 I want to welcome many of our distinguished guests, members of the Diplomatic Corps, some very distinguished officials and former officials, and thank you all for coming to this Atchison lecture. I want to also thank very much the people who helped underwrite this Coca-Cola company, LMI, and particularly Lockheed Martin, which really make this kind of effort possible. These companies have been working closely, Lockheed Martin in particular, in helping us think through where the world is going, and they want to be part of that as well. I would like to just stop there and turn it over to Dick Solomon, the President of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and to move right through the program. Thank you, Dick. Thanks so much for coming, and Robin and I debated how many of our friends and colleagues we should give recognition to, and we concluded you're all friends and colleagues. We don't want to waste the time of our honored speaker, and so I just want to thank you all for coming to this Atchison lecture. Why recognize Dean Atchison? I think that's one of the reasons why John West is due credit for establishing this series, and as you know, Dean Atchison is most widely recognized for that famous phrase of his memoir, Present at the Creation, which conveys all sorts of innuendos, but from his point of view, it reflects the fact that he was there at that turn of history from the end of the Cold War to the onset, I'm sorry, the end of World War II to the onset of the Cold War, and he had the foresight and the initiative to start building the institutions that succeeded in getting us through the Cold War, putting a lot of emphasis on building both international financial diplomatic institutions, putting a great deal of emphasis on diplomacy and our dealings with the world, and so it's from that perspective that we wanted to give a platform to national leaders in this period of history, which again is a major turn to new challenges, hopefully some new positive opportunities, which we'll be, I think, hearing about shortly, and it was a special honor that the first Atchison lecture was delivered by our Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, who is really a fresh and farsighted thinker who almost outrageously is proposed giving money to the State Department and strengthening our diplomatic institutions so that we keep a civilian leadership out in front of our foreign policy as we deal with the challenges of this new era, so it's a special pleasure to have here tonight not only our speaker who will be introduced in a minute, but also Dean Atchison's sons, David, and his granddaughter, Eleanor, who I understand are with us tonight, and I hope they'll stand and be recognized. I have a tricky assignment now. I don't want to preempt our primary host for the evening who will introduce our speaker, but I've talked to Michael Dignan of Lockheed Martin, and we've sort of agreed that we'll share the introductions, and I want to begin by giving you a little appetizer. As the pictures that you're seeing on either side of the room indicate, our permanent facility, our headquarters building down at the corner of 23rd and Constitution, is now really taking shape. It's about 80% constructed. We expect it will be fully constructed, the working parts of the building by Thanksgiving, and we'll be moving in in the spring. And this will be a facility that will enable us to hold events like this in the remarkable atrium that will be a major part of this facility and to give a home to the work that we do. Now, one important aspect of our charter from Congress is public education, and one of the things we're building in this institution is what we call our Global Peace Building Center. It's 20,000 square feet of exhibits, a movie, and other facilities that will highlight the work of the Institute. And one of the things that will be in this educational institution are what we call witness displays. We want to make human the challenges and the face of those who are making major contributions to bringing peace to international conflict situations. And it's in that context that we're going to give you a little sneak preview right now of our honored speaker, who will be one of those witnesses for his role in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement Northern Ireland. And of course the work that he is doing day by day right now to try to bring peace to the Middle East. I'm George Mitchell, former United States Senator from Maine, Senate Majority Leader, and after service in the Senate, I went to Northern Ireland where at the invitation of the British and Irish governments, I served as chairman of the peace talks, which led to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ending decades of conflict in Northern Ireland. The conflict in Northern Ireland was fueled and conducted by paramilitary organizations on both sides, Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists. The level of violence was very high and quite brutal. In the mid-1990s, the British and Irish governments concluded that the only way this could be ended was if they cooperated to try to establish negotiations to bring the conflicting sides together. The principal negotiations lasted two years. I devised what are called the Mitchell Principles, which required the parties affiliated with paramilitary organizations to use only democratic and peaceful methods for advancing their political objectives. It was very tense and highly uncertain. I was able