But

you can bring more

people

next.

Well Terry

I thank you very very much for

this very very very
stimulating introduction and

thank you for for the welcome and for
the great participation winning me I hope.

And thanks to have been a guest on C.N.N.
I'm to get back here and

I plan on the does great work to
connect us with the community scholar

community policymaking community in
different in different venues here and

in the southeast not just in Atlanta.

I must say that this month.

I am visiting professor
at Duke University.

There is another person
here represents Duke for.

And and I work at the Center for
Canadian studies

led by Professor Jane mosse at Duke and
so if you are having.

Interests.

I hope questions you want to discuss
about Canada Canada U.S. relations.

I am more than happy to to discuss
that with you and as well.

If if you have questions related
to any topic on security or

strategic issues I might I
might say a few words as well

I must say I'm very impressed by the fact
that you're here and not preparing for

the president's speech in them an hour and
fifteen minutes.

It's quite an honor that you're
still here to listen to me and

not run to I listened to him by
maybe way of opening opening a few

remarks on the state of armed conflict and
peace missions in the context of

transatlantic relations I might say that
this is going to be an important speech.

It reminds me a little earlier than most
of you have some of the speeches that for

instance President Bill Clinton made
in the one nine hundred ninety S.

mid one nine hundred ninety S.
and of the one nine hundred ninety S..

When the if you recall
was read about them.

You have to explain and believe me this
is not just for the American audience.

I think it was the same to be honest
in Canada that it's a different thing.

Of course when you're in France when
you're in Germany when you're in Britain

when you are in Italy or
else or elsewhere.

You had to actually talk about
the reasons the motives for

America to intervene in their
very dark and very difficult very

high conflict which was Bosnia
in one nine hundred ninety five.

And in question when one
thousand nine hundred ninety and

one of the first things I'd always
kept this in my mind that he did.

Was just actually to show the map and

show people whereas
right Reza important and

convince people Rai America
had to use air power and

eventually ground troops to
intervene in that twice in the.

I have an little bit of deja vu ever again
in replaying this in the medium case so

let me just say maybe a few words about
the Libyan case because I think that

that is very much on everybody's mind and
as you recalled on Canadian mines as read

because we do participate in that mission
and very much so in the context and

since I was asked to talk within the
European context what I said well this is.

This is very unfortunate or
fortunate from a scholarly point of view

because the case of Libya
brings to our attention.

I believe again the importance of

the historical importance of
the North American European relationship.

It's been somewhat and it's a sudden
it been much in my eyes then a bit.

Gained in the few recent years at
least in the security strategic arena.

By other pressing issues.

Bad Rena's of Apollo relationships and
I think mostly about Asia.

That seem to lead staggers and

the policymaking community
into believing that off.

There the North American
although their U.S.

especially relation with with Europe
is lessening is something may be that

starting to become not obsolete brought
less important in international and

international security arena
that Asia will be far more

important that the relationship with
Russia of course is always very vital

that what happens elsewhere especially
in the Middle East is going to be

predominant although nobody expected what
would happen in the last three months.

And guess where we are now
we are back to the.

Good old way was it and thinking about and

implementing a very important very
important policy that probably

as far as I can tell will be probably
that the major foreign power.

See you run of the major foreign
policy issues that could probably

be part of the campaign and
next year in two thousand and twelve and

you're starting to see domestically
the impact of that crisis of that of that.

Of that of that issue playing into U.S.

domestic politics you can see you can see
where the bastard threads that could be

exploited of could be brought about and
in the public debate.

So given the fact that now that we are
back perhaps with something that we know

a little bit about I believe after three

things that soon are ready to be
inescapable in the Libyan crisis that.

Define.

Probably create I might have problems for
the agenda for Barack a bad man for

Prime Minister Stephen Harper for

the Prime Minister David Cameron Great
Britain for a place you don't stock was in

was just not received a fair battle by
the president of the United States and

their sort of indirect way and I could
talk about that a little bit which is more

which is funnier than to talk
about anything else and that.

And that in that problem.

First of A When I was talking
about us being relations perhaps

becoming a little bit up so they'd let me
talk about another institution that I'm

frankly America has always had some
problems with called the United Nations

and Libya brings to the fore something
that we were scumming we were

going to play policymakers was going to
create a lot of good memories for them and

that is my first remark is
this circle our concept of

responsibility to protect which as
an acronym you could summarize in and.

P R two Peter was very good in as
a key principle of the United Nations

in the sixtieth anniversary of
the United Nations in two thousand and

five at the World summit of
leaders back then and is to.

Tambour of two thousand and five and
one thing that bears need to spend is

themselves and their good they're going to
zation they're the West to him chart in.

Now the tractor it sat back as the general
resolution of the General Assembly of

the of the United Nations the Web
inclusion to intervene to protect

humans were dangerous sufferance and
enjoy to do S N B

kid massively by regimes that
would not respect human rights.

So basically intervene to prevent crimes
against humanity and war crimes revenge

the borders of the state that I don't
have to explain to graduate students.

Director shared event that the two
thousand and five resolution has.

Has has been it is about to shed in
the sense that for the first time

the international organization sad not
just an NGO not just certain states that

are viewed as peaceniks states or
states that have peace really as their

as their as their main focus but by don't
have international community again.

