULTILATERAL FRAMEWORK MAY GIVE THE SENSE AMONG THE POPULATION THAT IT IS NOT JUST ONE COUNTRY NOW TRYING TO REPLACE THE LEADER, BUT THIS IS THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY THAT SEEMS TO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN OUR FUTURE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND THIRDLY, AND MOST CRITICALLY AND MOST DIFFICULTLY, IS IN THESE SOCIETIES THAT HAVE BEEN RUN BY DICTATORS, THERE HAS BEEN NO RULE OF LAW. THERE HAS BEEN NO EMERGENCE OF A LAWYER-COURT CLASS. THE POLICE HAVE BEEN USED AS AN ARM OF THE STATE TO BENEFIT FROM THE RULE OF THE DESPOT, SO THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ADEQUATE POLICING. AND SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE POST-VIOLENCE PERIOD OR THE POST-INTERVENTION PERIOD, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FULL SOCIETY MAKEOVER WHERE THE INTERVENING FORCE HAS TO HAVE A WAY TO ENGAGE THE POPULATION AND SAY, "LOOK, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PRETEND THERE AREN'T ANIMOSITIES "AND THERE AREN'T CONFLICTS, "BUT WE'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT TO THE BALLOT BOX "AND GET IT OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN, "BECAUSE IT'S IN NO ONE'S INTEREST, YOURS OR OURS, "FOR YOU FOLKS TO FIND NEW AND DIFFERENT WAYS TO KILL ONE OTHER. "THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DO POLITICS IN THE MODERN WORLD." THAT'S A VERY... ONE WOULD SAY "IDEOLOGICAL DRIVEN MESSAGE" COMING FROM THE OCCUPIER NOT SHARED. YOU MAY CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THERE WAS A GREAT JOKE THAT CIRCULATED-- IT'S A TERRIBLE JOKE, OF COURSE, BUT ONE THAT CIRCULATED IN THE MID-'90s IN THAT A GROUP OF U.N. TROOPS COME UP IN A VERY HOSTILE ZONE BETWEEN THE SERBS AND BOSNIANS AND THEY ARE BREAKING UP A FIGHT, AND THEY HAVE GUYS WHO SPEAK ARABIC, THEY CAN SPEAK TO THE MUSLIMS, THEY SPEAK FRENCH, THEY CAN SPEAK TO THE MUSLIMS, THEY EVEN SPEAK BOSNIAN DIALECTS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANYBODY WHO SPEAKS SERBIAN. AND SOME OF THE BOSNIANS SPEAKS SERBIAN, SO THEY COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH. AND THEY COMMUNICATE THAT U.N. TROOPS ARE TRYING TO BROKER A PEACE HERE, AND THEN FINALLY THE BOSNIAN MUSLIM LOOKS AT THE TROOP AND WALKS AWAY. THE GUY SAYS, "WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE. "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?" AND HE SAYS, "THE PROBLEM IS THE SERBS SAY WHEN YOU FIND "U.N. TROOPS WHO CAN SPEAK SERBIAN, "THEN WE'LL TALK TO THEM." (audience laughing) BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM! THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHO WE ARE OR WHAT WE ARE, OTHERWISE THEY'D SPEAK SERBIAN. AND THAT'S A REAL CULTURAL DILEMMA THAT'S AT THE HEART OF SOME OF THIS, ALONG WITH RULE OF LAW. >> SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT INTERNAL STATE BUILDING IS A VERY DIFFICULT AND NOT NECESSARILY A DESIRABLE OBJECTIVE FROM THE OUTSIDE. >> IT'S A MULTI-DECADE PHENOMENON, EVEN IF IT CAN BE RUN EFFECTIVELY FROM THE INSIDE... AND TO RUN IT FROM THE OUTSIDE IN A CULTURALLY-SENSITIVE RULE OF LAW EFFECTIVE WAY IS GOING TO DEMAND A COMMITMENT OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND A 20 TO 30 YEAR STRATEGY. I MEAN, HOW DO YOU EXPECT PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED UNDER DESPOTIC DICTATORSHIPS AND IN CIVIL WAR FOR 20 TO 30 YEARS AS THEIR ONLY PATTERN OF LIFE TO SOMEHOW A SIGN A PEACE DEAL, AND WITHIN THREE MONTHS, CREATE A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY? EVEN IN A SOCIETY WITH LOTS OF RESOURCES, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WHEN WE TEACH ABOUT THINGS LIKE POST-VIOLENCE PEACE IN OUR OWN GRADUATE PROGRAM, WE TALK ABOUT IT BEING STRATEGIC. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL CHANGE STRATEGY THAT IS A SHARED STRATEGY BETWEEN INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS FOR AT LEAST AS LONG AS THE WAR THAT PRECEDED IT, YOU'LL NEVER ACTUALLY GET TO PEACE. >> MISS VARGAS IS A VICTIM IN MY 8:00 A.M. FOREIGN POLICY CLASS. SHE'S HERE TONIGHT-- YES, MA'AM? >> BLESS YOU. >> I KIND OF HAD A QUESTION-- IT MIGHT BE PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THIS ONE, SO WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED. I WAS KIND OF WONDERING EVEN THOUGH THIS MULTILATERAL IDEA WOULD BE IDEAL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK WITH U.S. INTERVENTION HOW TO WALK THIS REALLY TIGHT LINE, THIS REALLY THIN LINE BETWEEN WHAT WE DID IN LIBYA-- KIND OF GOING IN THERE AND THEN LEAVING-- AND DOING WHAT WE DID IN IRAQ, WHICH WAS TRYING TO STAY THERE AND TRYING TO BUILD A STATE FROM WITHIN AND KIND OF REALLY FAILING AT IT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST FOR US AS THE U.S. >> I THINK THE-- THANK YOU FOR THE GOOD QUESTION. THE LESSONS FOR THE U.S. ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS... IF YOU'RE GOING TO MOUNT A FULL-SCALE ATTEMPTS TO OVERTHROW A LEADER AND IMPOSE A NEW MODEL OR CREATE THE OPPORTUNITIES, WE SAID, AS A NEW MODEL FOR SOCIETY, YOU BETTER HAVE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO OUR HOMEWORK BEFORE IRAQ, AND WORSE YET, WHEN WE GOT THERE, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANT TO TRY AND LIVE IN A SOCIETY WITH AN AUTHORITARIAN LEADER WHERE, WITHIN THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS, MR. BREMER AND OTHERS SAID, "WELL, ANYONE WHO WAS A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER "OF SADDAM'S POLITICAL PARTY, OUT WITH THEM." WELL, YOU COULDN'T HAVE A JOB IF YOU WEREN'T A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THAT PARTY. SO THE DAY THAT MR. BREMER DISMISSED 340,000 IRAQI SOLDIERS AND POLICE, HE CREATED 340,000 ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IT WENT DOWNHILL FROM THERE. >> WOULD YOU SAY THAT UNILATERALISM VERSUS MULTILATERALISM IS ANOTHER DYNAMIC OF THAT? AND THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IT UNILATERALLY IS MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE THAN-- >> YEAH, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE JOINT DECISION-MAKING AND DIALOGUE YOU'D HAVE WHERE THE FRENCH GUY, THE GERMAN GUY, THE AUSTRALIAN GUY SAYS, "WAIT A MINUTE, WHATEVER GAVE YOU THAT AS A GOOD IDEA?" YOU DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE SENSE. OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU DON'T HAVE THE SWEDES, THE FINNS, THE INDIANS, AND THE AUSTRALIANS WHO WERE PART OF THE LAST TASK FORCE THAT WENT INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY WHERE THE EVENTS ACTUALLY CAME OUT SUCCESSFUL... >> THAT MULTILATERAL LEGITIMACY. YES, MA'AM? >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR LOPEZ, YOU SPOKE TO THE FACT THAT IN YOUR OPINION, MILITARY INTERVENTION IS INEVITABLE IN SYRIA IN SIX MONTHS FOR A VARIETY OF POSSIBLE REASONS. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ARE THE REASONS THAT ECONOMIC SANCTIONS HAVE NOT WORKED IN SYRIA? WHAT DO WE DO WHEN WE HAVE WHAT SEEM TO BE INTRACTABLE COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA AND CHINA ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL? BECAUSE THEIR OWN SELF FEAR-- RUSSIA AND CHINA'S-- IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DISSIPATE AS WE GO FORWARD, AND THERE IS OTHER COUNTRIES AND DESPOTS LIKE ASSAD AND SYRIA. >> YEAH, THANK YOU. I THINK THE DILEMMA, OF COURSE, IS THAT THE MOMENT FOR INTERVENTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN SHORT OF A MILITARY INTERVENTION WITH JOINT COOPERATION AMONG