to establish a sense that this was going to be a fair proceeding in which everybody could be heard, and I think in the end that's what helped us to reach an agreement. After many years of negotiations, the deadline for a peace agreement came, and it was dramatic that last day, we were up all night, there was very little sleep. The principal unionist party didn't reach agreement until about quarter or five in the afternoon. When the party leader called me, I said, look, I want to vote right away. I'd learned as majority leader of the U.S. Senate when you get the votes you vote. If you delay, something bad might happen. We assembled at five o'clock, and the parties all made clear their assent to the agreement, and so finally peace came to Northern Ireland. The most difficult obstacle to overcome is the lack of trust. You can rebuild buildings, you can replace vehicles, you can put bridges back up, but the really important thing to change what is in people's hearts and minds takes much longer. It takes generations who didn't see innocent members of their family blown up by a bomb just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's hard to restore trust, easy to lose it. It isn't there yet in Northern Ireland, but it's on its way. Hope and opportunity are essential to political stability and peace in every society. Whatever people's difference is, they want the same thing. They want to get their children off to a good start in life. They want to have a chance for a decent job, and so what is necessary in all of these conflict societies is to create a sense of hope, vision, possibility for the future. Without that hope, without that opportunity, peace is in peril everywhere. I just want to say under the leadership of our Executive Vice President, Tara Sonnenstein, we're producing a series of these so-called witness statements, and it will give you a flavor of what we want young kids who are looking for careers in international affairs, tourists coming to our part of the mall where all the war memorials are located, giving them a sense not only that peace is possible, but that they can play a role in peacemaking. With that, I'm very pleased to ask Michael Dignan, the President of Lockheed Martin Center for Stability Operations, to come up here. We're very pleased to have Lockheed Martin as the principal sponsor of this series of lectures, the Atchison Lectures. Michael, please. Good evening. It was a great video. Thank you, and I'm honored to introduce our speaker for the lecture tonight on behalf of Lockheed Martin. But before I do, let me take this opportunity to thank Richard and everyone at the U.S. Institute of Peace for the work they are doing on behalf of our country and the world. Lockheed Martin is proud to support USIP because we recognize that conflict prevention is always preferable to conflict recovery. We are committed to being USIP, expand the smart power toolkit and ensure that America's defense, diplomacy, and development resources are used effectively to advance the cause of peace. And USIP could not have chosen a more effective peacemaker than our speaker this evening. He was one of the Senate's most respected leaders for 14 years with the talent of bringing together those with opposing views to pass legislation vital to our national interest. As you saw from the video, he became a hero to the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic for his inspirational efforts negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, which has been the key to ending a long, bitter struggle that claimed far too many innocent lives. He has been a tireless champion of reconciliation in the Middle East, trusted by both the Israeli and the Palestinians to hear their concerns, understand their positions, and offer creative solutions to resolve their differences. As the administration's special envoy for the Middle East peace, he continues to be center stage in American foreign policy, working to bring to a close perhaps the most divisive and volatile conflict of this time. During the traditional St. Patrick's Day ceremony at the White House this year, President Obama described him as both a statesman who worked as hard as anyone to usher in an age of peace in Northern Ireland and a glutton for punishment for being willing to take on this latest Middle East assignment. However, if anyone can bridge the divide between the two parties, I know it's our speaker tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, George Mitchell. Thank you very much, Michael, to Robin West, Dick Solomon, and so many distinguished guests, and so many friends here. It's really a great honor for me to be able to participate in an event that is named for former Secretary of State Dean Atchison. I confess that when Dick Solomon called me to invite me to come to address you on the subject of peace and conflict resolution, I was uneasy and uncertain about accepting because I'm familiar with the United States Institute for Peace and the work it's done and I knew that all the members of the audience would each know as much if not more than I did about the subject. But then I reflected on my first day in the Senate and I want to tell a couple of stories about that because the subject of my remarks is serious and the whole evening ought not to be serious. And so it's easy for me to talk about my career in the Senate because it wasn't serious in many respects. I entered the Senate under unusual circumstances. I was serving as a federal judge in my