And a subscription to the idea that we
would move to implement responsibility to

protect not to make amends story
short a lot of specialists said

this are to piece things all nice on
paper it is it is of course a great.

Continuation of different obligations
taken by the international community

since the conventions of Geneva one
nine hundred forty eight brought

it remains to be seen if it
can actually be implemented.

How are you going to get
agreement from a great number

of states a great majority of them in a
special way counts of the Security Council

not having to undergo any easy to
abide by the great powers to use force

to actually deliver the goods on
the promise of our two people.

And to be very frank in the case of
Afghanistan and Iraq that was not part of.

Debate should have been it could
have been but was not part of it.

Both as you know were they were set
up in a very different context and

with very different resolutions and
the and then an application

of international law that did not and
was not based on our two people.

For the first time to be a case is
actually read that people missed it or

not but well I know some get
a first time application and

have had this are two piece or
where are into I'm trying to take two or

three and if there's another
surprising to me in the media and

elsewhere that we're debating about
are that the end game the exit strategy.

The means by which we use
force to accomplish that goal.

Where does it mean for stability and
in a lot of Cathy just stays put.

And does not and in fact the resolution is
maybe not even about Gadhafi it is plain

prevent it is about preventing
civilians to be kids.

There was a connection between that and

between regime change in a different
context context under George W.

Bush said responsibility to protect
not put squarely on the agenda.

Issues associated with armed conflict for

peace mission and this is the rule of the
future when I say more of the past more of

the future certainly R two P.
as part of the agenda for the future.

So I beg to say that.

Fortunately or
unfortunately in Probably it is best.

Fortunately in terms of principles.

Unfortunately in terms
of policy making real or

hard harsh decisions will have
to be made and I have come out.

Do you.
Deliver the goods as I said and

make promises and implement our two P.
and the context like Libya and

what else which was also the issue
which has been raised right maybe and

why not the rame why maybe
why not to add a request.

And why not.

The next country Syria that could
under a massive change where civilians

are massacred by the thousands and
the international community stays put.

Secondly Monica.

I am not extremely
surprised personally that

President Obama has decided in
favor of the no fly zone and

of quest for the reasons that you
know probably some media pressure.

So any pressure from and we're back into
the European context we're which I haven't

forgotten pressures from Great Britain and
from France.

And for their own reasons not as coherent.

But for the end reasons related
to have that many flies them

descended and bad UN Security Council and
that by then which would bring us to NATO.

Maybe in a moment but President Obama
was was this ring on this one.

And as you know probably if he had
not decided something would have been

heavily criticized many.

People like John McCain And

that's what's really been we have been
very very quick about the moon to act

fast probably resin fact at the very
last minute that they voted on the fly

zone because today it would be irrelevant
things would be over in Libya and

it would be a huge massacre especially
in Benghazi in the east of Libya.

So Obama decided that it
was going to do that but

with ADD the cats and
the difficulties that we have seen.

When So that has been less mentioned
I believe is the fact that and

I began my opening remarks with Babson
question who to appoint fair purpose.

Is the people who surround him
the foreign policy advisers and

that's something I study as well.

Had been very influential on
him as you know they always

will live of the saddling
a bad fan Panna see.

As as an.

Professor.

Because Goodwin set out in his
book A Team of Rivals is to have

a rival kind of your viewpoints being
expressed Room him on a given issue.

He was very very impressed.

Not so much by Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates but

by actually by two people who
have been extraordinarily

I'm tired first phone and pushing
up that decision on the way to the.

Office to influence Barack Obama
their names to women in fact to have

fact these issues so much.

I've been part of the one nine
hundred ninety S. debate.

I've seen what happened in the Balkans and

I sort of London one nine
hundred ninety four and

their names are Susan Rice the ambassador
at the U.N. and also Samantha Power.

Whereas one of the key advisors to
Rahm I first to add to Barack Obama and

as well to him every Clinton when she was
there's a noted Secretary of State at

their best influence have
been extremely forceful

in pushing that agenda up so I never was
what I'm saying is this decision was not.

Was could not have been
predicted rationally or

was not written in the skies for

a damed it whereas real a decision
within the decision making circle.

Grab bag.

Two women with first ideas
a bad attitude you surface and

analogies that go back to
the one nine hundred ninety.

So if you don't understand that we don't
understand that we do not understand why

we're at this critical
juncture right now and

I'm saying this because the reservations.

Should I say the opposition.

I'm not too sure but resistance I
think is is is an acceptable word

from the military and
from the secretary of defense and

self were pretty noticeable
in the public arena.

So you could imagine in the.

At the arena there opinions were
probably very much against doing it.

Much about Libya and about Gaddafi.

So Barack Obama has taken his first
decision as commander in chief to me.

Afghanistan is a continuation of
another far through his presidency.

And I don't think you could decide much
different need then when he decided.

But this one you could have decided
either way we're not going in or

we're going in or we're going halfway.

Then we mark responsibility
to protect the influence over

Barack Obama third remarks and this
brings us back to the pian connection.

Is that.

Things are going it seems
the opposite way under George Bush

the decision by the United States.

Whereas what we're taking the lead and
you're with us or

against us then if you're against us.

Well you'll pay the price or

we'll just dismiss you as I'll do
a pass A which we don't need you.