THE BIG FIVE, WHEN THAT VANISHED, THEN WE WERE LEFT WITH LOTS OF NOT VERY GOOD CHOICES, AND I THINK THEY ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST SOMETIME SOON. I'M STILL NOT SURE, QUITE ACTUALLY, THAT WHEN THAT MOMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS OR THE NEED TO PROTECT THE ALAWITES OR OTHERS COMES, THAT THERE WON'T BE AT LEAST CHINESE AND RUSSIAN ABSTENTION AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL LIKE THEY DID IN LIBYA. I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE THAT... IF THINGS DETERIORATE VERY, VERY RAPIDLY, THAT YOU WOULDN'T SEE A JOINT RUSSIAN, AMERICAN, AND N.A.T.O. INTERVENTION, WITH THE RUSSIANS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THEIR HARBOR AND HELPING EVACUATE THOSE WHO HAVE THEY HAVE DONE BUSINESS WITH, AND THEN N.A.T.O. TROOPS, THE ARAB LEAGUE, AND OTHERS TRYING TO PACIFY CERTAIN AREAS AND TRYING TO STOP THE SHOOTING. I THINK THIS SITUATION IS SO RELATIVELY UNPRECEDENTED, ANY NUMBER OF POSSIBILITIES EXIST. WHY THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS HAVEN'T WORKED? TWO BIG CONCERNS, IT SEEMS TO ME. ONE IS THE USUAL RECOGNITION IN ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ENTERPRISES THAT CURRENT CONTRACTS CAN BE HONORED WITHIN LIMITS, AND THEN THE RUSSIANS AND THE SYRIANS KIND OF FORWARD BASING THOSE CONTRACTS IN WAYS IN WHICH YOU KEPT GIVING ASSAD ENOUGH CASH. THE OTHER REASON THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS DIDN'T WORK IS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A WAY TO ACTUALLY SHUT OFF THE ARMS, INCLUDING ARMS TO REBELS. YOU KNOW, THE EUROPEAN UNION DEBATED DEEP AND LONG TODAY WHAT TO DO WITH THE REBELS IN SYRIA AND WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO PERMIT MORE ARMS OR NOT. THE INSTINCTS MAY BE RIGHT, BUT THAT SITUATION NEVER COMES OUT REALLY WELL. YOU, IN FACT, INCREASE REBEL CASUALTIES THE MORE YOU ARM THE REBELS WHEN THERE'S THIS KIND OF DIFFERENTIAL IN FIREPOWER. THANKS FOR YOUR QUESTION. >> YES, SIR? >> WELL, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER-- YOU SAID THAT THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE HAS DECIDED THAT NEW POLICY MEASURES ARE DEF-- >> CAN YOU GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THAT MICROPHONE? >> YUP-- NEW POLICY MEASURES ARE DEFINITELY NEEDED TO ADDRESS COUNTRIES THAT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS LIKE THIS, AND WE OBVIOUSLY RUN INTO THIS PROBLEM. AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT WHEN THESE TYPES OF ACTIONS TAKE PLACE, THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY WANTS THE U.S. TO BE FIRST. WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVING SUCH A SHORT ATTENTION SPAN FOR CONFLICTS LIKE THIS, MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THAT, AS FAR AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED, AND GETTING THEM INVOLVED AND CARING? AND SECOND IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO SHOW THAT THESE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE GOTTEN MIXED SIGNALS FROM OUR INVOLVEMENT ON WHAT WE RECALL SPORADIC-- YOU KNOW, PICKING AND CHOOSING COUNTRIES, GET THEM TO BE MORE AGREEABLE AND WORK WITH US WHEN WE DO GO INTO THESE REGIONS, BECAUSE I THINK SUCCESS IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS GOING TO WEIGH HEAVILY ON THAT, AND I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE APT TO BE INVOLVED IN CONFLICTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. SO, ARE EITHER OF THESE OPTIONS? >> YEAH, TWO REALLY GOOD AND SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT QUESTIONS. LET ME ANSWER THE FIRST. WHAT CAN WE DO WITHIN THE GENERAL BODY POLITIC IN AMERICAN CULTURE TO GET FOLKS BEING LESS... SOME WOULD SAY LESS INVOLVED, CARING-- SOME WOULD SAY LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE. I ACTUALLY DON'T FIND COMMUNITIES LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE. I FIND COMMUNITIES EXHAUSTED, EITHER BECAUSE THE PAST WARS OF THE LAST DECADE AND A HALF HAS TAKEN THEIR TOLL, THE BARRAGE OF NEWS. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE NEWS OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS FOR EXAMPLE, IT REMINDS ME A LITTLE BIT OF-- YOU KNOW, ALL OF US HAVE THOSE FOURTH-GRADE TEXTBOOKS WHEN YOU READ ABOUT COLUMBUS'S JOURNEYS AND THEY'D HAVE THE MAP OUT THERE AND THERE WOULD BE THIS BIG AREA IN THE SEA WHICH SAID, "HERE BE SEA SERPENTS." SO IT RINGS TRUE WITH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE-- WE ALL HAD THE SAME BOOK. (audience chuckling) BUT NOW, I THINK YOU COULD LOOK AT THE GLOBAL MAP AND SMART, CARING AMERICANS LOOK AT THE GLOBAL MAP AND AFTER THEY GET OUTSIDE A CERTAIN BOUNDARY, WHEN THEY GET TO THE MIDDLE EAST, THEY GET TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, "HERE BE CRAZIES." OKAY, THE FACT THAT BOMBINGS IN PAKISTAN, BOMBINGS IN IRAQ, BACK AND FORTH, THE SYRIAN SITUATION AND NUCLEAR TEST IN NORTH KOREA, ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS IN MALI, FRENCH INTERVENTION IN MALI, AND IT GOES ON AND ON. PEOPLE JUST SAY, "MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST LET THEM ALL "KILL ONE ANOTHER." AND IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE WITH VALUES, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE, BUT THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT, AND THE DEPTH AND DIVERSITY OF THAT REALLY IS PARALYZING TO PEOPLE. AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU FEEL THAT, THAT'S WHY EVENTS LIKE THIS ARE SO CRITICAL, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SORT OF DECONSTRUCT WHAT'S GOING ON AND NOT EVERYWHERE IS THE SAME, AND WE CAN'T SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM, BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME THAT ARE MORE AMENABLE THAN OTHERS, THERE ARE SOME THAT MIGHT BE MORE IMPORTANT TO SOLVE, GIVEN THE LEVEL OF THREAT, THAN THE OTHERS. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME OF US IN THIS ROOM OF A CERTAIN AGE WHERE WE FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVED AND WE WORRIED AT NIGHT THAT GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR WAS SOON UPON US, THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE COULD BE DESTROYED WITHIN A WEEK, AND SOMEHOW WE CAME THROUGH THAT. IT MIGHT NOT BE A PRETTY PICTURE YET. THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THERE ARE STILL POSSIBILITIES OF BAD THINGS, BUT THE KIND OF WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN NOW AS DEPRESSING, AS CONFUSING, AS DIFFICULT AS IT IS TO SEE THESE TERRIBLE DYNAMICS, WE'VE LIVED THROUGH THE POSSIBILITY OF MARCHING TO THE EDGE OF NUCLEAR WAR AND WE BACKED OUR WAY BACK. SEEING A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAR, WHAT'S OUR SOLUTION TO THAT? WE'VE GOT TO DO TRIAL AND ERROR, WE'VE GOT TO ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES, WE'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN SOME PLACES, IT'S A CRAZY, NASTY, DIRTY, CRUEL PLACE AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT DYNAMIC. BUT WE CAN'T KEEP BACKING AWAY, AND WE HAVE TO KEEP TALKING AND SHOWING ONE ANOTHER WHAT POTENTIAL OPTIONS MUST BE. >> AND WORKING FOR PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS. >> IF WE CAN, YEAH. >> WHICH IS WHAT YOU DO. >> AS BEST AS WE CAN. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. (applause) GREAT TO BE BACK HERE-- THANK YOU. (applause) >> BEFORE WE SAY GOODBYE TO PROFESSOR LOPEZ, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE-- YOU JUST SAID--