home state of Maine when 30 years ago this month, then President Carter appointed Senator Ed Muskie, Secretary of State, creating a vacancy in the Senate which, as you know, under American law, the Governor fills. There was a lot of publicity. There was an ex-Governor and ex-Senator, couple of ex-Congressmen from Maine, all of whom were highly qualified and interested in the position and there was a lot of publicity about it. And the Governor announced that he didn't want Maine to be underrepresented in the Senate for a long period of time so in just a few days he said he would hold a press conference at the State Capitol to announce his appointment. The evening before I went to bed like everyone else in Maine wondering who he was going to appoint. My name had not been mentioned in the speculation. I'd been a federal judge for less than a year so it never occurred to me that I might be under consideration. And that evening the Governor called me and he said, I'd like you to come down to the State Capitol tomorrow so that I can announce I'm going to appoint you to complete Senator Muskie's term. I said, gee, Governor, this is a really big decision. I need time to think about it, to consult with my family and my friends. He said, I'll give you one hour. I protested but he insisted so I immediately called up my three older brothers. I grew up in a very small town in Maine with three older brothers who were very famous athletes, very well known not just in our community but statewide. And then I came along and I was not as good as my brothers. In fact I was not as good as anybody else's brother. So very early in life I began to be known around our small town as Johnny Mitchell's kid brother, the one who isn't any good. As you might expect I developed an inferiority complex and a highly competitive attitude toward my brothers. So that night when the Governor called me I called them up ostensibly to seek their opinion. But I confessed there was a note of triumphalism in my voice. When I informed them that the Governor wanted to appoint me to the United States Senate, what do they think about that? The answers were predictable. My brother Johnny said, he said it's ridiculous. He said everybody knows you're a loser. He said nobody can understand how you got to be a federal judge. And the people of Maine are entitled to have a qualified person to represent them in the Senate. My two other brothers said much the same thing in less polite language. So I hung up, I called the Governor up, I said Governor I don't need an hour. I've already received all the reassurance I need of my ability to perform this job so I accept. The next day I went down to the state capitol, the Governor announced my appointment. I flew down here to Washington and I was sworn in right away. Actually the Senate was debating some legislation and the majority leader of the time was kind enough to interrupt and have me sworn in and then the Senate resumed debate and moments later I cast my first vote. The first of many informed judgments I made on your behalf and on behalf of other Americans. And then I went for the first time to what was now my office. And a young man said to me, he had a long list of things for me to do. And then he said, Senator we have a very interesting invitation here. I said, what is it? He said there are about 2,000 certified public accountants from all over the country holding a convention here in Washington and they just called up just an hour ago and wondered if you would come and be their keynote speaker tonight. And I said gosh that's just amazing. I said because until yesterday I myself didn't know I'd be here and to think that these accounts were so far sighted as to hold this open for me. No, he said it's nothing like that. He said they've had four cancellations at the last minute and you're the only member of Congress they could think of who might not have anything to do to do tonight. I said what do they want me to talk about? He said the tax code. I said the tax code to 2,000 certified public accounts. Every member of the audience I said we'll know more about the subject than I do. And this young aide looked at me, drew himself up to his full height and he said Senator, he said keep in mind you are now a United States Senator and you will be regularly called upon to address in public subjects about which you know nothing. He said so you might as well start now and get in practice. So that came into my mind and I said if I can go and talk to those accountants about the tax code I can come here and talk to the United States Institute about peace. So here I am. I do want to mention one of the person who's not here but who is principally responsible for the creation of the United States Institute of Peace. Shortly after I enter the Senate I became quite friendly with Senator Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii and as we all called him Sparky had an overwhelming interest in the establishment of what he used to call a Department of Peace. And I remember him telling me and as he talked to every member of the Senate we have a Department of Defense we should have a Department of Peace. Well we don't have a Department of Peace today but we have a United States Institute of Peace and I couldn't let the moment pass without recognizing the memory of one of the nicest persons I've ever met former Senator Spark Matsunaga without whom none of us would be here including Dick and Robin and all the rest of us. So please join me in a round