And now we're back to read different
kind of presidencies saying

I'd like to do it but
I've yet to be part of it and

as soon as we can we're just going to
pass before back to you and your day and

you know play a half touchdown with
your market Afy and destroy them.

If you want.

And errantly and for good reasons perhaps
or not good reasons if you think so.

Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron really
adamantly wanted to have the media

ship of this sort of the bomb on station
is more than happy to say please take it.

The only problem in this and

I'm sure that some advisors ever
reminded it doesn't need to be reminded.

It's very intelligent.

Obama about this is that
the United States is part of NATO.

So whether we like or

dislike the fact that the two traditional
great powers of Europe are going

to take the lead on Libya
the United States is intricately linked.

To the decisions that would be taken by
DOZHD two leaders politically because you

know what the deal whereas in the last
two to three days was that NATO now is

designed so
as a means to an end the fine by which

you do the military planning to come back
to military mission but politically.

Everything ought to be decided not to bad
a NATO North Atlantic Council because

soccer's he did not want that Ryan did
not want that for the sorts of reasons.

You don't want interference by
some players who apparently and

I'm very convinced but not for

the reasons you would thing not because
they the right wing or left wing but

because they they don't think this is the
way to do responsibility to protect and

I'm thinking about Germany not amongst
others suckers they did not want

to have the influence of some
key players rag Germany Turkey.

Who has really have very very strong
problems with that with the decision taken

about Libya to be part of the decision
making of the twenty six or so nations

that would decide collectively politically
wet we do about that mission with Libya.

So it's a very good decision
making thing here where you have

a sort of political premium
bit of soccer's a camera and

then finally Obama now I
will say with those out but

will still in my opinion be part of
the triangle leading the way with

all of Nato's military assets now mind you
half of NATO minutes a result sets that

are belong to those three
players at the very least and

the no fly zone is implant implemented
Most me by I don't say three players

the end game I've had this
will tell us a lot about our

new many things and of course I'm not
going to valve into the changes and

what happens in the Middle East and
North Africa that's beyond my reach.

But in terms of us could be
in a mess American relations.

It will tell us credit few things.

It was Paris things about during
June sort of that things were bad.

So when saving civilians
in conflicts like these and

what the international community
which is frankly the U.N.

Security Council deciding for the general
assembly of the United Nations.

Thank you.

And is ready to do about our
responsibility to protect it.

Well of course that I asked him to
have a rap about have to do this.

The decision making staff of
the approach that Barack Obama will

put into rap action with this mission.

It will tell us a leper bad the qualities
of the commander in chief and it will have

undoubtedly same influence it might
especially if it turns back if it turns.

It turns out to be.

An effect a decision that for
him patency issue will have

influence over domestic politics and
over the election next year.

I bet you bet.

Thirdly and most importantly I
believe it will have a very important.

Impact in Europe because I
don't think saying this.

I've kept been kept be keeping saying this
forward for however long I can think.

But you would think that
this time it's true.

It will say a lot about is you
have capital after handling.

Security mission.

That is difficult.

EVERY that coherence that
needs strong collaboration and

strong public opinion in support of
difficult decisions in an issue like this

one for the future it will tell us a lot
about the capacity to have certain players

in Europe to really take the need because
the last time that we really tried this.

It was a disaster.

And I and I do not minimize
the contribution of the European Union.

Well you were a peon
part of all of NATO and.

In many different
settings missions venues.

I could talk about you know
policemen from Europe the planet.

For instance and
possible to do an admirable.

Contribution for the corps surprised.

I'm not talking about admission that that
European Union has been eating the eastern

part of Congo in one tiny province
where human suffering and

crimes as severe as bad in Libya.

Or in Chad where Europe has also
intervened to add a set out a sort

of regional or international
peacekeeping mission protecting

the borders of the European Union by
assisting to groups to set up a way to

interdict illegal immigration from
Bulgaria from Romania from Turkey and

mostly beyond those countries
coming into the Shanghai end

zone I'm talking here to European
specialists your business.

Very well and some very bad thongs and
I'm saying that I totally

agree with this would say you have is
very good for soft power is very good for

civilian missions and
mixture of civilian military missions but

when it comes to the hardcore
the security many telling

issues of today in the last time I
repeat that we tried all of this

it was after defeat and utter incoherence
and I'm talking about as now.

And in Bosnia really even the generals
I mean the commanders our forces from

Mad Britain from from France were
adamant about saying this is the last

time that we do a mission like
this because it is it is terrible.

When of course this is met
by a mentor which means.

It is that by United States for
practical purposes.

Sometimes coherence is better.

There's not a scope
having a laugh a family.

And I'm not going to go into
Afghanistan which could take us hours

to prove the point bad.

It's not easy.

But the best players in Libya.

It is the first piece actually maybe
people did not think about this either.

I think cement the power and
Susan Rice are very limited to this and

very clear about their objectives.

They cannot live another day by thinking
Benghazi would be with members residents.

Or never can give the smaller
scale perhaps bad to say that we

have seen before.

So it is the first time
they were trying to guess.

Whether it was just me that's I have
absolutely no one does have an idea

which for emphasis brings us to the point
that way we try queer sort of the plan

a scene in my book Chapter seven is
a bad course of the plan to see where

you sketch how you end where day ends and

by which way we're going to and then isn't
a question of the plan to see is very

very difficult unless you have
a clear cut objective at the end.

