Good afternoon and welcome. I am Celeste Watkins Hayes, the Interim Dean of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy here at the University of Michigan. And I'm delighted to welcome all of you here this afternoon for today's policy talk event, the annual Josh Rosenthal Memorial Lecture. We are honored to welcome our special guest, the Honorable Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Welcome. It is so exciting to see our Ford School community gathered here and welcome to the many of you from across the University of Michigan campus and beyond who I know are tuning in virtually. This annual event is named for Joshua Rosenthal, a 1979 University of Michigan graduate who was passionate about world affairs and who tragically died in the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Josh's mother, Marilyn, a longtime Michigan faculty member joined others to establish the Josh Rosenthal Education Fund, which enables the Ford School to bring leading public policy figures to Ann Arbor to share their insights, foster dialogue, and generate greater understanding around the causes and consequences of events like 9-11. For this year's Rosenthal Memorial Lecture, we welcome Christopher Wray, who became the eighth director of the FBI in 2017. Prior to leading the FBI, Director Wray worked in private law practice and in various roles serving in the US government. Under President George W. Bush, Wray served as a leader in the DOJ's post 9-11 efforts to combat terrorist violence, espionage, and cyber crime. A word on our format. In a moment, I'll invite Director Wray to the podium to give remarks, and then Associate Dean John Cicciari will facilitate a conversation with Director Wray, joined by Ford School faculty experts, Javed Ali, Ann Lynn, and Joy Rode. Drawing from questions and topics submitted over the past weeks from our students, faculty, and staff. The FBI is at the center of so many urgent and complicated policy challenges, and I'm so looking forward to reflecting on the topics that matter most to our community. I know that we all are. With that, please join me in welcoming today's special guest, FBI Director Christopher Wray. Well, thank you, Dean. I'm really looking forward to getting into the conversation portion of this and the questions from students, because I understand a part of this was not to have me talking at you, but to really have a bit more of a discussion about some of the issues that are going on and some of the things that would benefit the most from people like all of you pursuing paths in public service. You had asked first of for me to say just a little bit about 9-11 and my own path to public service, and although my career in government started before 9-11, for me and for a lot of people, I'm not sure those are entirely distinct topics. I sometimes look back on my time as a line prosecutor. I used to say baby prosecutor on the front lines in Atlanta in the 90s, working with other lawyers, state and local police, FBI special agents, putting away corrupt public officials and dangerous criminals and just about everything in between. And what motivated me then and makes me and made me feel like I had the best job in the whole world was the cases, the purity of advancing justice and of fighting for victims and their families. I think for example about a case I had about 25 years ago involving a single mom of a seven-year-old little boy. The guy that we were prosecuting had targeted her for a hit to prevent her from testifying. And as if that weren't enough, his plot included hiding her body and parking her car in long-term parking at the airport so that everybody, including her seven-year-old little boy, would think that motherhood had just been too much for her and she'd just abandoned him. And I remember the afternoon in that courtroom in Atlanta when we put the guy away for the rest of his life and that woman, the mom, who couldn't have been more than about 100 pounds was sort of shuttling back and forth between each of us on the team, hugging us and sort of shuddering as she was hugging us and she kept saying the same thing to each one of us over and over again. She kept saying, thank you, thank you for saving my life.  And we, the team, the agents, and I, we did that. And now that may have been a result that didn't matter to anybody in the world outside of that courtroom, but it absolutely changed the life of that mom and that little boy in the most really fundamental way possible. And whatever else I do in my career, I will never, ever forget that moment or any number of other moments like that in these kinds of jobs. So then, fast forward, 2001, summer of 2001, my family and I moved to D.C. And over the next several years, as the dean alluded to, I served in various leadership roles in the Justice Department, including overseeing the Justice Department's criminal division, which at the time included national security programs, especially counterterrorism. And on the morning of September 11th, 2001, I was a fairly new appointee, still getting the lay of the land when I heard that something was happening up in New York. Now I'm a born and raised New Yorker, so seeing the first images of smoke pouring out of the World Trade Center was not just shocking, but personal, to say the very least. My mom, for example, worked just a couple blocks away. And I remember racing across Pennsylvania, Avenue from the Justice Department, and spending most of the day in a jam-packed command center at FBI headquarters with the attorney general and then FBI director Mueller. And everybody there was trying to help, while at the same time struggling to comprehend the horrific reality of what was unfolding. And we didn't initially know who was attacking us or if more attacks were coming. We all just urgently wanted to do something. I also remember in the months that followed, working to understand how 19 terrorists had been inside the United States plotting a complicated, synchronized attack, and yet government agencies, we hadn't discovered their plans or been able to stop them. So in taking this job 16 years later, I sort of vividly remember the urgency that we all felt in that packed FBI command center on 9-11 and the urgency that we all felt for months every time there was a plane that was non-responsive to air traffic control. The urgency that rippled through all of us every time somebody got an envelope with white powder in it and we'd all be thinking, uh-oh, is this it? Is it happening again? But more importantly, more importantly, I remembered how that urgency translated into unity and action into a fierce determination to work tirelessly to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And I decided that I wanted to come back in service to help the bureau continue on that path. I was sworn in as FBI director in August of 2017 just before the 16th anniversary of 9-11. And one of the first things I did as director in 2017 was to meet with the 9-11 Memorial and Museum staff up in New York where I'd been asked to give a speech. And so we talked and they offered to give me a tour so I asked my wife and my grown daughter who had just started a new job in New York to come with me on the tour. And if any of you haven't had the opportunity to visit that Memorial and Museum, I strongly encourage you to find a way to make the trip because it is a deeply moving experience. Outside, there are two sunken fountains in the footprint of where the buildings had once stood. Inside, the exhibit goes down under the fountains where the original building foundations were. And all along the tour are artifacts from that day. Images of the victims and audio recordings from witnesses. You can see things like the structural beams where each plane impacted the buildings. The emergency vehicles crushed when the building collapsed. The seawall that barely held the East River from flooding the subway system. You can hear the stories of those who barely escaped, those who could not, and those who ran into the buildings to save the lives of those who were trapped. Another aspect, the 9-11 Memorial Museum highlights very well, I think, is all the victims. You know, it's easy sometimes to get lost in the scale of what happened that day. You can go to the memorial and look out at the empty space where those two gigantic buildings used to be. You can stare at the massive list of name, after name, after name. Almost 3,000 people lost their lives that day. A number of which, by the way, has actually since been exceeded by those who lost their lives to 9-11 related cancer from all the work they did responding to that scene. And that's a number, by the way, that just keeps rising. So it can be easy to kind of get overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the loss. And so one of the things I think the museum does importantly, especially well, is that it has a space carved out with individual tributes to each person lost that day. So you can stop and recognize one person, somebody like Josh Rosenthal, and you can learn a little bit about each person's impact. So when I went through this tour as the new FBI director, I did something a little bit different, which I was watching my daughter really closely. My daughter's about the same age as most of you. She's in graduate school herself. And she'd been alive in 2001, but she was probably like six. So young enough in one sense to remember it, but not really to understand and really appreciate what had happened. And it struck me as we were going through the tour, watching her experience the museum that day, that every time we turned a corner, for example, when we crossed a damaged staircase that had been an evacuation route where