of applause for a great man. Now I've been asked to talk about conflict resolution in particular my experiences in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East. I didn't know you were going to play this video tonight so there's a little bit of overlap I hope you'll excuse it and I want to begin with a few general comments. Human history is in large part a story of conflict how it arose how it was resolved so the subject is not new but it has taken on a new urgency in a world in which the number of people is increasing rapidly the number of nation states continues to grow the number of non-state organizations which initiate or extend conflict is also on the increase and there are rapid technological developments that make it easier to start and to conduct conflicts than it is to prevent or end them. I was involved more recently and I saw there a large electric clock which projects population growth in the world. On the day that I was there it predicted that in two thousand eighty there will be eleven and a half billion people on earth. I personally think that's an over estimate but it does remind us that population growth is an important factor especially when compared with the past. It took 1800 years that's 18 centuries following the birth of Christ for the world's population to reach one billion. The most recent billion was added in less than 20 years although the rate of growth has recently slowed slightly. A credible estimate is that by 2050 and that's in the sweep of history a short 40 years away there will be more than nine billion people on earth an increase of almost 40 percent over the current level. That means more competition for land for water for all natural resources more competition for economic growth for political power and inevitably as a result more conflict. And sadly we must recognize that while we live in an age of amazing technological advancement some of the most dramatic advances have come in the human ability to kill ever larger numbers of other men and women. 223 years ago in the midst of what turned out to be one of the most important conflicts in all of history a small group of American colonists gathered in Philadelphia in the convention that produced the American Constitution. The part of it that we call the Bill of Rights is to me the most concise and eloquent statement ever written anywhere of the right of the individual to be free from oppression by government. For as long as men and women seek to gain or retain freedom the Bill of Rights will stand as their beacon. That's one side of the coin of liberty the right to be free from oppression. The other side is the need for everyone to have a fair chance to enjoy the blessings of liberty to a man without a job to a woman who can't get good care or education for her child to the young people who lack the skills needed to compete in a world of technology. They don't think much about abstract concepts like liberty and justice. They're entirely focused in coping from day to day. Dean Atchison understood this. He headed the US delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference which gave birth to organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and what would become the World Trade Organization. He designed the Marshall Plan to give the war devastated European nations the tools and the money to rebuild their economies. He knew that without an economic foundation a peace that had been so costly to secure could not possibly be sustained. So it was for many years in Northern Ireland. Conflict hurt the economy. Unemployment rose with violence in a deadly cycle of escalating misery. Late in the 20th century after many years of disagreement the British and Irish governments concluded that if there was to be any hope of bringing the conflict to an end they would have to begin to cooperate in a sustained effort to lay the foundation for peace. In 1996 after years of effort they finally were able to get peace negotiations underway. The two governments asked me to serve as chairman. I've been involved in Northern Ireland long enough to realize what a daunting task it was. The negotiations were the longest most difficult I've ever been involved with at least until now. Often no progress seemed possible but somehow we kept going. After a year and a half of talks that produced no result a dramatic event changed my mind at the course of history there. A leading Protestant paramilitary leader was murdered in prison by a group of Catholic prisoners. That touched off a surge of sectarian killings. A vicious cycle of revenge took hold in tit-for-tat assassinations and the peace process slid backward toward the abyss. In desperation I devised a plan to establish an early and firm deadline to end the talks. I was convinced that the absence of a deadline guaranteed its failure. The existence of a deadline couldn't guarantee success but rather made it possible. As we near the deadline there were non-stop round-the-clock negotiations and finally an agreement was reached. It did not by itself guarantee a durable peace or political stability or reconciliation. It did make them possible. It then took a lot of effort over a very long period of time to achieve those goals and indeed the effort is still ongoing. Since then I've been asked often what lessons Northern Ireland holds for other conflicts especially the Middle East and I'll try to answer that question now. I begin with caution. Each human being is unique as is each society so it follows