And when I listen to policymakers I'm
sometimes frankly not reassured about what

they talk to each other very well because
as a couple of weekends when you listen to

them especially on Sunday shows not this
last Sunday clearly somebody has traded up

the message they have been some
confusion those names I relate.

I that I introduced the name to between
for instance needs to protect humans and

civilians and the need for Khadafy to go
was not very very clear and finally it

was straightened out of you might think
it's very much straightened out and

I had I would map to really disagree with
you because nobody knows where this guy

was at the as a question of end of parents
this is where most of the plan is seen.

To be a plane.

I believe we're into uncharted
territory and it's new and so

everybody's opinion here is as excellent
add as the neighbors or as a policymaker.

Opinion.

And sometimes policy makers
open doors do not for you.

We are as an Atlanta city and
we don't either.

Nobody's perfect.

Every implications of
the decisions that we take.

But this one is sure going to
have a lot of implications.

I could invent all kinds of
scenarios by which if I said

look in three months this is
where we are when I get free

attention because you said
Professor this is not possible.

Well look if I had been
here in October and

I would have told you you
know a month next year.

What's going to happen.

This and this and that.

I don't think one person in this room
perhaps would have been used me and

well said insanity has
taken over that brain.

Nobody can predict but
it was rather shared events to the extent

that we're going through now and sad and
I think Libya would be part of it and

the same issues that we
were asked about Libya.

We're going to ask about
other countries soon enough.

It's is as if I said Saudi Arabia when
they were under the same kind of tour

managers will put a lot
of issues on the table.

Bases and so on.

This would be grave issues.

And secondly the I think the band
I said foreign policy is going to

be much defined by the need to shit and
the decision that yes they can on this and

I do not think and this is my running
as much as for course of the primacy.

I don't think Mr President that
you can pass the bad as maps as

you wish as you want.

And if consequences do not turn
out to be asked predictable as

I don't think it can be.

I think the Pats step with this
you take you took a decision which

brings you somewhere but

we don't know where the center is it
would not be easy to pass down the ball.

And thirdly and
we don't know how much do so

will impact on public opinion and
especially that

we have two different in the case as I
mentioned France and Great Britain two

different domestic situations two
different political settings.

And.

Let me start by the easy one.

Cameron has to prove in his
minority government that he or

his alliance government or for
nation government that he is as.

An as competent in foreign
affairs as people would expect.

And some aren't funny enough.

It has become a little
bit little Blair wish.

Men like Tony Blair passing days and
the last passing days.

Joining in and pushing for
that intervention in Libya and

this is somewhat ad because
you would have believed that

a conservative part of the Conservative
government would have been extremely

reluctant to follow the same
sort of aspirations that

truly bass of course expressed openly in
terms of regime change and what have you.

So this is to be seen and
I would I would think since

a few of the decisions that back coalition
government with apps to nibble in

the Middle East were frankly bad for and
questionable be fair the Libyan case.

This will put squarely to the British and
the question of competence

in their mind when they when the judge
Cameron's government will do.

In the case of France
now I'm sorry to report.

I think that sucker.

Wanted to play a little bit at

the international stage to
buttress domestic to domestic.

The rate of approval
right now that he has.

For lack of a position
reining in France or

declared opposition to his reelection or
to his candidacy for reelection next year.

The Least Worst or are the best
depending on your point of view

that France has right now this was
a group of Trinity I think and

according to a lot of French political
analysts to play in international

arena for domestic political purposes.

So it is very very likely need
that his fate is very mad.

Much.

Asked as the question government
in Britain to what will happen

in the case of Libya and
the French as you know did two things that

have to do that was surprising at first
but then when you understand it through

a domestic political
lancets that's surprising.

First they said we're ready to go and
weapon the assist the rebels in Benghazi.

So best perhaps you are.

Ray by which.

I reckon to say ground troops but a
certain number of operations on the ground

might be possible the door might be
open for French to take care of that and

for run thing for sure and that's
something that would be the piece of.

If as you know and
we know nor ground troops and

it was excluded from the resolution at the
U.N. and to be deployed from this country.

Although you know who can say never
ever but it was it was extraordinary

on rightly that one American
soldier except Air Force pilots.

Maybe helicopter pilots would be
involved in on the grounds in Libya.

And here's France proposing perhaps to
take care of that aim crave which Which

then raises are kinds of incredible issues
from at least a scholarly point of view

of the future of Libya of of we've seen
this before in Bosnia protecting enclaves.

For human security purposes against
a regime that has not changed in

the capital and I are we going to and
the French are asking themselves

right now the rebels are not because
there's an embargo against them.

Funnily enough they want to have them by
striking out of the air bases the planes

that the command and control centers
of Libya but but at not at least.

For me I believe kind of spine operations
already underway to provide some my

arms and weapons to them not.

Society from this country but
from the open market to begin with and

when I was to sure where
that open market comes from

this is why some people argue that while
they're not including in that opposition.

They're not an elaborate beautiful they're
not a left a call about human security.

So watch out for things that you want or
you wish for but

you will not get in that in
that future of that enclave but

the French are winning somewhat to do that
and there were moments of the first to

use the planes to actually strike Libya
not the United States or something.

