 ordering the world's And well come particularly to all those people who joining us because this has been live streamed across the world. I'm Maureen Staunton. I'm chair of the board of trustees of SOAS and this lecture tonight is the last given lecture of the world. Ac ystod y cyfnod oedd yma yw'r brifysgraff yng ngythbeth ar y syniadau bligwyr. Al yr hyn, os y llyfr yn y cyfnod, y Sir Hy 응-fapryd yn y Llywodraeth, ac yn Llywodraeth, ac yn Gweithgrff, gyda'r cyffredinol yng Nghymru, bod ddwy yn ymddi Gwyddiaeth, Glawdia Rhodin, ac yn yng Nghymru, Rajeshahada, ac mae cyfnod anhygiad cyfnodaeth yn Llywodraeth i gymryd. ac mae e'n rhan o'r awr dechrau centyn, rwy'n golygu i'r ystod ar y maen nhw. Yn y cyfnod o'r cyfnod y Llyfrydd mae Seawas, mae yna bydd i gael y rhaid i ddiogelio y Llyfr� yn ond mae'r Unifredig yn ei wneud y llyfr, yn ei wneud y llyfr i'r llyfr. Seawas rydw i'r llyfr yn y cyfnod ymlaen nhw. Mae'r argyrchu o'r ysgrifennu i wneud hynny o'r ddod. Mae'r cyfnodd yn ymweld yma'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud yma'r ddweud o'r cyfnodd yn y rhesymau. A ydych chi'n gwybod a'r cyfnodd yn y ddweud yn y ddweud yn y ddweud, yn y ddweud yn y ddweud, mae'n gweithio'n ddweud. Mae'r cyfnodd yn cyfnodd, arddangos, o gwybod a byw, yn y pethau cyfnodd. Mae'n ddweud yn y dweud, a'r wneud eich cyfnodd, o'n symud musicalau, o'r lluniau, o'r pethau, o'r hynodd, o gyfnodd, o'r dyfodd ffifiddiol ydych chi'n gweithio i eich cyfrifieddau. Mae'n cael i'n blaogu cael i gyflym yn Galibash, o'n wych yn Gambie, byddwch ar y wybodaethau ariol yma. A llwyddoch yn y 17th Cymru o'r mision cyfnol gyda Japan yn gynghoriwyr. Mae'r ddweud yn allan, ac mae'n dweud i'r ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i ddweud, mae'n wneud i'n ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud. Mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud i'r ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i bethau sydd ag i ddweud ac i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud. So, on to tonight's event. And the lectures in this series show how SERS provides space for debate, for discussion, for asking the challenging questions about how we look at our world. And that's why in this centenary year, SOAS launched the Questions with Asking campaign, so that students and academics can ask and keep on asking and sometimes answer pressing questions like, is there a solution to the world's refugee crisis? What happens after war? Should we all speak the same language? What makes a global citizen? And will there ever be equality? And throughout the campaign, we're seeking further support for our work here at SOAS in three ways. First, through scholarships to enable people who, students from across the world, who would benefit from SERS to come here. I don't know if you've ever had in your life anybody who's really believed in your potential, anybody who's really invested in you. Well that's what scholarships are about. Scholarships about men and women, girls and boys being able to realise their potential. And the second investment that we want to make is in the academic depth of SOAS, in academic projects, in endowing posts. And thirdly, making sure that we put the student experience right at the heart of everything we do. And you can learn more about the campaign on our website under slash questions. So I've only two final things to say. One of them is the phone issue. So don't be the person that everybody's glaring at because they have not switched off their phone tonight. It's also being filmed so the TV crews won't like you either. So just switch it to silent now. But we do encourage you to tweet. That's a hashtag. That's hashtag SOAS 100 and do tweet away. And finally, I'm delighted to invite Professor Gilbert Ashkar, Professor of Development Studies and International Relations here, who took the initiative to invite Dr El Baraday to give this lecture to do what academics at SOAS are so really good at doing to give us some context and to introduce the speaker. So, Professor Ashkar. Thank you very much, Ms Daunton. Ladies and gentlemen, your colleagues, your students, good evening. I mean, I think it's a very rhetoric formula to say usually that the guest doesn't need to be introduced. And you know that it's not always the case. This time it's certainly the case. I mean, this is certainly one of the most, the best known and most prestigious persons of our time that we are going to listen to this evening, Dr Mohammed El Baraday. Let me nevertheless give you some background about his biography. You may not know all aspects of it. I mean, what you know for sure is that he is a citizen of Egypt, but he is also very much a cosmopolitan citizen of the world. Dr Baraday studied law at the University of Cairo and the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva and completed a doctorate in international law at NYU, New York University. His diplomatic career started in 1964 with Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Soon he joined the various Egyptian missions to the UN, in particular in Geneva and in New York. In 1984 he joined the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, as a senior staff member in various functions and responsibilities. He became Director General of the Agency in 1997 and served in this very prestigious position for three terms until 2009. He is currently Director General Emeritus of the Agency. In 2005, as you know, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the IAEA. Back in Egypt after the IAEA period, Dr El Baraday became the most prominent figure of the Egyptian opposition, the opposition to the rule of Hosni Mubarak. In 2010 he founded the National Association for Change, which regrouped all major components of the opposition. In this capacity, Dr Baraday has been a major figure of the sequence of events that unfolded in Egypt starting from 25 January 2011 until the brutal turn of events under Marshall CLCC in August 2013. Since then, Dr El Baraday has been based in Vienna. Last but not least, I should say Dr El Baraday is the father of Layla, who