people had dodged falling debris, you could see that she was having kind of a aha moment. I could see her expression change. Couple of times I could see it a little bit of moisture forming in the corner of her eye, subtle, but the sort of telltale signs that only a parent can recognize. And I could see her for the first time really experiencing the gravity of that day, especially for somebody who, as I said, wasn't totally aware of really what had happened back in 2001. I saw it become so much more real for her. And so I took my experience, watching her experience, back with me to my office at the FBI. And I thought about it. We have three generations of FBI employees who were alive on 9-11. We've got those who, like me, remember what they were doing at the FBI on 9-11. We've got those who were so moved by what happened on 9-11 that they joined the FBI. And then we've got those, like my daughter, that age, who were only kids on 9-11, those for whom they really only know the terrorist attacks as sort of a historical anecdote. Now that was in 2017. Now, today, in 2022, we have FBI employees who weren't even born on 9-11. And I say all that because I think there's a really important difference between intellectually understanding something and viscerally experiencing it. You know, it's one thing to know about all the ways in which the FBI changed after 9-11, but it's a completely different thing to feel the consequences of our work. What's at stake? Another memory that has stayed with me all these years has to do with an experience I had about two years after 9-11 when I was the assistant attorney general. And I took part in a presentation to families of the victims lost in the attacks. And as the day rolled on, I kind of moved to the back of the room, watching the line prosecutors and case agents update the family members, sharing what we had learned up to that point about each of the four flights in kind of a detailed minute-by-minute way. And the grief in that room was palpable. I mean, you could feel the weight of it. It was almost overwhelming. And I remember, for example, the father of one young woman who had died on one of the planes, and he stood up because we had an opportunity for people to ask questions. He stood up to ask a question, but he only got about four or five words into his question before suddenly, abruptly, his knees kind of buckled and he just kind of collapsed to the floor, was lying on the floor kind of sobbing. And that's, remember, that's two years after the attacks. I remember another man who lost his wife on one of the flights. And as I recall, he was a police officer who was working a night shift. And so he had just gotten home at the time of the attacks and had gone to sleep. And like so many of the victims, his wife, who was a flight attendant on one of the flights, called from the plane as it was going down to say a tearful goodbye. But because he'd gone to sleep, he didn't pick up. So she left the message. But she tried again, maybe a minute or so later. And this time, he had kind of emerged from his fog and so he answered the phone. And so they got to talk and they had a chance to say their goodbyes as gut-wrenching and heartbreaking as that must have been. And so her husband then spent the next several days staying with other family, attending to her funeral, making other arrangements. And he returned home several days later. And so he goes into his house to check his new messages. And the first message is that call from his wife. And he hears her voice. And try to imagine what that must have been like. The sort of skip in your heart as you hear your spouse's voice, thinking you would never gonna hear that again, only to immediately give way to the overpowering pain of loss. So that kind of knee-buckling, in the case of the one guy literally, knee-buckling grief, that those two men experienced, and remember there were thousands of them, that sense of having something that's most precious to you taken away, ripped away from you like that, that doesn't go away. It dissipates with time, but it never goes away. And after you experience, not just in here, but in here, that kind of grief, that heaviness, after you feel it in your bones, even as a prosecutor or investigator, much less as a victim or a victim family member, it changes you forever. And the 9-11 attacks profoundly changed not only our country, but they changed the FBI very specifically. Today's FBI reflects those changes in every FBI program, not just counter-terrorism, every investigation, every community we serve. And they continue to impact and share and shape the FBI as we seek to combat new and emerging threats and adversaries. 20 years later, it's vitally important that our agents and analysts not only remember 9-11 as a historical moment, but also understand and feel the urgency of that moment, one that continues to reverberate in how we carry out our day-to-day jobs because those experiences and that urgency should change you. It should give you a deeper understanding of just how much is on the line in this work, how much crime and terrorism wound victims and families and what an awesome responsibility we have. So as director, I started asking myself, how can I replicate what I and my peers remember about those days and years following 9-11 and what my daughter experienced walking the halls of the 9-11 Memorial Museum? How can I replicate that for our new FBI agents and analysts? And so I had the FBI's training division work with the 9-11 Memorial Museum to set up an on-site class that would be a small part of every new agent or analyst's training. And now every class of new special agent and every new class of intelligence analysts tours the Memorial Museum and takes a class with the staff up there because I believe there is no better way for them to grasp the importance of the work we do, both how we approach that work and the stakes of that work than visiting that hallowed ground in lower Manhattan. We want new agents and analysts to come away from that visit, understanding why we're so focused on integrating intelligence into everything we do, why we emphasize partnerships, why it's so crucial that we tackle every task with rigor and urgency, why we've got to be willing to adapt and innovate to meet constantly emerging new threats. So we have now more than 3,000 trainees have now experienced the Memorial and I'm proud to say that thousands more will have that opportunity in the years to come and having our agents and analysts make that visit viscerally reinforces for them why they applied to the FBI in the first place. And we hope they come away from that, understanding that they didn't pick some ordinary job. They've chosen to do something extraordinary and millions, literally millions of people that they'll never know are counting on them to do that job well, to make sure they do the work right. I have one final thought before we turn to our conversation. You know, talking about public service gives me a chance to mention another way that the FBI recreated itself after 9-11, something that led to completely new public service opportunities within the Bureau. Each of the people who lost their lives on 9-11 had their own stories and the 9-11 Memorial Museum, as I said, does a powerful job of telling them. All of the victims, families, friends, co-workers suddenly had gaping holes in their lives and as agencies were overwhelmed in trying to help, the FBI turned to a woman named Catherine Terman who was a sociologist with the Justice Department who had worked as a victim witness advocate and Catherine grew and built the FBI's Victim Services Division from a handful of well-intentioned staff into a world-renowned core of more than 300 specially trained professionals. We even have two crisis response canines, Wally and Geo. And other than the fact that they leave a lot of hair all over my suit, I can attest that they are both wonderful at what they do. And we now have victim specialists in each of our 56 field offices all over the country to help people harmed by crime. They provide on-scene assistance, they triage needs, they refer victims to counseling, employment, housing, immigration, medical or legal services. They go with FBI special agents for things like interviews or death notifications and they coordinate as liaisons with other government agencies and external partners and the work they do with children is particularly outstanding. And regardless of what else is going on in our world, these are FBI professionals who are ready to drop everything to help in their communities or to quickly fly elsewhere to set up shop. Their work doesn't always get as much attention as our FBI special agents, but for instance, just two weeks ago, at the same time that our agents were arriving in Colorado Springs to investigate the absolutely tragic and intolerable shooting at Club Q, our victim specialists were there too, establishing a family assistance center to provide services and assistance for those affected and the families of those killed. It is heartbreaking really to see events like that play out over and over again as they have this year, but I'm proud of the work that everyone involved in that case in Colorado and all of these kinds of cases has been doing. They truly make a positive difference in people's lives. So I guess if I had to choose one thing to ask you to take away from today is that public service doesn't have to be aimed at affecting dozens or even millions of people to be meaningful. When I think about that mom and her son in Atlanta in the 90s, I recognize how all of us involved in investigating and prosecuting that case changed her life and her son's life for the better. And