Of course and that with conclusion
change in perhaps the relationship

between the United States and Europe and
it is quite a paradox that for

a president that someone did not
pick up squarely on the priority

of US foreign policy agenda will
probably have Europe ever soup and

is between now and is redaction and
it will be quite determinant for

NATO and for Europe but also for
his own presidency so in a sense and

I could say a lot more about other
stuff that I have written down there.

Well and peace will be facing tons

of new issues and
kinds of ironies paradoxes.

That are sent perhaps for
scholars to just throw in the back

story in the articles but for policy
makers present very tough choices to make.

Double standards to deduce a first for

civilian purposes which is
I have been away protection

of civilians against their governments
when you strike that better man.

Are you ready to replace that government
and winning in and you are ready for

some format institutionalized opposition
that you have set up more and

that leads you to very deep concern.

A deep dilemma's And
I think we'll be facing

all kinds of them in many different
venues of security studies and

I just took one hundred and
one problem to share your how much this is

interesting from a scholarly point
of view but extraordinarily.

Extraordinarily dangerous and

mind boggling from a policy maker point of
view and I really wish them a good map and

and we can open if you want discussions
to any issues that you want.

I don't know if I took too much time with
women or you tell me I can go on or say.

My pleasure or

not and

you say graciously securities

that are all in your sight

here or your.

Thank

you for using your class that I find
amusing here were thirty zero zero zero

zero zero one zero zero zero zero
zero zero zero zero zero zero.

I mean everyone first

love your

piece of

you have been to be made in Syria.

Some people will say that
you live there recently.

Of course

you're absolutely correct.

I think in a sort of broad
theoretical perspective you're

absolutely correct in everything that
you said and I would not disagree and

in fact I would I would certainly
I'm even I am to what you're sad but

I think we have to keep in perspective
that what's happening here is also

a change in the international system
it is change of paradigms and

the way that we think all of
international security and and

my Burke is is explaining.

This soon enough.

I hope in English as well.

Is I think that we're sort of
stuck between a security system

of the past and
we see a future security system.

That is being constituted but in ways
that are unforeseen and what happens.

I think in the Middle East as
part of that might I should be I

could be used to terrible word systemic
events and it has profound as we

can tell implications because in
the arena presented what's going on.

We talked about countries and
about leaders and about regimes.

And this is part of the established
international system that the West Valley

and treaties established.

But what has happened really mean and you
know all of this of course but it's good

to rephrase things that seem perhaps
to be so obvious that we forget them.

What's happened in the last three to four
months is the fact that this changes.

Were not brought about by
the West fatty and system but

maybe by a sort of past with Fadi and
system and I mean by this and

you know as well as I do the meaning
of it a civil society intrusion

a very deep intrusion in
the international system and

one of the results of that intrusion
is is the respect that's happened in

the Middle East the political
earthquake that has erupted there.

The new means by way we communicate
the social media as has certainly and

we saw the beginning of this for
instance in Iran.

Are changing completely the ball game.

And in a way that I would say why are we
having especially double standards is

is is because the media the traditional
media affairs where the new media is

is they can place and it is not very much
uprising that if it started in Tunisia or

went in Egypt or not is in graffing
I have the Middle East that is a key.

The connection between traditional media
and the social media in bringing about our

simple civilians like last part of
the bad game of redefining thinking and

pushing for different security
policies and this is a struggle but

policymakers now have to do with not
just the week in which part of it.

Meaning that are there facts now almost
published in the open or soon but that

the problems now are not just a state to
state there were a capital to capital or

a diplomatic corps to a diplomatic
corps relationship it is now played so

much in the open.

And there was I'm feeling that
Joseph Nye all of a sudden we're playing

smartly that game will probably either
benefit or be missed him for a bargain.

And unfortunately
marginalized out of it or

not playing it where you would
not benefit from a bad value

of that vibrant ration ship or
will be harmed by the monarch of it.

And so in answer to your question
are we intervening in Libya and

theoretically from a professor
point of view want nothing and

I request to have ready by UN Security
Council resolution sending all the French

the Brits and where else can it be and
for Pete's sake.

To intervene in the Ivory Coast because
it is not so much plate in your media or

in the evening here there's not
in the sort of Americans and

Canadians every night
when they opened their.

Libya it is it's spectacular
you have engineers

you have humans that barman's you
know you have things happening but

you don't see them about the Ivory Coast
and they came here very much.

The counter example of what
we're going through not and

it would be theoretically a case where
you're right where ever nuisance

a country like I have
recourse to be sort of.

Not to be ignored because something
is going on but it is rapping to say

the least and the guy was shouldn't
be in charges reclaims to.

And the person who should be in
charge is fighting for survival and

you even have a peacekeeping mission there
as a try to separate the combatants but

there is no resolution ever to
the crisis in the average cost.

So I would suggest that
that that what happens in

the senior special media network
will become more important and

in tricked me linked to security issues
as part of what's in the future.

Many of the future in terms of
armed conflict and security issues.

I hope your professor agrees with me.

Otherwise I feel very I will
feel very shameful like

that is going to have the last word and
also when you

just

call

me

crazy.

Yes

you know.

It's true for the next two

years.

Again wow with teachers like them.

I would favor the classes myself.

They're very very impressive
I why it's difficult for

me to add anything to this it's brilliant.