is here this evening with her husband and daughter and who is a source alumni. I had the chance of counting Layla among my students in the very year when the Arab Spring started unfolding. And I must thank Layla who was instrumental in convincing Dr El Baraday to give this lecture. So the lecture will last some 30 minutes and will be followed by 30 minutes conversation during which I will put a few questions to Dr El Baraday. So without further delay please join me in welcoming our most distinguished guest. Thank you very much. Chairman Stanton, Professor Ashkar, it's a real pleasure for me and honour to take part in your centenary lecture series. My daughter Layla, a graduate of this institution, could not be more proud. My nine year old granddaughter Maya is also here today to see her grandpa in action. Hopefully she will take me more seriously afterwards. So as was established for Great Britain to understand the cultures of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with a view to govern the empire more effectively, it was an early recognition that understanding other cultures and not only hard power is key to governance. Much water clearly has gone under the bridge since. The empire is no longer and the world has undergone fundamental changes in terms of global values including self determination and human rights. The mission of SOAS has naturally been redefined as a result, but its core remains unchanged. Communication between and understanding of various cultures and values is key to our coexistence. The Brunai Gallery and the Japanese Garden above illustrates this awareness. Communication and mutual understanding among peoples and cultures seems to be a more urgent task than ever before, as our world is racing in a dangerous direction. We are witnessing senseless, destructive, dehumanising conflicts and a growing mindset of Cartago de Llande est. We are seeing intelligible walls erected through words and deeds between different cultures, religions and people. We are watching the spread of terrorism and the horror and mayhem wrote by extremist groups. We are observing the corrosion of the limitations on the use of force, agreed to in the aftermath of World War II. And we are seeing the nuclear weapon states chest beating about the nuclear weapon arsenals and their strategic security value. President Trump's casual declaration that torture works and his Muslim ban. Urslaw Kaczynski, the leader of Poland's ruling party, warning that refugees from the Middle East could bring diseases and parasites to Europe. And the Philippines president, the 30s declaration of a nationwide state of lawlessness are just some recent manifestation of emerging alternative values. The clash of values we have today, in my view, is between those who see a world based on hope, inclusiveness and rule of law and those who see one based on fear, segregation and warranted repression. What's frightening is that some have started to draw a parallel between the world today and that of 1930s in terms of exclusionary and polarized societies, insurgent populism, economic crisis, refugees, institutional failures and flouting of international norms. Are we at the cusp of a major conflagration, which this time around could easily lead to self-annihilation? In 1952, the American statesman Adlai Stevenson said that, quote, we are now on the eve of great decisions, not easy decisions, but a long patient, costly struggle, which alone can assure the triumph over the great enemies of man, war, poverty and tyranny, and assault upon human dignity, which are the most grievous consequences of each. I'd like to use this insightful diagnosis of our enemies articulated over six decades ago to assess our success in combating them and what we need to do to achieve human dignity and peace. As I said, it just shows you the amount of work we still have to do in this region and the ability to be able to talk to each other and reconcile with each other. Peace, I was going to say, has always been an elusive goal. Wars have dominated the human timeline since recorded history. Hundreds of millions have lost their lives to violence perpetuated under the guise of religion, nationalism, ethnicity and other alleged Cassus Belly. We can barely remember the causes of many of those wars. Some of the states involved no longer even exist. We organise ourselves in social units of city states, empires and sovereign states. We had the peace of Westphalia, the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations and the United Nations. To regulate international relations. We created security system based on balance of power and later on collective security. But peace has remained fleeting and fragile, with force and violence continuing to be our primary choice to settle differences. Our human conditions of late has become more absurd and contradictory. We have made huge leap forward in the way we understand our world and ourselves. Our innovations are incredible and our imagination is infinite. Ranging from artificial intelligence to quest for immortality and playing God. But at the same time we have shown dismal failure to translate these advances into values and actions to stop slaughtering each other and uphold human dignity. We are simultaneously showing every day without shame not only how high can we reach, but also how low can we descend. War, poverty and tyranny and their assault on human dignity remain as shocking as during Stevenson's time. In the recent past the international community has done little more than wring its hands while millions of innocent civilians were slaughtered in Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Afghanistan, Syria and other places. We continue to judge the sanctity of life according to who is dying and where. Some conflicts such as a Palestinian conflict have been left to fester for generations. And the state seems to be steadily losing its monopoly over the use of power. As witnessed by the powerful non-state actors and militias that have sprung up across the globe, the response to humanitarian disasters is mostly informed by