again, while that trial generated a certain amount of news coverage, I'm not sure anybody outside of that courtroom really grasped what had happened, but it definitely meant something to her and it continues to mean something to me today. Even thinking about 9-11 as the guy overseeing the case against Zacharias Masawi who was sometimes called the 20th hijacker, I remember how important it was to our whole team there to make a point of treating each and every one of the 2,977 victims that day as individuals. Individuals who had been murdered and whose families shouldn't be cheated of the grief and loss they were all feeling just because of the sheer number of people killed on that day. So commitment to the pursuit of justice for every American that for as long as it takes and that's the kind of work that the FBI's 38,000 men and women are doing really every day in communities all over this country and overseas all over the world. So if helping others interest you, I hope you'll consider a career at the FBI, but more than that I hope you'll consider public service in whatever avenue you find and whatever capacity your life allows. I think I'm proof that a career can navigate both private practice and public service and I will tell you having done both during those times of my life when I've been able to devote myself to public service, I've been fortunate blessed really to feel the immense fulfillment that comes from the opportunity to serve others and my own community and I can promise you that you too will find immeasurable value in serving others. So thank you and I'm looking forward to our conversation. Thank you Director Ray for joining us and for your remarks in honor of this annual event. I'm John Ciorciari, I'm an associate dean for research and policy engagement here at the Ford School, where I also direct our International Policy Center and Wiser Diplomacy Center. Now in preparation for today's event, we invited our whole community, students, staff and faculty to engage over the past few weeks and to submit questions that they'd wanna hear addressed on the issues that matter the most to them. We received dozens of thoughtful questions from many of you who are here in the audience today on a wide variety of topics and we've crafted today's conversation around the key themes that were raised. I'll ask questions with three of my colleagues here in the front row who are experts in counter-terrorism, cybersecurity and national security, immigration policy, science and technology policy and more. But I'd like to start with a question that I know is on the minds of many members of our community and that you referenced as we mourn the losses of still more innocent lives in mass shootings recently in Colorado, Virginia and elsewhere. As a federal law enforcement agency, what are the most important ways in which the FBI is working to address gun violence in the United States? Well, certainly the shooting in Colorado Springs and in Chesapeake, Virginia are heartbreaking and I think even more than the toll of the, in some ways, the people who tragically were murdered in those situations. It's a direct assault on the feeling of safety that people in communities have, which is fundamentally what law enforcement is designed to try to help address. Obviously the, I say obviously, I assume most people know that the first line of defense for violent crime and active shooter situations is our state and local law enforcement partners who are fantastic. And they're the first line of defense, but the FBI plays a number of very important and kind of unique roles. You know, one, we have, we investigate any number of different types of violent crime. We have something like 300 task forces all over the country that are FBI led, but that have task force officers from state and local departments. And those task forces are arresting literally thousands of violent criminals, seizing thousands of guns from those violent criminals, dismantling hundreds of gangs and criminal enterprises. So there's that piece of it. We also have something called NICS, which is the place that does the, you've all heard about the background checks when somebody's buying a gun. The FBI owns the service that runs the background checks. And they process, you know, I think it's something like 40 million firearms purchases a year. The goal of those background checks being to identify those people who are prohibited by law from buying a gun. And there's probably, I think it's like 150,000 denials a year. So again, these are people who are typically, who have felony records or something else like that who are legally barred from buying a gun but tried to do it anyways. And that NICS, that service, helps prevent that from happening. So we do that. We study the trends about active shooter situations and put out information about that. We recently put out our active shooter incident report for a 2021. And the numbers are pretty, it goes along with your question are pretty stark. The number of active shooter incidents last year was higher than it's been, I think, in over 20 years. We do training. We do training both of state and local law enforcement on active shooter situations. But we also do outreach and training to things like schools, houses of worship, community organizations and things like that to help them protect themselves in an instance of an active shooter situation. And then, having forbid there is a situation, then we deploy to help with all sorts of things, which forensics, all sorts of lab services, evidence recovery, we have, if the situation calls for it, our SWAT teams or our hostage rescue team might get involved. We have crisis negotiators, if it's a hostage situation, for example. And we have those victim services professionals that I was talking about before. And every one of these incidents that we're talking about, those folks are deploying to help, whether it was Buffalo with the little grocery store up there where we had that awful shooting, all the way back to early in my tenure as API director in Las Vegas shooting, was pretty early in my tenure. And that was, boy, that was a pretty eye-opening crime scene to be there for that. But again, all those folks are deploying to do the shooting reconstruction to help our law enforcement partners in that situation. Thank you for that. Now I'll turn to a few of my colleagues to ask them questions. Director Ray, Javed Ali, associate professor of practice here since 2018. And I left FBI in 2018 to take this another dream job here at the University of Michigan. But thank you again for being here and thank you for being with us earlier this morning. So I've got a couple of questions. The first is on the topic of domestic terrorism and given the elevated threat in the country over the past few years that sort of coincides with your time as directors and specifically on the racially motivated, violent, extremist end of the spectrum and anti-government extremist end of the spectrum. Students would like to hear your perspectives on how, in your time as director, has the FBI sort of scaled up to meet this challenge? Where do you think this threat is going in the future and how can the public help, if at all, in the Bureau's mission on this really important topic? So protecting Americans from terrorist attack, both domestic and international, remains the FBI's number one priority. And when it comes to domestic terrorism specifically, I think a lot of people, it's been on the news a lot more in the last year or so, but we elevated that to a, what we call a national threat priority all the way back in summer of 2019, specifically racially motivated violent extremism, the vast majority of which is people who are advocating the superiority of the white race. So that started, that's all the way back to summer of 2019, and we actually had a significant growth in domestic terrorism cases throughout my first three years of 2017 to 2020. It grew quite significantly. Then of course you have January 6th, and obviously the numbers since then are even greater. We have since, you mentioned two categories, is the racially motivated violent extremism, then we have anti-government, anti-authority violent extremism. That too now is also at a national highest level threat priority on the same footing as something like ISIS. What all these threats have in common, especially if you consider that I was just talking a lot about 9-11, it helps to understand both what the threat is, but also how, to your question, how the public can help. The 9-11 attack, you're talking about a sleeper cell in effect, 19 people plus some others who plotted some spectacular attack that was incredibly complicated over years. What we have now is more and more people who are lone actors or maybe at most working with one or two other people, and they're not doing some spectacular attack, they're using an easily accessible weapon, like a gun, a knife, a car, a crude IED, you could find out how to build on the internet. And they're attacking not the World Trade Center with a commercial airliner, they're attacking what the intelligence community calls soft targets, which is basically just jargon for everyday people living their everyday lives. And these are people who are radicalizing not in some cave in Afghanistan, they're radicalizing online. And the reason I say all that is because they go from radicalization to mobilization, not over years, but in weeks. And so you've all heard that expression about connecting the dots, the importance of connecting the dots. Well the kind of terrorist threat we're dealing with now, especially here in the US, they're not a lot of dots. There's not a lot of people involved, not a lot of planning involved. So every dot in that situation becomes that much more important. And so it could be that the FBI only has one dot and some member of the public has the other dot. They saw something about a friend, a coworker, a neighbor, something that they knew was off. Or it could be a business. Some guy comes in and wants to buy a whole lot of fertilizer and ball bearings and doesn't seem to know anything about farming. We want the guy at the hardware store to say, that seems odd, and calling law enforcement. Or some guy who seems to be a tourist, but the only thing he wants to take pictures of are the undergirding of a bridge. That's weird, right?  