Funny enough I think even the people
back from the League of Nations

period wouldn't not a bit of it
would be to be odd and struck and

unstable they stabilized by everything
that's that's different today but

not about the debates too
much they had written.

Can you figure out can you think
of the debates about humanitarian

intervention they call them
into interventions for

humanitarian good and
it was just phrased differently.

Back in the nineteen twenty S French and

British representatives were
ready talking about this.

It doesn't show ID face in many time so
it was already part of the language to

think about what do we do with
civilians and humanitarian assistance.

It's been a long lasting debate.

Except as you say the difference now
is that there has been tough choices in

I like the two words you use
you said social meaning or

international learning
about these things and

I'm going to put this on the as
a charge because it reminds us of what

I'm conflict is made of today and I'm
sure your professors do teach about that.

And the maiming has been
done in the sense that and

people do not think about this enough but
there's been a change in armed conflict.

And.

Facts to work in the human security arena.

Especially when I would urge you to look
at the excellent stuff done by the Center

for Human Security at the university
in our IT'S IN VANCOUVER of

Simon Fraser originate in
British Columbia laid out about three or

four reports since two thousand and five.

So in the last six years that
have been how could I say power

dime change in the way we have to think we
are thinking about conflict and I'm going

to do a class on where we are in armed
conflict I could you know show you some

statistics that I prepare you know number
of battle desperate that are going down.

These are some of the OK stuff
that we usually introduce But but.

This is usually part of
the remaining I think your

professor alludes to part of the
explanation is that at the same time as

we have a very significant decrease but

believe it or not in the number of
on conflict with the same time have

a surge really an upward plant a trend in

the number of peace missions and
different matter.

Natural missions and different
venues by which not just states but

also in June was an sippin an intervention
has dramatically increased.

You could say from the end of
the clip we're up to today but

it has really taken off after the crisis
that played and the tragedies you allude

to in the middle one thousand nine hundred
thirty something was going wrong not

perfect very in satisfactory at times
double standards which you alluded to.

Rabbi BAIRD Why not here or

well here not their lack of attention lack
of sustainability in clearance of mission.

Difficulty of meshing military and

civilian to work together well you
know about that in places like

Afghanistan which were not out of the rich
Arabs believe me in two thousand and

fourteen one thing we learned to enter
says from that learning experience.

I believe modestly.

It's my opinion is that you
should take on these things

because they come back to haunt you
in a vengeance to define rational.

Predict shit.

Plans and scenarios that you can think
of I do not have one case that has gone

to really bad the excellent minds whether
it's in Mecca or in fancy making circles.

I felt about.

At the beginning or to start with.

I remembered.

Since I'm doing some
Clinton the night a G.'s.

But Clinton saying that.

He's fat and that was quite quite hair
raising when he said it in one thousand

nine hundred six that American troops
would be in Bosnia or until two thousand

and one and people thought how two
thousand and one that's a less time for

a mission doesn't exist strategy
where we were repaying in delivering

military assistance for a mission that we
were asked as Larry asked five years and

in Bosnia on his own gentle number
step not American troops but appear in

troops and police the Pratt in bass
not a great number two thousand and

five hundred was something that in the
small theater if we could call it that or

the way in Bosnia nothing like Afghanistan
but they're still there and that I would

talk to her about I think I have in Europe
that if you were to regret bears troops to

Mehrabad everything would just continue
the same in Bosnia a lot of people

would be afraid that what would that do
again the match in the fire to reignite.

Things so bad.

Just to put a date.

We're still that.

Political leaders in Congress for
instance that there's a date.

We shouldn't.

So there's that much to be desired
in terms of that learning so

we have learned a lot of things are we
still to room quite a few more but

what clearly we have learned is that
better is an intersection better is

a connection and it's a matter of fact
not a matter of emotion off preference.

I have if you're Democrat Republican
candidate then American or

French or whatever.

It could be a connection between.

Comfort and the context of an armed
conflict and international assistance.

Which we infer am about
which shape is that remains

in each case to be defined clear
connection between the attention of

the international community when it
begs for a non-conflict the moods and

the objectives and that and
the resources it commits to.

Sustain through the time or
something else that that really have

resolving an armed conflict and arrest
status of that on conflict and a future of

on conflict there's a clear connection
between the two and we see that.

Funnily enough.

Maybe it's a coincidence that the focus
of the human security center do not think

that's the case that we increase
that commitment the more their

helmet thing or the more they
are peacekeepers in a very general sense.

I know they come in different colors and
shades the more

chances we have of on an after
listening in on conflict than even

perhaps preventing winds which
have rarely been done but today.

Notwithstanding what happens
in the Middle East's.

Human Security folks say we're
doing something good because you

are better in the above two thousand and
ten eleven band you were ten years ago or

twenty years ago in the world where
people got killed twenty years ago.

Then today.

Of course all of this is
not going to get into

statistical class because then it becomes
I missed the statistical mathematical.

Modeling thing and I have the pens
on what you calculating in an hour.

Which brings me to add one thing which is
interesting from a scholarly point of view

not just me but all of you.

It was contrary to other fields like half.

A sanitation or education or
what have you in this arena.

We don't have over thirty
with expertise that brings

through the interstate system which
to me see two numbers policies and

rather you sat with on conflict
the science I think I put it in

the slide before the science is very
imperfect because it is done mostly by

academia by researchers if you want to
find numbers you want to find evidence you

want to understand anything about
this what goes on in the world.