Jewish strategic interests. Humanitarian law intended to preserve a modicum of humanity in the realm of war and destruction is now almost always ignored. The responsibility to protect principle articulated with a great fanfare a decade ago to allow the international community to guard against genocide and other heinous crimes, usually rings hollow. An effort to establish an international system of criminal justice through the international criminal court have been far from universal, given its lack of jurisdiction over most major powers. And while we see indictment and enforcement applied to the weak and defeated almost always in Africa, we see nothing of the sort in the case of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan where some major powers were involved. Poverty and hunger, although decreased in the last two decades, continue at depressing levels. According to the World Bank, 767 million people live in extreme poverty on less than $1.9 a day. And 2.1 billion people live on less than $3.1 a day, the median poverty level. That's more than almost one-third of the world. Millions die every year because of lack of access to medical care. And inequality in the distribution of wealth between and within countries has reached obscene level. Brute repression continues to be the whole mark of a third of the world nations. Uprising against tyranny and injustice continue in the Arab world, Africa and other places. These uprisings are no different from those that took place elsewhere in the last few centuries. They are quest for human dignity. But as we also know from the past, the march for freedom is invariably long, chaotic, non-linear and regrettably often violent. History tells us that while it is not difficult to coalesce against oppression, deprivation and inequality, it's far more complicated to align around future courses of action. The central challenge has always been how to manage transition from an authoritarian to a democratic culture, including how to expunge the repressive regime, how to achieve societal cohesion, we have seen some of that, how to settle disagreements peacefully and how to ask you for an interference. Building a functioning civil society and democratic culture and institutions are lengthy, time-consuming processes. Unfortunately, the trampling of human rights by authoritarian regimes is becoming almost spectator sport on the part of the international community, limited mostly to cynically voicing deep concern. Many democracies which advocate freedom and human rights invariably continue business as usual with the usual despots. When it comes to the choice between supporting the natives right to freedom and dignity and maintaining their cozy geopolitical and economic interests with the tyrants, the outcome is almost always clear. The argument is usually being that it is a choice between the bad, repression and the much worse chaos. We know that coping with dictators is tricky and complex, but we ought to have better options than regime change, dumb sanctions or embracing the despots and arming them to the teeth. We ought also to be aware that supporting freedom and democracy has a cost in the short term, but will pay handsome dividends in the long haul. It is no surprise that the credibility of those democracies among people struggling for human dignity has almost vanished, paving the way to rising extremism. The loss of credibility has not been helped by reports of aiding and abetting torture and rendition and other violations of basic human values such as target killing. A sense of cynicism and decaying values has emerged as democracies which were historically built as role models have lost their status. In a globalised world, poverty, inequality and repression are to my mind the most lethal weapons of mass destruction. The plight of the poor, deprived of the most basic needs, the predicaments of the millions of young people with dashed hopes and broken dreams, rosco in Dostoeffsky crime and punishment, the despair of the torture, jailed and oppressed create a poisonous environment of anger, humiliation and rejection. A loss of identification with the state, a first step in its disintegration and a fertile breeding ground for violence, extremism, even nihilism. Violence, radicalism and anarchism continue to manifest themselves wearing different masks of ideology, religion, ethnicity or nationalism to justify the most atrocious of crimes and attract supporters. In many cases conflicts are hijacked by outside powers looking for geopolitical gains in proxy wars. Syria is a clear case on point. But it is the innocent civilians who put the bill in the end, callously described as collateral damage. And even when they survive, they are often denied the most basic humanitarian assistance due to lack of resources. This year, more than 20 million people in East Africa are facing the threat of starvation and famine, 20 million people. The largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. Humanitarian agencies are practically begging for less than 5 billion to avert disaster. And of course it's not that we do not have the money. The travesty is that we only devote around a mere 1% of the 1.7 trillion dollars we spend or armament per year to disaster relief and peacekeeping operations. Last year, the number of refugees forced to flee their homes as a result of violence and war reached an estimated 65 million people. With over 21 million forced to flee their country altogether. The global response to the refugee crisis continued to be wretched. Pope Francis appealed our sense of morality, quote, the Gospel calls us, ask us to be near the littlest and abandoned, went unheeded. Those who followed a value-based approach and emphasized Vir Shafindas, like Angela Merkel, saw a loss of popularity and had to pull back. Barack Obama appealed our instinct of security, quote, helping people who have been pushed to the margin of our world is not a mere charity, it's a matter of collective security, unquote. But his successor has quite a different perspective. Obviously the solution to the refugee crisis