logically that no two conflicts are the same. Much as we would like it there is no magic formula which once discovered can be used to end all conflicts. The situation we faced in Northern Ireland was very different from the one we face in the Middle East today. But there are some basic principles which arise out of my experience that may apply more broadly. First I believe firmly that there's no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. They're created, conducted, and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings no matter how hateful, no matter how hurtful peace can prevail. When I arrived in Northern Ireland I found to my dismay a widespread feeling of pessimism among the public and the political leaders. It's a small well-informed society where I quickly became well-known and every day that I was there people stopped me on the street in the airport in a restaurant wherever I was and they always began with kind words. Thank you senator we appreciate what you're trying to do but they always ended in despair. You're wasting your time, this conflict can't be ended. We've been killing each other for centuries and we're doomed to go on killing each other forever. As best I could I worked to reverse these attitudes. This is the special responsibility of political leaders from whom many in the public take their cue. And one way is to create an attitude of success, the belief that problems can be solved, that things can be better. Not in a foolish or unrealistic way but in a way that creates hope and some level of confidence among the people. A second need is for a clear and determined policy not to yield to violence. Over and over in Northern Ireland the men of violence tried to destroy the peace process. At times they nearly succeeded. That means there must be an endless supply of patience and perseverance. No matter how severe, no matter how frequent the setbacks, how bleak the outlook, the search for peace must continue. Seeking an end to conflict is not for the timid or for the tentative. It takes courage, perseverance and steady nerves in the face of often horrific violence. I believe it's a mistake to say in advance that if acts of violence occur negotiations will end. That's an invitation to those who use violence to destroy the process and it transfers control of the agenda from the peaceful majority to the violent minority. A third need so obvious is that there must be some willingness to compromise. Peace and political stability simply cannot be achieved in sharply divided societies unless there is a genuine willingness on both sides to understand the other point of view and to enter into principled compromise. That's very easy to say. It's very hard to do because it requires of political leaders that they take risks for peace. One of the extraordinary facts of human history is that individuals and whole societies take the most extreme risks in time of war. But rarely will leaders or societies take risks for peace. And so political leaders must be asked to take risks and they must respond if there is to be hope. I know it can be done because I saw it first hand in Northern Ireland. Men and women, some of whom had never before met, never before spoken, who had spent their entire lives of conflict against each other came together ultimately in an agreement for peace. It was long and difficult, but it did happen. And if it happened there, it can happen elsewhere. The fourth principle, again, so obvious is that we must recognize that the implementation of agreements is just as important and usually more difficult than reaching an agreement. That should be self-evident. But often just getting an agreement is so difficult. It takes so long and so much effort that there's a natural human tendency to celebrate than to turn to other pressing problems. But getting it done is harder than getting agreement to do it. And once again, patience and perseverance are necessary. It is especially important that we Americans busy at home and all across the world not be distracted or become complacent by the good feeling created by an interim success or even by a highly publicized agreement. There's a final point to me that I think so important that I bring up every time I speak publicly on this subject and it extends beyond open conflict. Although it was 15 years ago, I recall so clearly my first day in Northern Ireland as though it were yesterday. I saw for the first time the huge wall which physically separates the two communities in Belfast. 30 feet high, topped in places with barbed wire. It's an ugly reminder of the intensity and the duration of the conflict. Ironically, it's called the peace line. On that first morning, I met with Catholics on their side of the wall in the afternoon with Protestants on their side. Their messages had not been coordinated, but to my surprise, they were the same. In Belfast, they told me there was a high correlation between unemployment and violence. They said that where men and women have no opportunity and no hope, they are more likely to take the path of violence. As I sat and listened to them, I thought that I could just as easily be almost anywhere on earth. Despair is fuel for instability and for conflict everywhere. Hope is essential to peace and to stability. Men and women everywhere need income to support their families and they need the satisfaction of doing something meaningful with their lives. Now, the conflict in Northern Ireland was obviously not exclusively or even primarily