You don't have a United Nations conflict
organisation that will provide you with.

Assistance to understand what's going on.

To different places like the stock on

peace researcher at the International
Peace Research Institute.

You need to go to the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London

or the human security center in Vancouver
so academia plays a very important.

So you do play an important role
in setting up bad the ways that we

collect data that we think about on
conflict and we assess what the.

And what are the chances are less
than the root causes of violence

because it is still going to be part of
the international system not withstanding

the good news that perhaps the human
security center tries to bring us.

A long answer to a very good question but
I do think there is some learning at

experience and
we're saying what I would say.

If I take the human security center
reports I urge you to read them.

They're all about responsibility
to protect about casualties about

peace mission about causes
armed conflict you need.

To read them.

I mean part of them.

It's really part of the groundwork for
instance that we asked policy

officials from the Department of
Foreign Affairs to do when I teach them

is to NORAD with stuff back because
then they're deployed in the way it's

somewhere in the lab record store now
hopefully not in Libya but somewhere else.

They need to know about these things.

It sure is clear to me
that we have improved but

we're far from far from
having accomplished.

The goal of eliminating our Of course
political violence especially when we see

what happens in Libya but that too much.

That's OK I'm

just me.

You struck me

those are very

very very like me empirically

very difficult for

you and

your area

to find that I'm now liking the U.S.

presence here by European leaders.

You are if you mean there are those

personality dimensions their own

personal relationships personal.

I'm the only way that

I'm glad that you asked a question How
long do you have to know this is that

I don't think it is difficult I think it's
difficult for sure but it is exciting.

Because all the predictions that in the
scholarly community we tried to make and

establish have all of these issues and
I'm sure the code will agree with me.

It is very tough to teach to students
recipes by which we easily understand

why conflict occurs and why does it and
how we prevent it and and of course

we're terrible and we should always think
about this terrible about predictions.

So I you know I will refrain and
I did sort of scenarios for

predictions but they are only for
educational purposes.

And since this is recorded I would
never say that this is bound to happen

especially do not have this you know being

heard by the king of Saudi Arabia I
would be very mad at me.

But no I think it's very
your question puts squarely.

The the best the the importance
of the issue of decision making.

And then for the research or

the utility are looking very closely and
very deeply into.

What actually happened.

Once you have the theories.

I mean I didn't go into this.

This is also something that we could do
in a classroom which is very exciting you

know take the religious take the liberal
institution there staged a construct of

this stand they deposed modern theories
of conflict analysis and war and and

applying them to each as you do in your
ads or size that apply them to each one.

Complainers say where they see them
differently because we just use

different lengths.

But the thing is.

Fabric scient man and the great
wisdom that we acquire by doing this.

The thing that matters that D.N. are the
players and so I'm glad that you dig bring

this into this our thoughts because
when you look at your current a decision

making with armed conflict and issues that
we talk about then strange things happen.

And I don't have too much
time to delve into this but

since I did talk about Clinton and I talk
about Barack Obama today I would say that

would be a brings to my mind and it's
not scientific gets into a routine of.

Brings to my mind a sort
of layer of analogies.

Well is it going to be like Bosnia.

Is it going to be right or wrong or.

Is it going to be like Iraq.

Because if that's the case.

Well we surely do not want to go that
route because we know that all the as good

as much good as we want to bring
if the it boomerang effect is

to be again viewed as imperialists
trying to have direct and

control of the country for an interest and
that interest of various people and

then we get stuck as as being
first to be sent to get killed.

Well that's when that reminds us of
something else that we've just been

through I would say.

Analogies are really at war
here in the case of Libya.

So I think your question of
personality of people who decide.

And this is Ryan says that on one
tiny bit of information to to moon

probably maybe it's stupid.

Maybe it's a footnote.

But I think there's a very important and
a man is

who actually had influence over Barack
Obama to decide finally over the weekend.

Well this is that we're going to
subscribe to that no fly zone.

Well one thing for
sure we know is he did not have.

Have those nine and
the see the base that excruciating.

Which would be very exciting for

the classroom because here you
are in the middle of the action and

you have the players like you around
the table debating for hours.

I bought Afghanistan.

Not once not twice.

According to Bob Woodward and
I can't a better time.

Let's read if I know maybe it's not
perfect idea account but you know.

We'll reveal what we have now and maybe
when they will have more about the story.

Nine times then of key decision makers
be deluded about what happened.

We should do what they should do
what you should do about Afghanistan

in this case this is why I say it's really
his first commander in chief decision.

He decided to go perhaps based on instinct
own is own reading on his own values

I'm sure bad very much short because he
was influenced by key decision made by key

advisers and then from the outside
to be paid for as an agenda for

their own agendas who decided he
would like to take the lead and

participate in moving that mission.

Well you know there was half that it's not
I was that sort of political alignment you

know you have advisors pushing for
something or something.

One dead.

ROBERT GATES Well and

nobody read it was probably the most
influential policymaker in Washington.

Did not win on this one.

It's an interesting question.

We didn't know and you can tell by
gestures that we gave his interviews.

A little bit frustrated for
NOT use of a less imposed word.