is not through a population transfer, but we need to address the root causes of the problem. The persecution, the repression, the poverty, the extremism and the wars. And above all, we need to adopt a humane approach that puts a premium on the sanctity of life rather than perceive it in callous terms of economic benefits. As Theresa May, then the Home Secretary, seemed to suggest when she remarked that, quote, high level of immigration make a cohesive society impossible and has a close to zero net economic benefit, unquote. The current refugee crisis to my mind is just a grim reminder of failed policies and crumbling values where the chickens eventually do come home to roost. Quote, those so-thought wins are reaping little wins, unquote, according to the Greek Prime Minister Tsipras. President Obama also noted that, quote, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences, unquote. He added, dryly, that, quote, we should generally aim before we shoot. In this toxic environment, are we shocked when the mindset of some become, if you don't treat me as human being, why do you expect me to act as one? And if you don't care about my life, my hopes and dreams, why should I care about yours? These are not esoteric questions. In our interconnected world, our most significant threats have no borders and defy traditional notions of security. Terrorism, climate change, weapons of mass destruction, communicable diseases, cyber crime, illegal immigration and illicit drugs, and you name it. Our actions or non-actions eventually come back to halt us wherever we are. No part of the world can remain quarantined any longer. In addition to distorted values, our policies and institutions have become anachronistic. At the national level, democratic institutions are facing a crisis because of their inability to adjust to a changing world and meet people's expectations of prosperity and fairness. Many are losing trust in the political class, leaving the door wide open for populism. Questions are being raised about the workings of democracy, including the money associated with it, the power and influence of corporations, and even the suitability of direct democracy to address complex issues such as the mechanisms of the EU or the intricacies of a peace agreement in Colombia through a referendum. International institutions suffer from structural deficiencies, a lack of authority and resources. As a result, they are bursting at the seams, steadily becoming polarized and paralyzed. The chronic failure of the United Nations Security Council to take the necessary preventive measures or provide consistent and adequate responses to threats to international peace and security is a stark case in point. We are facing an outright crisis of governance. Governments which pursue short-term, myopic policies both inform hamstrung by party politics which failed to cope with people's expectations or meet new long-term global challenges. There seem to be pull and push in conflicting directions. Movement to integrate into larger social units, as is the case with the European Union and ASEAN, but also movement to split into smaller units, as with the case of the former Soviet Union, what was former only Yugoslavia and most recently was Brexit. The tension between the national and the global continues. At the international level, international institutions are desperately in need of reform. The need to reform the United Nations system has been universally recognized since the end of the Cold War. But efforts in that direction remain stymied because of short-sighted interest to maintain the status quo of a by-gun era and petty competitions among states. As I mentioned earlier, it is quite disturbing that the limitation on the use of force, one of the great achievements of the United Nations Charter, is being increasingly ignored. As we see in Syria, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere. Tony Blair not long ago mused that quote, we have tried interventions and putting down troops in Iraq. We have tried interventions without putting in troops in Libya. And we have tried no intervention at all but demanding regime change in Syria. It is not clear to me that even if our policy did not work in Iraq, subsequent policies have worked better. Uncle, that trouble with the examples mentioned by Mr Blair is that all of them, in one way or another, sidesteped international legitimately and international law. Whether by the invasion of Iraq, exceeding the Security Council mandate in Libya or the not-so-covered intervention in Syria. Selective compliance with the law is not how to build a functioning world order. The continuing reliance on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence as a centerpiece of our collective security system is horrifying. The argument that nuclear weapons have kept a peace is bogus and does not withstand scrutiny. A peace kept on the basis of doctrine of mutual assured destruction, mad as you call it, is irrelevant to extremists based on the arbitrary premise that some are more equal than others and underpinned by human fallibility, making it unsustainable, highly dangerous. It is evident that with the technology out of the box and as long as some countries choose to rely on nuclear weapons, others will eventually seek to acquire them. With the odds of the use of nuclear weapons by design or miscalculation increasing by the day, we continue to live in a constant danger of sleepwalking and self destruction. It burders on insanity that we still have over 16,000 nuclear warheads, around 2,000 of which are on high status alert. Churcher chuckled way back that quote, if you go on with nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce. All prominent strategic experts have argued forcefully that reliance on nuclear weapons is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective. In 2011, former US Secretary of Defense Bill Perry talked about three false alarms he knew of in which Soviet missiles were thought to be screaming towards the US. Quote, to this day, I believe that we avoided nuclear catastrophe as much