We need people not just to see something like a bag that's left unattended in the bus terminal, if you see something about somebody, either in the kind of examples I just gave or because so much of this is happening online, if you see something about somebody online, so to call law enforcement. That's how we make sure we've got the eyes and ears to make sure that we connect the dots because there's a lot fewer dots and there's a lot less time in which to connect them. Thank you for those answers, Director Ray. So next question is on cyber security and you've also been a fairly prominent thought leader on that topic since your time as director. So given the threat from countries like Russia and China and other adversaries of the United States, where do you see that cyber threat going in? And once again, how has the FBI in your time as director scaled up to meet the cyber challenge? So a lot to say on this, I guess let me think about a few key points. So you mentioned Russia. Those are a few specific things we're very concerned about Russia. And one is the same kind of, their intelligence services have been spying on the US for years and through cyber means, among other things. And so the same kind of cyber access that enables them to spy on a network. If they were to decide, if Putin were to decide that his goals are different, could use that same access to engage in a destructive attack, which could be much more significant. We're also concerned about what we call spillover. The Russians have the same kind of recklessness towards civilian life that they've shown on the battlefield in the Ukraine. They're showing in cyberspace. They did an attack, a cyber attack called not Petia, against ironically the Ukraine in 2017. But it was designed to do one thing, which is basically to destroy any system that came into contact with and it quickly spiraled out of control, costing the world something like $10 billion in damages and largely shut down all kinds of global logistics chains and everything else. So the spillover effect is significant. We're concerned about the Russians' propensity to work with cyber criminals. They provide, at the very least, safe haven, if not actual partnership with cyber criminals and so those people are an issue. You got that, you mentioned China. China has a bigger hacking program than that of every other major nation combined and Chinese government, the Chinese government has stolen more of Americans' personal and corporate data than that of every nation, big or small combined. So that is a significant challenge. There's also countries like Iran, North Korea who can't be underestimated in this arena. What we're seeing more and more is what we call a blended threat, which is the line between what's a nation state engaging in malicious cyber activity and cyber criminal activity kind of merged together because you'll have, for example, governments like Russia, China, Iran hiring cyber hackers, basically mercenaries to do their work, cyber criminals to do their work for them. You'll also see on the other side intelligence officers, cyber intelligence officers for some of these countries moonlighting to make money on the side so engaging in cyber criminal activity and then you see these governments using cyber criminal tools to do their work because they think it will obfuscate or hide whose fingerprints are on it. So there's a blending of the threat that gets more troubling. What are we doing about it? We are increasingly focused on speed and trying to get out to victims as quickly as possible. We're very proud of the fact that pretty much anywhere in the country we can have a technically trained agent on that company or schools doorstep within about an hour or so to help. While at the same time pursuing what we call attribution which is essentially who done it. And that's important because if you don't attribute who's behind the cyber attack then you can't impose consequences and if you can't impose consequences you're never gonna deter it. So that's the change. We're also doing more and more what we call joint sequenced operations so working with the rest of the intelligence community, the military, foreign partners and the private sector to do operations where we're all bringing our tools to maximize impact. So take something like ransomware. We're going after not just the actors and the actors around them but we're going after the bad guys infrastructure so they're ways where we can degrade or disrupt or dismantle their servers. We're hitting them in their tools and third we're going after their money, their cryptocurrency. Increasingly we're getting better at being able to claw back or seize their money. So now you're hitting them where it hurts. So we're doing more things like that. Ultimately we need, which is why I'm glad to be at a premier university, we need more and more cyber talent in the mission and I'll put in a plug to anybody who's from that world. We may not be able to compete on pay but we're getting better on that but we can definitely compete on mission and more importantly, if you wanna go up against the worst or the most sophisticated adversaries and do stuff to them that you can't do in the private sector because it's probably criminal if you did it in the private sector. If you do it with us, you can do it. So we think we have something pretty good to offer to people. Well I will say, I do teach a class on cyber security here and I have constantly reminded people about thinking about the FBI as a place to go to kind of leverage those skills and insights on cyber issues. So with that, let me pass the mic over to my colleague, Joy Rody. Thank you, thanks, Javed. I'm Joy Rody, I'm an associate professor of public policy and the director of Michigan's Science, Technology and Society program here. I'm a historian and my work focuses on the relationship between the sciences and national security but I wanted to ask you a question following this line. A number of students have questions about TikTok and you recently shared with lawmakers your concern that the app is a serious threat to U.S. national security. Legal and technology experts seem to have mixed views on the nature and especially the imminence of the threat. What do you see as the main threats posed by TikTok and how do you think those are best addressed at a policy level? Well, as I think I testified recently to Congress and we do, the FBI do have national security concerns about the app. Its parent company is controlled by the Chinese government and it gives them the potential to leverage the app in ways that I think should concern us. So what do I mean by that? You know, one, it gives them the ability to control the recommendation algorithm which allows them to manipulate content and if they want to, to use it for influence operations which are a lot more worrisome in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party than whether or not you're steering somebody as an influencer to one product or another. They also have the ability to collect data through it on users which can be used for traditional espionage operations for example. And they also have the ability on it to get access, they have essentially access to the software to devices. So you don't have millions of devices and that gives them the ability to engage in different kinds of malicious cyber activity through that. And so all of these things are in the hands of a government that doesn't share our values and that has a mission that's very much at odds with what's in the best interest of the United States that that should concern us. As I mentioned before, the Chinese government has shown a willingness to steal Americans' data on a scale that dwarfs any other. I mean, you look at the Equifax hack alone, they stole the equivalent of half the population of the United States in personal data. So the idea of entrusting that much data, that much ability to shape content and engage in influence operations, that much access to people's devices in effect to that government is something that concerns us. How do we address it? There's an interagency process, there's something called the SIFIUS process which stands for the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States. That's involved. There may be agreements that may be relevant to this, requirements and things like that. Whether or not there is something that could adequately address those concerns is a product of very much discussion within the interagency. But I think it starts with awareness about the risks. Thank you. I'll turn it over to Ann. Thank you very much. I'm Director Ray, my name is Ann Lynn. I'm the Librethal Rogel Professor of Chinese Studies here at the University of Michigan and an Associate Professor of Public Policy here at the Ford School. My question is about the FBI's role in investigations of Chinese American faculty, university faculty scientists. Several cases against Chinese scientists have gone to federal court in the last two years only to have juries find those defendants not guilty or federal judges dismiss many of the charges. Other ongoing cases have been dropped by prosecutors before going to trial. So advocates for these faculty would say that the failure to convict here is because the evidence was never very strong against them to begin with. And they accused the FBI of presuming that routine academic engagement with scientific colleagues in China is evidence of a crime or of mistaking university sponsored collaborations and grants for money that is illicitly going into scientists' pockets. Now, presumably you would disagree. So what do advocates misunderstand about these cases or do you think that the evidence against these faculty has been stronger than juries and federal judges have found? Well, thank you for the question. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the topic because I think there are, to your point, I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there. And let me start with we base our cases on the facts and the law. And sometimes our cases are successful and sometimes they aren't. We do not, and this is very important, we do not base our cases on race, ethnicity or national origin and we haven't. Now, let me add to that. It is the case that the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, is engaged in what it considers an international talent war to try to leverage and steal intellectual property and sensitive research and data from countries all over the world and not just the United States. And we've seen that time and time again. And so as part of our responsibility to work with, underline with universities to try to help protect that information, that's our responsibility. But one of the things that I think people often don't understand about our work in this area is that actually very little of it results in criminal prosecutions. So an awful lot of what our folks are doing in this particular space on the China government threat in the academic setting is in partnership with universities on things like how do they improve their own safeguards to protect research? How do they ensure transparency about research and funding relationships a professor or visiting academic might have with a university back in China that may be affiliated with the Chinese government's military? So a lot of what we do is working with them in that setting. Sometimes there are, we also work with grant making entities because an awful lot of this research is funded by the US taxpayer. And I think it's appropriate for universities and the US government to make sure that there's transparency with the university and the relevant grant making agencies to understand what kind of relationships exist between the scholar and the Chinese government, which has, as I said in response to a different question, a very different objective in the way it views the world, including suppression of human rights, including theft of intellectual property, including military dominance. Sometimes there are civil or administrative remedies that come out of it. Sometimes universities take action themselves because they conclude that it's a relationship that they don't take as consistent with their terms and their values. But then sometimes there are criminal cases. You mentioned some that we lost, some that we dropped. There, of course, have been quite a few that we won as well. And I respect the decisions of the juries and judges that have found against us, just as I trust others to respect the juries and judges that have found for us in those cases where it's gone the other way. And I would just make a point here, which is the fact that we sometimes lose cases actually speaks volumes about the integrity and independence of our justice system. I actually think it's a mark in our favor as a country that the government loses cases. I'd be willing to bet you that our counterparts over in China don't lose very many cases. And it ain't because they're better than we are. So there is a stark illustration of the differences between the two systems. And that brings me to another point since I'm speaking in a university setting an awful lot of what the Chinese government is also engaged in in the academic arena threatens the very kind of academic freedom that I think you're rightly focused on in a different way. The same kind of repression that we see from the Chinese government back at home in mainland China is essentially an export into the United States. There was an example I could give you although they're countless of them from another university, another major university, also in the Midwest where you had a student who was posting stuff about in favor of a tribute to the Tiananmen Square protesters who were killed. This is a Chinese American student in an American university could have been sitting in a room just like this. Within 24 hours of him posting this stuff, the Chinese intelligence services back in China paid a visit to his parents threatening them. So of course they called their son and like, dude, what are you doing? And then there was a protest that was gonna be held to call attention to some of the repression that was occurring back in China. And they had an online rehearsal, not unlike I'm sure some of the protests that some of you or your classmates may have been involved in, and within like hours the Chinese intelligence services back in China knew what this Chinese American student had been doing and they again paid a visit to his parents. So this is repression of academic freedom and speech here in the United States and the victims of it are Chinese Americans or Chinese visitors and that's a point that I've been trying to make everywhere I talk about this threat. I wanna be crystal clear about this. This is a threat that's about the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party. It is not about the Chinese people and it sure as heck is not about Chinese Americans. In many cases are at the top of the list as victims of the same kind of activity. We have countless cases now where you have the Chinese government essentially sending people over here to threaten, harass, stalk, blackmail, surveil Chinese dissidents who have been calling out the behavior of the Chinese government. And so we want to make sure as the FBI that we're helping those people protect themselves from that threat. We thought that's part of our responsibility as well and it happens not just in the academic arena but in other spaces as well. Thank you very much for that answer and I very much appreciate what you said. But I'd like you to reflect a little more broadly on the threat that the government of the People's Republic of China might pose to the United States and what we do in response to that threat. So I'll use your words from just a couple of minutes before you asked us to connect the dots when we find them and the question or the problem is that sometimes people will see things as dots that really aren't there. You've stated in multiple venues that the Chinese government has engaged in a whole of society effort to steal from the United States and you've asked that the United States engage in a similar whole of society effort to combat China. At the same time you also stated as you have just done that this effort isn't about the Chinese people or Chinese Americans but of course Chinese Americans are part of the US society that you believe needs to be mobilized against China. So what advice do you have for Chinese Americans like myself who hope to be able to bridge the differences between our two countries but instead find themselves caught in the middle subject to accusations of disloyalty of being a dot or to incidents even of anti-Asian hate? Well, I guess a couple of things. First, I think I've only used the whole of society reference to describe the Chinese threat once early in my tenure. I have used the whole of society language quite a bit in referring to what we as Americans need to do to counter it so just to be clear on that and I have made a point in almost every significant speech I've given on this topic often to audiences that may not necessarily embrace the message that as I just said a few minutes ago and I appreciate you're acknowledging it that this is not about the Chinese people and it's not about Chinese Americans who in many cases are victims first and foremost of the same government that we're trying to counter. Now it is true that and I've said this repeatedly and I stand by it, there is no country, no government that represents a more serious, more persistent threat to our innovation, our ideas and our economic security than the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government. That is an assessment that I make soberly and thoughtfully based on the facts, based on the intelligence and as a view that I find is shared by agencies across the government, by foreign partners all over the world, increasingly by the business community increasingly and by frankly universities I'm finding increasingly. Again, not based on race, ethnicity or national origin but based on intelligence and based on the threat posed by a government not by visitors here. So to us at the FBI, we don't view it as a middle, we view Chinese Americans here as being with us and that's why I highlight these cases, in particular the transnational repression cases because to me they in a very poignant way illustrate the degree to which Chinese Americans here are not in the middle but in the crosshairs of the Chinese government and we need to work with them not as dots as a threat but dots in a different sense. They are as victims, they are people who have information that can help us protect them and protect the country and so that would be my message to them and