Because I feel that he was
taken the better back by

and he in fact gave some answers that were
some points were probably contradictory

of I think what the weather advisors and
Barack Obama said the started to do so.

Yes people are for sure.

Same with explaining the causes
of why are they don't do.

It happened because as others
already have their diamonds or

whatever else they also happen because
you have tea and for presidents.

That really want to use
the good contacts in a very bad

neighborhood with that bad neighbor or
good neighbors depending.

And so we sit or have access to resources
like weaponry and decide to go to war.

Say for instance in the case that
I sort of alluded to very much.

Today the case of ex a former Yugoslavia.

It took Milosevich if you don't have

massive it's probably half of
your explanations were gone.

He added To Instead it
would not have happened.

Milosevich was an ultra nationalist that
used well as a way to as stablished push.

And a set of identity to the Serb
people by expanding died and

that it will be one of the builders of
Serbia in a flight into Arab Yugoslavia

which is not something
that Tito would understood

from its Croatian roots
Yugoslavia was about.

Conflict has a story.

It has a history it has a conversation and
it has political players.

So the good the bad and
the let me into playing to people who have

different values motivations and now
a G.'s like I said that are at will or.

Referent kinds of advice of
returning the vegetation or

vote of open mindedness or
close mindedness.

So this yes I think that the decision
making and that analysis and

on Conflict Studies are always very
promising field because the interaction

between the two explain
a whole lot of things.

She

has just sex.

Thank you so Mr Xander George.

So what professors I run my various

areas of your city situation very

let me know what you
were before the series

that was going on.

Is this crisis.

How does this compare.

Well my first answer to you would
be I would remain very humble.

In answering or trying to answer
your very very good question.

I think some academics wouldn't fact
resist that mindset would say our

job is not to bridge the gap because
then we become more made normative and

if we become normative then we get
away from scholarly science or

scholarly contributions.

And so some people would
shy from doing that eggs or

size which will frustrate
prosy makers very very much so

because they decide to not mind but bring
in conferences and speeches and talks and

then say yeah but sure but
where that what do we do with this.

It's nice to know that X.
factor brings Y. consequence but

Well that wraps sort of blueprint what
sort of improvement should we do.

I think at some point and that in terms
of the theory that the theory brings

some sense of guy out of so
I'm sort of being a positivist and

positivist in my we have a knowledge of
how we do research how we do science.

If such a thing exists so

yes I would be unfavorable to try to learn
from as you said experience to try to.

To what we see in a case like today.

So it's hard for me to answer your
question for it magically But

one thing for sure I would say is
I've heard it say a few things that I

would be their advice and I think it
sort of came out from my presentation.

First I've had.

Do not think that a problem like this
one from what we know in the past is

easily handled.

In a resolvable so please do a little
public opinion that this is not going

to be a weekend affair a week
affair a month affair.

Yes we could be very lucky and
come back if you decide to go ahead.

I think the only way that he's going to
go by the way is not because he's going

to seek asylum or find a nice place
like Schama shake or where they asked

because someone else will take him is
because probably run of his generals or

Cornell's will just step up and shoot him.

But that's OK later and
that I'm not privy to any information and

I don't know if it's even feasible because
he's very well protected as you know by

the militias that he's
imported from other countries.

That's terrible.

Even from Egypt can you imagine Russia
from Chad people he pays very well

that have no connection with the factions
as such and declines in Libya.

So that perhaps less.

Or reservations about perhaps killing
other humans because they're not

part of that society that's not something
that we have talked to much about and

we haven't seen a spectacular
as that as since the Republic

of Congo back in the early two thousands
and even in the one nine hundred ninety S.

when I ran of other countries put in
a lot of people to go and fight in Congo.

So this was a first I would say since
then so I don't have any timeline.

It's probably going to take some time.

Second thing is I think it will be.

I would counsel my virus.

On believing that air power will do it.

We've seen this before and it's been.

And I know that the military
is very concerned

very apprehensive not just in
the US kind of better same.

They were tied up in Afghanistan still so
there are no troops left to do whatever

else but it would be the same in Paris the
same in London and same in other capitals.

They have the idea that we're saying
in writing that would be your

patient to ground troops.

It's nice to save broad if if if for one
reason or another air power does not work

or works but does not work in the sense
of changing the conditions on the ground.

And I put some generals on C.N.N.
say even.

Now from their experience it will require
at some point a peacekeeping mission.

So even if it.

Peace is somewhat reached that list or you
have to remember as the one that's very

Parian on the left that's
democratic I would be prudent in

using that word very cautious one better
but not the kind that we might better.

Of course.

And on the right hand it would be
if we see what happened in Bosnia

we see what happened in Central Africa we
see what happened in Kosovo we see what

happened in Afghanistan we see what
happened in Sierra Leone in Liberia and

into May or
in Sudan Darfur to me it is not

an extraordinary farfetched of
imagination to think that at some point.

Folks.

Well wherever is going to be in Libya.

It's not it's not impossible to rule
out that that would be I think a second

a second learning or second bridging
the gap intuition that I would have

an affair with to think more about it's
a good exam question by the way I would do

I would I would I would think hard about
some other implications like that.

I don't know it's about when you get
what that was the toughest question of.

Myself but probably not.

My pleasure.
Really welcome

in Montreal any time you
want to be here with you.