by good luck as by good management. Quote, one of his predecessor, Robert McNamara, put it in a starker terms. Quote, the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations. But with all of the above, have we seriously started to take meaningful steps to get rid of nuclear weapons? Have we seriously tried to reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons in national security strategy? Have we seriously started designing a new security architecture in a nuclear weapon free world, including the need to deter and defeat possible cheats? After more than four decades, the nuclear weapon states are moving in the completely opposite direction. They are modernising their arsenal to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. What is worse, recent reports indicate that the US has increased the targeting and killing capability of its existing ballistic missile force, and therefore its capacity for a surprise attack to fight and win a nuclear war. Experts tell us that this will only lead to the deepening of mistrust, the hardening of an already aggressive nuclear posture and the increasing possibility of nuclear response to a false alarm. The entire landscape is frightening and shameful. It shows no commitment whatsoever to nuclear disarmament, and it undermines over time the legal and moral foundation of the non-proliferation regime. War, tyranny and poverty, our enemies, are of our own making. They are the outcome of an environment we construct and a mindset we have cultivated. They all lead to the loss of human dignity, which in turn continue to fuel them. This vicious circle must be broken. We need a new global paradigm where we generally subscribe to the values we often reference but really pursue. Sanctity of life, equity, inclusiveness and diversity, solidarity and dialogue are not one of double standard, polarization, humiliation and use of force. Isolation and sanction are no policy, but a lack of policy. And it's often backfire, as we have seen lately in the example of Russia and North Korea. There is an effort of reconciliation between the US and Cuba and the US and Iran by contrast are instructive. After decades of hostility, we are back to where we should have started. Trying through dialogue, trust building and mutual accommodation to avoid violence and chart a path of peaceful coexistence. We clearly need to address global challenges through global responses based on the public common good where the dignity of every human being is our first priority. We need to shift the focus from rivalry and competition to cooperation and complementarity and emphasize values, policies and institutions that promote dignity and champion freedom and equity. We're zero tolerance for tyranny and repression and we need a functioning system of collective security where weapons of mass destruction has no place. If we cultivate the drivers of peace, namely human dignity and freedom, we'll be able to understand that we are one human family irrespective of superficial differences of race, religion or ethnicity. In the world of William James, we are like islands in the sea, separated on the surface, but connected in the deep. The challenges we face are bigger than any single country, conflict or issue. None of us can or will prevail alone. We will either swim together or sink together. Somehow we have lost our way. It is time to adjust our mindset to save ourselves from ourselves. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr Baraday for this very stimulating talk and our sincerest apologies. But as you said it reflects the sorry state of our region, the inability of some to distinguish between Democrats and dictators and the adherents to our vision against us or with us and nothing in between. And also the fact that I'm sure these people would have had every opportunity to leaflet everybody at the entrance of this meeting, they would have had probably had a little more sympathy than what they did which was actually very much counterproductive to any cause they wanted to serve. So again our sincerest apologies for this very regrettable. It comes with the territory. I'm used to that. Anyway, so thank you very much for this very thought provoking lecture. And of course no one would expect any optimistic perspective on the present state of the world and indeed the picture that you drew wasn't at all. Now I will try to discuss with you a number of specific points related to the global situation and your expertise of course from the position where you were. I mean as you mentioned one of the most worrying aspects of the present world situation revolves on the issue of nuclear weapons of which you are definitely and indisputably one of the most former one of the foremost experts. And as you know very recently tensions have flared up, have risen dramatically ever since Donald Trump has become president of the United States. You have spoken yourself of risk of self annihilation and it is in a sense paradoxical that to a certain degree we feel today less in safety than at least certain periods of the Cold War. Now there are two key flash points on this issue which are North Korea and Iran and in which Donald Trump is directly involved. So let us start with North Korea. How do you interpret the North Korean regime's behavior on the nuclear issue? And do you believe that the attitude adopted by the Trump administration is the appropriate one, this kind of bullying attitude? I think I look at the North Korea situation you know and it's just like a bad old movie frankly to me. It is you know if I summarize it it is a security stupid you know that's what it's all about you know whether we like it or not North Korea and I'm not in any way defending North Korea. But North Korea has its own sense of insecurity. I was once in Pyongyang and I had to listen for an hour and a half to a lecture by the foreign minister about how the US is after them since 1850 you know. Whether you like it or not whether you believe it or not that's what they believe you know that the US is after them. They are not and again I will quote my late