to you. Thank you, Director Ray. We've got time for I think two more questions. I'll ask one and turn to Joy for the final question. Mine changes gears a little bit. Some of the FBI's most visible work is in high profile investigations and recent probes of course have taken place against a backdrop of partisan polarization and incendiary rhetoric in the United States. To what extent and in what ways can this political climate affect the course of an investigation and what strategies do you use to try to maintain both the substance and the appearance of even-handedness as you conduct these probes? Well it's certainly true that we are in an environment and all the work we're doing is in an environment just like everything else in today's world that is hyper politicized and polarized and 24-7 cable and social media play their own part in kind of pouring gasoline on that fire. I think there's a difference between people who are unhappy about or angry about the result of something we do versus the way in which we get there and that's a very important distinction. Our job, our mission, my message to our people is that we are going to follow the facts wherever they lead no matter who likes it. And I add that last part because what I find increasingly in today's world is that people at first they say oh yeah independence, objectivity, go for it, go FBI until they don't like the result of something we do and then suddenly it's like whoa, wait a minute, you know. And that's not how independence and objectivity work.  We can't guarantee outcomes. All I can guarantee is that I'm gonna do my darnedest and try to make sure our people do their darnedest to do the work with rigor, with professionalism, with objectivity to get there. And as I said, sometimes the results are gonna make people happy sometimes or not but if we start worrying too much about who's gonna be angry about something we do, then that pretty quickly becomes finger to the wind and that pretty quickly becomes the ends justify the means. And if there's one thing an organization with as much power as the FBI has can never be, it's an organization where the ends justify the means. So the reason I always say, people have said for years, follow the facts wherever they lead. I've been adding almost since the day I started no matter who likes it, is that there's one thing I've learned almost immediately in this job is that there's always somebody who doesn't like it. And so we just need to make sure that we stay focused on that and that's why the importance is of doing the work in the right way. Ultimately, that's what keeps us grounded in the middle of sometimes pretty heated and sometimes even pretty unpleasant political climate. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. All right, I have a two-part question. It's an academic setting, so I have to ask. Someone has to ask a two-part question. So Director Ray, historians have documented that FBI's troubled historical relationship with civil rights activists and minority communities, for example, surveillance campaigns against black activists like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X in the 1960s and Arab-American communities post-911. And students were asking, does this history still affect the FBI's relationship to minority communities in the present? And what has the agency done to address that legacy of distrust? That's part one. Part two is, are there ways in which that history has informed the FBI's efforts to balance in the contemporary moment the deterrence, for example, of cyber crime on critical infrastructure to balance that against potential harms to public trust that can come from large-scale data surveillance? And if so, what mechanisms are at place in order to try to balance that relationship? Well, let me pick your questions in reverse order if I can. So on the cyber part of your question, I appreciate the opportunity to make something pretty clear. We are not, and we don't, engage in large-scale monitoring on companies' networks and infrastructure or university, that's not what we do. There are people who think, and I hear from them sometimes, and a lot of thoughtful people who think we should be able to do that, but we don't and we can't. So we may not actually know, in the cyber context, that somebody's been victimized unless they come forward. And so the reason why it's important for me to answer that part of your question is we need people to come forward because otherwise we may not actually know about the cyber attack that occurs. There is now legislation that's passed that's gonna improve the reporting of cyber activity, which will help. There are times when we're following a bad guy, like a Russian hacker, for example, and then we find them on some university or company's network and they didn't know about it and then we're coming to tell them, hey, guess what? Guess who's in your system? But the notion that we're engaged in large scale data surveillance, mass gobbling up of data in the cyber arena is largely overblown. So I really appreciate the opportunity to address that. Not just because of the accuracy of the concern, but more importantly, because if people think, oh, we've got all that information anyways, we can just sit back and let the FBI tell us when we've been hit. Then we've got a real problem. So the other part of your question, involving Dr. King and some of the other mistakes that we've made over the years, the FBI is a gigantic organization, it's been around for 114 years and like any giant organization's been around for that long, we've made mistakes and we've made some doozies of mistakes. That's a technical term, but, but I think what distinguishes the most high performing organizations in the world is not whether they've made mistakes or not, because I would argue any organization that big that's been around for that long has made mistakes. It's what we learn from those mistakes. And I'm actually very proud of the things that the FBI has learned from some of its mistakes over the years. So let's take the Dr. King example in particular. We now have, I mentioned earlier how I'm having all agents and analysts in their training go to the 9-11 Memorial. Well, what I didn't mention is there are two other visits that they make as well, each for different purpose. They visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC and they get to see what happens when law enforcement essentially fails to protect its people. And they visit the Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial, the monument, and there's a whole class that's pot around the Dr. King Memorial that talks about specifically what the FBI did wrong under then Director Hoover and Assistant Attorney General Bobby Kennedy at the time where they've signed off on a wiretap with almost nothing. And if you compare that to what we do now, where the scores of eyes, the pages and pages of detail and rigor that get built into it, it's like night and day by comparison. But the whole class is an opportunity not just to focus on the importance of rigor and objectivity and not letting our biases affect our work, but it's also an opportunity to have very healthy discussions about things like race, about bias, about avoiding even the appearance of bias and things like that. So that's part of it. We also have a much more robust, conscious part of our strategies focused on community outreach. So every FBI field office has a dedicated community outreach specialist whose sole job is to try to engage with groups in the community. We also have similar versions at the headquarters level with the national civil rights organizations and major advocacy groups and things like that. And we're very proud of some of the partnerships we've built both locally all over the country and nationally in that regard. And then diversity is an important part of it. And I'm very proud of the fact that the FBI is more diverse at every grade level today than it was four years ago when I started. Not where we need to be. I don't wanna mislead anybody in that regard, but we've made significant strides and we're gonna keep making them. I think all of that is part of the learning from the mistakes of the past. Thank you very much, Director Ray. That brings our session to a close. I wanna thank you for sharing your insights. I also hope that our audience will join me in thanking you and your FBI colleagues who have come here to campus from Washington and from the local field office for your service. Thank you. Lastly, thanks to all of you in the audience for coming as well as to those of you who are joining us online. Those of you present here in Wild Hall, please continue the conversation outside in the Becky Blank Great Hall. Thanks for coming.