economic. So I don't want to suggest that these conflicts are exclusively or even primarily, or even to a large degree, dominated by economic considerations. It is an undercurrent. As in the Middle East, so in Northern Ireland, it involved religion, national identity, territorial competition, highly emotional issues. In Northern Ireland, the conflict exacted a terrible price, paid mostly as it almost always is by thousands of innocent people. Just a few months after the agreement was reached, a large bomb shattered the calm of a warm summer afternoon in the small town of Oma. Many dozens were killed. Many hundreds were grievously horribly maimed. Amidst the death and destruction there was laid bare the utter senselessness of trying to solve the problems of Northern Ireland by violence. It didn't work and it only made things worse. Two weeks later, I accompanied Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton to Oma, where we met with the survivors and with the relatives of the dead. Among them were two young people with whom I spoke and who I will never forget. Claire Gallagher was 15 years old, tall and lovely, an aspiring concert pianist. She lost both of her eyes. As we sat and spoke, she looked out, could see nothing. Her eyes covered by two large white patches. She was an exemplar of grace and courage. Michael Monahan was 33 years old. He lost his wife, who was pregnant, their 18-month-old daughter and his wife's mother. Three generations of women wiped out in a single senseless moment. And yet, despite their terrible and irreparable loss, both Claire and Michael did not speak to me about themselves. They spoke about others and they urged me to keep the peace process going forward. Their courage and their determination are permanently etched in my memory. And in fact, it was the two of them that I thought of when Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama asked me to serve as the U.S. Special Envoy for Peace in the Middle East. Even before I was asked to serve, I knew it would be very difficult. In December of 2008, when I did not know that I would serve in this position, I spoke at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. There I was asked about Northern Ireland and in reply, I noted that the peace agreement there came 800 years after Britain began its domination of Ireland. Later, an elderly gentleman came up to me and said in a very loud voice, did you say 800 years? I said, yes, 800. He repeated the number much louder. I repeated again. Then he said with a wave of his ah, such a recent argument. No wonder you got it settled. Well, only in the Middle East is 800 years ago recent. And it is true that the circumstances there are very different than they were in Northern Ireland, as I earlier said. But even in the Middle East, I believe conflict can be ended. There are, of course, many, many reasons to be skeptical about the prospect for success and most people are. The conflict is so complex. It has gone on for so long. It has had such destructive effects. The level of mistrust and hostility is so high that many, perhaps a majority there and here have come to regard it as unsolvable. But we can't succumb to that view because the pursuit of peace is so important, it demands our maximum effort, no matter the difficulties, no matter the disappointments, no matter the setbacks. The key is the mutual commitment of the parties and the active participation of the United States government led by the President and the Secretary of State with the support and assistance of the many other governments and institutions who want to help. Of course, this is not a new American objective. President Bush said in 2008, and I quote, the point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision is clear. There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interest of both parties. That is an accurate and effective statement of what American policy is and has been. President Obama publicly reaffirmed our policy on taking office, and he has broadened it to seek a comprehensive piece, which also includes Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, and normal relations between Israel and all the Arab nations in the region. The President moves swiftly to place these objectives high on our nation's list of priorities. In the spirit of Dean Atchison, our approach to peace focuses on economic and institutional development as well. When the President began his administration just over a year ago, it seemed that the culture of peace, which had been so carefully nurtured during the Oslo process, had unfortunately largely dissipated, replaced by a sense of futility, of despair, of the inevitability of conflict. The war in Gaza had just ended. The Palestinians were deeply divided. The uncertainty of Israeli elections lay ahead, and few people believed that there was any chance for restarting negotiations, let alone achieving a peaceful end of the conflict. And yet, limited as it is, there has been some progress. First, a right of Senate government in Israel has endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as the way to resolve the conflict. Second, Israel has frozen new housing construction starts in the West Bank for 10 months. Third, the Palestinian authority is aggressively working to prevent violent attacks against Israel based on its publicly stated belief that violence does not advance the Palestinian cause. Fourth, there has been substantial and continuing improvement in security, in law