Steve Boddworth who was a US special representative to Korea you know and during the Obama administration and he said they are not stupid if you work with them you make progress if you try to threaten them they react the same you know. I see there's no military option you know despite all the junk we keep saying there's no military option you just need to talk to them when I see the pendulum in the last few weeks it's between you know we are going to use military to Mr. Trump saying I will have the honor to sit with Kim Jong Un you know. Well something in between should be the way you know it is not I'm not it's up to them whether it's an honor or not it's up to them you know but both of them I noticed last week said we are ready North Korea said we're ready to sit with the US administration if the right conditions are met. A couple of days ago the same was stated by the US we are ready to sit with North Korea if the condition are met. Why don't you sit together and work out these conditions you know. I mean it just it just again it's one of my favorite words it's a kabuki dance you know we have seen this kabuki you know in Iran in Iraq in many other places and we are in Cuba. But at the end of the day unless you sit with each other unless you treat each other with mutual respect you don't have to agree with the system you don't have to agree with the atrocities of human rights these are different issues. But the major priority on the table is just to avoid self annihilation and that is not going to happen until you sit with North Korea. I can tell you something I mean there was an agreement you know with the North Korean to give them incentives to free reactors at one point. But unfortunately I have to say that I mean the West was not honest about it I mean they made that offer on the assumption that the North Korea regime will evaporate before they give them reactors the two reactors. Well the regime did not evaporate and and the North Korean of course got even more mistrust so basically to you know unless you sit together unless you try to build trust. Unless you try to understand where they are coming from things will get worse you know look at look at Iran and as I mentioned look at Iraq Iran and Cuba Cuba for 50 years you had this silly sanctions and after 50 years you decided that no that doesn't work. In fact it empowers the regime's empower let us let us sit with them talk to them see you know see how we can build a modus vivendi. The idea that and my friend Jack Stroh was an honor to be that he's here you know we talked a lot about that you know that unless unless you you understand where people are coming from if you want to change behavior you need to sit and talk to the other party. For five years we lost in Iran and I think you'll ask me on that also for size five years we lost in Iran because the Bush administration insisted that we are not going to sit with the Iranian unless they change behavior. But people don't change behavior I mean you talk to them to change behavior don't sit you know miles away and think they'll change behavior before talking to each other is not a reward. It's a means for coexistence and I think that applies to Korea that applies to many other places. Thank you very much. Well you mentioned Iran yes let us turn to Iran. How do you rate the so-called Iran nuclear deal that is the joint comprehensive plan of action that the Obama administration along with the other four parties. The other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany and the EU have concluded with Iran in 2015. That is more precisely do you see any ground for the sharp criticism of the deal that has been expressed by the Saudi kingdom the Israeli government. Ac i… y bydd Ym Mhwyl Gwyddon yn ystod i'r Ffryd yn ymwyllgorau Gwaith, na'r Gweithio Rydydd Ddodol. Mae'r Gweithio Rydydd yn ymwyl Gwyddon yn ymwyllgor gyda'r Gweithio Rydydd. Mae'r Gweithio Rydydd yn ymwyl Gwyddon yn ymwyl Gwyddon yn ymwyl Gwerthu. Mae'n meddwl i gweithio'r ffaith cyfnodiol playing from an Iranian program, or a Weapon program, or a suspension of a weapon program for 10 years. It gives you 10 years to work with Iran how to build mutual assurance and mutual security. I think all the criticism coming at it has to do with issues that has nothing to do with this agreement. It has to do with regional It has to do with- the Israelis want to be the only kid on the block with nuclear weapons but nobody else has a sort of symmetry. Many of the Gulf States don't hate the Iranian policy as they call it of interference, so they do not want to have the regime free from sanction. Ond ydy'r gweithio eich cwmhysgol yw'r cwmhysgol yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod, yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod? Yn mynd i'w ddweud y cyfnod cyfnod hulwcostol ar y cyfnod, ydy'r americyn yn ymlaen i'r Yran o'r Yran yn ysgolwyd yn ysgolwyd. a dafoddu, amser. The Middle East right now, I didn't talk about that, is all the issues. Development, tyranny, conflict are all linked. I don't think you can resolve one without the other. My view is that you need something like Westphalia-type conflicts or the Paris agreement after the First World War. ydych chi'n mynd i'r ysgol, ydych chi'n mynd i'ch ei ddechrau i'r eu cyffredin iawn? Roedd ychydig ar gyfer hwn, roedd ychydig yw'r ddechrau'r phaith. Roedd yma'n gwirionedd ac roedd ychydig ar y dyfodol! Felly, mae'r ddeall Aranion yn y ddeall, mae'r ddeall yn y ddeall yw'r ffordd yw'r newydd yng Nghymru Cymru. Rwy'n fawr, mae'r ddeall yw'r ddeall yw'r ddeall ar yr Aranion, ac mae'r ddeall yw'r ddeall. Rwy'n fawr, rwy'n fawr, rwy'n fawr, rwy'n fawr. Mae'r ddeall, yn y ddeall, ac mae'r ddeall yn Llodur dismissedaf, a at yw'r ddeall desde'i cyfrond arifn nifer, a rwy'n ag unig mae'r ddeall. Rwy'n degrifSi香air ei hwnnw. Rwy'n ddeall ddeall i yw'r ddeall ar ar Aranion, an subjectsie stuffw. 