the first minister of the Holy See, or to put it in nutshell to talk with the ambassador, he is the second after the Pope. Eminence won't welcome here in Davos. So, as you may know, the first minister of the Holy See, the first minister of the Holy See, or to welcome here in Davos. Eminence, since you have taken office, we would say that the diplomacy of the Holy See has taken more action, and even more traction, and even more success, talking about Cuba, talking about Venezuela. Eminence, would you agree that we see maybe some golden age of the Holy See diplomacy? First of all, thank you, thank you for your welcome, and greetings to everybody. Greetings also from the Holy Father.  The presence of the Holy See means also the recognition and importance of this job in favor of mankind. Of course, it is not easy to answer to your question if we are in the golden age of the diplomatic activity of the Holy See. Yes, it's true that the activity, this diplomatic activity has increased a lot, but I would like to point out that it's due, according to me, to two main factors, reasons. First of all, the personality of Pope Francis. Pope Francis is clear. He is taking a very great role of leadership in the global issues of the present world. And he is recognized as such, as a global leader. When we receive in the Vatican representative of different states and international organization, normally they recognize this role of the Pope, which was very clear, for instance, in the process of the climate changes related with Paris Conference and so on. Then this is one of the reasons why the diplomacy, the Vatican diplomacy is more active nowadays. And as you remember, maybe the Holy Father, when he took his office after his election, he has given three goals to the Vatican diplomacy. The first one is to fight poverty. To fight poverty, this is a subject which is very dear to the heart of the Holy Father and is always intervening on this issue. The second is to build bridges. To build bridges. The words is dialogue, no? He said many times when they asked me what to do in some difficult situation when we are in presence of conflict, of confrontation, of clashes, he said dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. And the third one is to achieve peace in many situations. Then according to these three lines, we are trying to move and to intervene in the situation where it's possible to intervene. Take into account also that the diplomacy of the Holy See is not so huge in resources, in personnel. Then we are very limited in a certain sense. It is impossible to do everything. But we would like to help. We would like to help. And maybe this is, according to me, the characteristic I underline in my service that we should be very, very concrete, very concrete. Not only to announce principles, which is good, which is the role of the Holy See in the world, but also to respond to situations of crisis and to try to do our best as much as possible to help people in their situation of difficulties. This is more or less what I can say. Thank you very much, Eminence. So unlike any other countries which are always, you know, far to one to each other, so the Roman Catholics are almost everywhere. And I would like to ask, is it more an upside or downside for diplomacy, particularly in the view of some easier countries where many Catholics are or where they are still a minority? Yes. This is a great advantage. And this is also what is distinguishing the diplomacy of the Holy See vis-à-vis to the other diplomacy, the civil diplomacy. Normally a diplomatic, of course, is working in a given country just to improve the relationship between its states and the state to which it is accredited. Besides, it's interesting for the world peace and development, but also it has the task to protect and to defend the interests of its own compatriots living in that country. For instance, the Italians or the French, when they are in Africa, in Latin America, they are just helping their community. The diplomacy of the Holy See has not this task, because as you rightly pointed out, the interest of the Holy See is for the citizens of that country who are Catholics, and not only for the Catholics, but also for the other religions, for the other Christian groups, and then it's the activity of ecumenism, and then the other religions, the interreligious dialogue. But of course we are there just to help the Catholic Church and the Catholic faithful to live freely their religion. And for this reason, one of the main purposes of the Holy See, of the action of the Holy See is to protect and to defend and to promote religious freedom, religious freedom in a given country, which is really, really according to us, that was an idea of John Paul II, that is the first of the human rights. And it's like a sort of term of reference for all the human rights. If religious freedom is protected and is insulted, then all the human rights, the other human rights are at the same time protected and promoted. And of course this means that, for instance, we have a very, very great knowledge of the situation which is prevailing in a given country. This is one of our advantages. That really we receive information, of course also the other countries do it because they have ambassadors in many, many other countries. But of course we have people on fields, on the ground, on the spot. We have missionaries, we have sisters, we have lay people. Now you know that the missionary lay people are increasing everywhere in the world. And then it is normal to receive many, many information, to receive many appeal, to receive also suggestions how to answer to the difficult situation. I think that is one of the most important benefits deriving from the fact that our people are the people of the country, the Catholics of the country. Thank you very much. But it would mean that certainly you are represented almost everywhere. So maybe therefore many, even governments, are very confident in the work of the Holy See. And this opens for you even opportunities in terms of diplomacy, beyond the question of fighting for Christians. For example, even very political questions, you just figured out like in Cuba or maybe even during the Cold War era with Pope Johannes Paul II. So I think that could be an opportunity as well. So your mission is beyond sometimes the fight for Christians, right? Yes, of course. That is very important what you are saying. And we feel really that we are not working only for the freedom of the church or the freedom of the Catholics. When we speak out for religious freedom, we are doing something for everybody. And the interest of everybody, of all the believers belonging to different religious are at the heart of the interest and of the action of the Holy See. And to add also one point which is of utmost importance is not only the question to defend and to promote the rights of believers, but I would like to say to defend, to promote the person, the human person as such, this is, I would like to say, the main characteristics of the presence and the action of the diplomacy of the Holy See, to defend the human person, to defend the rights of the human person, especially to underline that there is a dimension which cannot be overlooked or forgotten if we want to save mankind in our days, which is the transcendent dimension of the person. The person, the human person cannot be reduced only to a material dimension, but has something with transcend this material dimension and according to us it is a relation with God from whom he comes. But if we don't want to speak about the relation with God then to put it in a religious level we can speak about the spiritual dimension which cannot be reduced to the material. And according to us this is the condition, I repeat, to save mankind today. If we don't preserve this dimension really the future of mankind is very dark in our days. And then we really, in all the forums, in all the organizations where we are working, we insist on that. The centrality of the person, it is the first principle to which the Vatican diplomacy is acting on. And then the multifacetic dimension of the person, not excluded, is a spiritual dimension. And the solidarity of the person with other human beings. This is another, I think, important for me. It is of almost importance this idea. The centrality of the person is transcendence and the fact that the human person is called to be a brother of other human beings. This idea of fraternity. If we don't have clear that we are brothers and sisters and that we are responsible for others, I think that other goals, other objectives, will prevail and will, at the end, damage and destroy the person and the community. And then the last things I would like to say is that it is important not to speak, the Pope has said so many times, not to speak about mankind in general. Of course, as an abstraction. But to look into the eyes of every person and to be, how do you say, portavoce, something with giving voice, with giving floor to the person, to the single person, especially to the poor and the most vulnerable. In this sense, I think that the diplomacy of the Holy See should be a very concrete diplomacy. Recalling also all the authorities, all the international actors, they have to respond to the single person and to the most vulnerable person in the world. Thank you, Eminence. Sometimes we even have very concrete statements out of the Holy See, and even the Holy Father asked and encouraged the people to come to a stronger, that's very politically, European unity. And I guess you, Eminence, as well, have made statements in this direction. So it's very concrete, but what would you understand under the theme European unity? That is a problem of today because we have to recognize that the European unity is living a time, a period of crisis. I would like to point out, first of all, that the European unity has given, has brought great benefit to the European continent. We should not forget that. And maybe one of our problems of today is that the young generation do not know, maybe they do not recognize this benefit. When we think, for instance, about peace, our continent enjoyed peace for 60 years after the devastating experience of the first and the second World War. And then, for instance, the free circulation of persons, good ideas, and so on. Then something which really is advantageous for the countries and the community as well. Then, first of all, we have to recognize that there are great benefits coming from the experience of the Union. And second, that we are living a period, a period of difficulty, because according to us, what is needed today is to give