and order, and in economic development on the West Bank. This is the result of an effort to build from the bottom up the capacity to function effectively as a state from the moment of establishment. This involves extensive cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian authority, with strong support from the United States, the European, the United Nations, and other of our lives. Fifth, in circumstances that are very difficult for both Israel and the Palestinian authority are working to combat incitement and to refrain from taking actions that are provocative and that undermine further trust and confidence. Sixth, the Arab League has expressed its support for the negotiations. As a result, the Arab states have an important interest in a positive outcome and they can play an important role in achieving it. And seventh and finally, we have consequently begun proximity talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an environment that is more constructive than has existed in the immediate past. The proximity talks are serious and wide ranging with both sides trying to move forward under very difficult circumstances. We commend their efforts. We will do everything possible to help the parties move as soon as possible into direct negotiations that will result in a two-state solution. Now I recognize of course that I could just as easily draw up a list of the many issues that remain unresolved of the huge obstacles to resolving them of the long litany of past efforts that did not succeed. So we are realistic about the difficulties but because peace in the Middle East is so much in the interest of the people in the region and in our national interest we must and we will continue our efforts. We know that we cannot impose a solution. It's up to the parties themselves to negotiate directly and to ultimately resolve this conflict with our active and sustained support and participation. This will require of them compromise, flexibility, and most of all it will require leadership. We believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas can be the leaders who finally deliver peace to their people. Peacemaking requires bold action because we know from bitter experience that there are many enemies of the process who will resort to violence in an attempt to prevent progress and to undermine those who seek a peaceful and more prosperous future for the region's people. We must strengthen the hand of moderates. The United States is committed to being an active partner every step of the way standing by those who are willing to take risks for peace. As Secretary Clinton said on March 9th this is about getting to the table creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it and staying there until the job is finally done. I know there's much history to overcome but there also was a lot of history in Northern Ireland and it was overcome. The conflicts are far from identical but they were both created by human beings and human beings can solve them. Dean Atchison once said history only comes one day at a time so must we take it now one day at a time and most of them difficult days but persistent effort on all sides despite the centuries of pain and mistrust can move history in the direction of peace and security. In fact when one looks back over the decades since the Six-Day War we can see that the road already traveled is much longer than the distance we still have to go. Peace between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan has paved the way. Now the Arab states have committed to end the conflict and normalize relations with Israel too. All sides have endorsed the two state solution and all sides know what the solution more or less looks like. The task now before us is to reconcile the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements. This should not be beyond the abilities of political leaders if they have the will to do it. The situation remains volatile complex and dangerous but it is not hopeless. We face the daunting challenge of rebuilding trust not only between the political leaders but also between the Israeli and Palestinian people. But peace requires that we find a way to renew their hope and to instill the belief that the tragedies of the past need not determine the opportunities of the future. The President and the Secretary of State have made it clear that hardships and difficulties cannot and will not cause the United States to turn away. We will persevere and we will work to see that peace does prevail. Thank you very much for having me I'd like to close just to say a few words about George. We those of us who live in Washington know we live in a deeply insincere city and we frequently visit offices of people who are important or were important or who think they're important and when you go to these offices there are often pictures of politicians memorializing meaningless friendships or awards commemorating meaningless accomplishments. When I went to see George in his office in New York I was struck how different it was. There were some sketches of Maine and there were some pictures of his family there was very very little political memorabilia but there was one thing on the wall which really moved me deeply in its utter simplicity in the power of the statement. It was a proclamation of the Irish Doyle, their parliament. It said very simply to George Mitchell, a hero of Ireland and I would just say that Dean Atchison was a giant in his time and George Mitchell is a giant in ours.