1. Dys gael beth Daten Please powers Werethm teulu'r cyllid mewn fednaf a'r ystyried i'r eu reguinhwnnig mynd sylwedd сделалenon gwir mawr. ...ynghyrch y maeêl iawn i'r factsf онаerau ei hunain er ap chi wedi'i gweithio eich ddряf iyngor y ddad, ...yna y galler eich dŵr melysio y ddod ddod eich ddod yn… ...yna ddeallu y ddod yn ei gwrs yw sylweddol. Ydw i ddiw'r cychwyn â'i ddod, Maen nhw wedi eu bod yn eu ddod yn y ddod i'n gweithio y ddod yn y ddod pwysgu ymddai. Ydw i fwy o'r ddod arwain i ddod erbyn a… …a ddech chi ddod ym melysio arwain i ddod – a dwi'n dweud bod o'n bwysig ychydig. Mae'n gwybod i'w ddiddor i'r Fyllgr yng nghylchol i ddydig i ddelineidol i'r Fyllgr Llywodraeth ac mae'n ddiddorol fyddai'n ffordd i'r Fyllgr Llywodraeth, yn ymgyrch i'r Llywodraeth, ac yn ffodol i'r ffordd i'r Llywodraeth, yn y ddiddorol i'r Fyllgr Llywodraeth, ymgyrch i'r Fyllgr Llywodraeth. Ydwch i'r ffordd i'r Llywodraeth, ac mae'r ddau'r ddau'r cempain gyda'n 2008. A'n mynd i'r ysgolion oherwydd mae'n cyd-fwrdd y cyfnodol ar gyfer cyfnodol y 2009, bydd y ddechrau'n gwybod yma yn ymgyrch yn ddechrau, felly dyn ni'n ddau'n ddau, yma yw Obamau, dyma'n ddau'n ddau, sydd oedd e uchaf yn gwasanaethion yn gwell yn Ymleh Llyfrgell. Mae'r cabbwys iawn yn beth sydd yna'r wir yn edrych yn ffalu. A rhaid i bach ac mae'r cwestiynau? Mae'r ddech yn ymddangos cyfnod yn cyffredin y produs? Chynwys ein awddol yn cegwyd ac mae'r prus-ŵl yn cyfnod o'r fawr? Mae sydd efallai mae'r prus-waith yn cyfnod a'r rhaid i'r rhaid i ddod y cyfnod. Is there anything consistent and possible between the option of unilateral disarmament and armament? Let's first come to the defence of the Nobel Committee, you know, since I know something about that at least. But I think in many cases they gave the price to strengthen a person to pursue peace. And I think what they did in the case of Barack Obama was, as he sometimes mentioned, shortened the arm to strengthen his call for nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately he didn't succeed, but it is not always the result of, you know, achievement. It's a result of at least express intention. But, you know, they can defend themselves on the nuclear disarmament. Well, nuclear disarmament, if you see, you know, this is one of the follies, you know, which we have today. I mean, the most, the most lethal folly, frankly. When you see people like Henry Kissinger, you know, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Bill Perry, they came together and say, nuclear weapons is the least effective and the most dangerous right now. These are not blue-eyed, you know, idealists. They are the children of the Cold War. Everybody knows that when you continue, you know, on this path, more countries will get nuclear weapons. Any country who will feel threatened will get nuclear weapons. We know how the technology has been seeping through, you know, to even Mr Gaddafi, you know, Libya, you know, to Iran. Any country who feels threatened will act like the big boys. I mean, forget all the rhetoric, you know. If I am threatened today, Iran was a case in point when they were invaded by the Iraqis, you know, with the support of everybody to neutralize the Iranian revolution. If chemical weapons are used against you, what would you do? Wouldn't you look for some option to defend yourself? But then, as I mentioned, Gilbert, we're living in a world basically saying we have 30, we have nine countries, we have nuclear weapons. We have like another 20 some who live comfortably under the umbrella. And then you have the natives who are saying you are on your own. You don't touch nuclear weapons. I might be a little bit blunt. Why is the UK, you know, renewing its nuclear weapon arsenal? Why is Germany able to live without nuclear weapons? Spain, Italy, many other countries, you know. You think this is, you know, the fact, I heard the defense of it, that this is absolutely essential for our security. Well, if this is essential for your security, it might be essential for everybody else's security, you know. And if you want to live with a world that has 50 nuclear weapon states, well, thank you and goodbye. I mean, we, you know, we are going to lose it, you know. And again, I can give you a hundred time of people from Rajiv Gandhi to Obama. Once, you know, when you get Bill Perry saying that he saw three false alarms and that we managed by good luck, managed by good luck. And when you talk about good luck, you talk about the survival of humanity. How do we go about it? I think people, we need people, you know, the three million women who go into DC, you know, resisting. You need millions of people going everywhere. Not only talk about climate change, not only talking about trade, but talking about security. Say, I do not want to live under democracy's sword and governments are not going to move on their own. They need to be kicked somewhere. Thank you. You mentioned Bill Perry several times. And one could say that if the option he defended in the first Clinton administration had been pursued towards Russia, the world would probably be a better world today. Unfortunately, we saw what happened. Again, you know, people could have different views about Russia, about their human rights record, about... But I think we missed, I think we missed a marvelous opportunity to hug Russia in the late 1980s, when after the end of the Cold War, during Gorbachev type, Russia could have been part of NATO if we did need NATO at all. But what happened, we went, I mean not we, me, but the West, you know, went using every opportunity to humiliate the Russian, sense of dignity, again. And then, you know, you got what you got in Russia. And you got, you know, the chickens are coming home to roost you in Crimea, in Syria. This is, again, the idea that we will prevail, that you demonize the others. You know, they are the, we forgot the access of evil. You know, I mean, these are, these words make a huge impact. When you call me an access, part of an evil or an evil empire, what do you expect me to do? So, these are lost opportunities, Gilbert. But this is our, again, this is what I'm saying. We are moving, we are losing our ability to govern both nationally because of the fantastic speed of technology development. Government are not able to go international institution, and I used to have one of them, are mostly dysfunction. You know, when every day you hear that Security Council is going to meet tomorrow at three o'clock in the morning, I'd rather go to sleep. You know, because I know that the outcome is zero. So, it is, it is, we need to have the guts to under, to revisit our ability to manage our world and acknowledge that the paradigm we have is not sustainable. Because the only sustainable one is based on equity, trust, dialogue, whatever values we talk about all the time, but we don't practice. My final question will be about Egypt, and I know for sure that many in the audience, well, not exactly this kind of discussion. So, the question will be very general, actually, to allow you to elaborate as you wish. What lessons do you draw from the revolutionary experience of 2011-2013, and how do you see the future of the country? What lessons, and my wife can tell you a lot of the lessons she was with me there, but the first lesson is that you cannot switch from an authoritarian system to a democracy overnight. This is not, this is, I keep saying that, it is not an innocent coffee. Some of the coffee branding are quoting me now and putting it on Twitter by the way. It is not an innocent coffee. You need to give it time to brew. Democracy is about culture. It's about institutions. It's about civil society. Without civil society, a functioning, vibrant civil society, parties, NGOs, you cannot move. You need the culture and make people understand that synergy is a way to move forward and not stabbing each other in the back. So, we need, we probably were over optimistic naive in that we think that we move, you know, Egypt since 1952 is an autocratic authoritarian system, you know. So, we should have understood that it takes time. You have to build step by step. Second lesson, transition is key. Transition is key. And transition should not be rushed. I've been at that time calling for, let us take our time's guide to move through transition. Most important thing is agree on a paradigm how to live together, which is basically values. What are the kind of values, you know. We all can agree to irrespective of whether we are right, left and center, you know. The Tea Party and the American Civil Liberties Union, they would be able to kill each other in terms of ideology, but they all believe in the US constitution due process, you know, Supreme Court, what have you, you know. So, we need, you need to go through a soul searching process of agreeing by consensus and not majority here of what the kind of values we can live by. We unfortunately have, you know, in Egypt and other, we have, and in the Muslim world, we have the so-called Islamist, you know. And there is no really definition of what Islamist is. I mean, we had some of them today, but these are not what is exactly the definition of Islamist, you know. You have Turkey, who is a Muslim majority state with a secular constitution. You have Saudi Arabia, who have saying that Quran is our constitution and far and in between. The relationship between religion, religious institution, the state, the rule of law, morality need to be defined. We have been grappling with that for 14 centuries. We haven't yet really sit together and say, let us define exactly that relationship. The second issue that obviously another problem that, and we see it in many manifestations, that we need, whatever you call it, we need to revisit the Islamic heritage, you know. And this is not, this is, there is a 1991, a decision by the summit of the organization, the Islamic operation state, saying we need to revisit the heritage. The heritage is not part of the revered, you know. The Quran is revered, but our understanding of it is not, you know. And that's a huge issue. We need to understand, you know, that our understanding of religion is not psychrosanct. We need to revisit that. These are all issues that are there in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world that is connected again with the issue of what is the kind of values we want to all accept. And what's the different, you know, what's the role of the religion in the public and the private? You know, these are all issues fundamental. But these, as I said, you mentioned, I mentioned we need to take time. We need to, you know, be careful of how difficult the transition. We need to revisit the whole issue, which is very Arab or Muslim country specific. Exactly how do we define the relationship because you had 100 different views on that, you know. And unfortunately, a lot of people abuse it. I mean, you see ISIL now, everybody is saying we are talking in the name of religion. They have nothing to do with religion, but we need to cut this ambilical cord of even a perception that Islam has to do anything with this violence, with this terrorism. So these are issues that are not going to be solved overnight. These are not going to be solved by the so-called elite, but this is, you know, in Europe. Europe went through the age of reason, you know, renaissance, religious reformation. You know, while they were also going through, you know, slaughterhouse, killing each other, you know. From 17th century, when you see the 30 years war, the religious war, when you see the Paris massacre of the Catholic killing the Hoganos, 30,000 were killed in Paris in a week in the name of Christianity, the religion of compassion and love. So religion has nothing to do with this. It's all pretext we use to express anger, hate, inequality. And as I mentioned, we need all these issues. We need to put it together in some part, and hopefully, hopefully, we will come up with a different paradigm. I was reading the other day, you know, the world is not going to wait for us. Artificial intelligence is moving so fast. And the fear, which is serious fear, that we will create a robot who will then dominate us, who will be more intelligent than we are, and be able to manipulate us. Maybe that's better because we haven't done any better ourselves on our own. Thank you very, very much for this excellent lecture. Thank you very much.