again, let me use this word, a soul to Europe. Which is not only an idea of the church. You remember, maybe, for instance, that famous speech made by Jacques Delors in 1992 when he spoke to the representative of the different religions in Europe. He said precisely that and used the word soul. Which means again, I repeat, but it is a very important point to recognize the person in all his dimension. The risk of today is to reduce the person only to his economic and material dimension. To recognize that the person is more. And to try to give answer also to this different dimension of the person, to recognize it and to promote it. Then for us, and I can remind you of the two speeches of the Holy Father. The two speeches the Holy Fathers has made on Europe which are very, very, very good on the occasion of his participation in the parliament, in the European parliament. And the second was when he received the Karl Schalmann Prize. He has really made a great appeal for Europe to look for his soul. And I think that means also to go back to the Founders Fathers, because the Founders Fathers were really, really persons of great conviction which wanted a Europe of the people and Europe of the ideas, common ideas, not only the Europe of trade and the Europe of economy. Then I think that how to do it, we have to think together. We have to be creative and maybe to use a lot of fantasy. But I think that these are the guidelines on which to move towards a new sense of the European unity. And in this sense I would like also to stress the importance of the religions. The religions cannot be left only on a private ground. It's not only an expression of the personal feelings of the person, but religions have something to say also in a public arena. Of course, in dialogue with all the faith, we are not asking or requesting any privilege for the Catholic Church or the Catholic religions. We know that now we live in a pluralistic society where there are so many expressions of religion belief and religious faith. But I think that it's important that the authorities, the government recognize the public role that religious could give to the public life. And in this sense we can also say a word about terrorism, especially the terrorism which is claimed to be an expression of a religious belief. We think that this is clear manipulation of religion because as the Holy Father has said many times, the faith in God cannot be conducive to such horrible acts against people, against humanity. Many thanks Eminence. I guess that many people here in the room but in Europe or globally would appreciate the discussion in addition to structural questions about Europe, a discussion about the soul of Europe. And talking about Europe in another question, you mentioned mankind and humanity and maybe the need for people. And do you see conflict today in Europe between two needs or at least values, the question between on the one hand to be very open in terms in respect of humanity, on the other hand having some worries, you just mentioned one, the other is maybe more abstract, it's the question of identity. Do you see a conflict and what does this conflict mean for the discussion for Europe in terms of soul? There is a conflict. According to me we have to recognize it. For instance, the fact that some countries are just closing their door because they are claiming their specific identity and they are afraid that this identity will be lost because of the coming of other people from other culture and other religions. But I think that two things can be said. First of all, it is not a new phenomenon. I think that the history of humanity is a history of admitting, of encounter between cultures, between religions, between different ways of living and of thinking. Maybe what is new is the proportion of this phenomenon, especially for Europe, but it is true that for instance the migration, let's say the big number of migrants are not in Europe, maybe in Asia I think. But anyway, we are living with fear and with a sense of malaise, this experience. First of all, then it's nothing new. And then I think that also we have to learn from the lesson of history. We forget too much history and according to me we have to go back just to look forward and to learn from the good lesson because there are also bad lessons. But anyway, we look for the good lesson. And secondly, I think that this is precisely as the Holy Father has said many times the challenge in front of us. And the challenge is how to make differences. We are different, but how to make differences not a reason or the cause of conflicts and clashes and division, but a source of mutual enrichment. That is the big challenge according to me. And today in a multi-multipolar world when there are so many centers of power, of interest and so on, this is becoming more and more important. How to match differences in the sense that differences can become a source of reciprocal enrichment, advancement and progress. Again, how to do it in a concrete way is another question. But I think that it's important to work together. And we have seen also on the question of migrants sometime Europe were not able to elaborate a common policy. And a great deal of problems are linked to that, the fact that a given country was left alone just to face this problem. And then to work together just to find a way and formula through which we can really live together. And we know that every attitude of closure of not acceptance of order is an attitude which impoverishes us and it is not helping us to progress. But I think that the challenge is to find the concrete way how to match the two aspects. Thank you very much. Given the time, I have only the time for the last question and as we as a Swiss institution we have to stick on the schedule but I know that you are personally very engaged in the question of peace and I will ask you therefore a very concrete question. And peace is by the way one of the highest risk for the business community. We have recently published our risk report and surprisingly for us to some extent was that the question of peace was number one and the risk that we will not have peace in the future. You are very engaged in the nuclear disarmament so my last question is, it's not that spiritual but what does it mean very concretely for you as the chief diplomat of the Holy See? Yes, we are engaged, we are committed to peace. I would like to say that the reason why the Vatican diplomacy exists is because of peace and we are working as diplomacy in general but specifically the diplomacy of the Holy See and we have seen especially in the last centuries the action of the Pope in favor of peace when you think about what Benedict the 16, Benedict the 15 did on the occasion of the First World War you can see really what means to work for peace. But recalling another Pope, Pius XII whose motto was, Pax Opus Eustizii which goes back to the prophet Isaiah, peace is the fruit of justice. If there is no justice, there is no peace. Then to work for peace we have to work for justice, for justice among person, concrete person, justice inside the country, justice among the country, justice in the world. And I think that this forum should look for justice especially in the economic sector, in the economic deals. Otherwise there is no peace. As far as the design of nuclear disarmament the Holy See is very committed to that. It's part of the nonproliferation treaty he signed and we are also thinking, reflecting with the international community at least with some like-minded nations about the morality of the nuclear weapons if it is possible to accept this concept of the nuclear deterrence. But once again a peace built on fear is not a peace. And then nuclear weapons are the only way to instill fear in others just to prevent them from acting but it's not a good way. Then there is other means like to build confidence measure, to build mechanism of dialogue and of security which can assure the peace better than the nuclear deterrence. Thank you so much for the insights under our headline Responsive and Responsible Leadership and allow me by quoting you to finish our today's session to say what you just mentioned in line out peace is a fruit of justice. I think that is a nice finish for today's session. Eminence, thank you very much. Thank you.


Hi, I'm Leslie McVane and this is CTN Member Highlights. Today we're at Lincoln Park with the Mayo Street Arts Children's Program and they will be looking at the piece of art behind me which is a temporary installment courtesy of Tempo Arts and the children will be talking about it, learning about it, and writing about it. I'm here now with Blaine and McGrath who's the Executive Director of Mayo Street Arts and I know you do the most wonderful things at Mayo Street from puppet shows to dancing to music to whatever and this is a camp that you do for the children in the area. Yes, this is RAD which stands for Reading Art Dance and it's a summer literacy camp and this is a reading program that's free for students of need in East Bayside and other parts of Portland, Greater Portland. We have 15 to 25 kids with us each day studying reading art and dance and so being here at the sculpture is a great way for them to incorporate art into their reading program. And did you have an arrangement with Tempo Art to do this? We did. We were invited by Tempo Art to come and study the sculpture because we're about a block away from the sculpture in Lincoln Park. A lot of our students live within a block of the sculpture and see it on a daily basis so it made sense for us to come and sketch the sculpture and learn more about it. What are you doing here today? Tell me a little bit about drawing this piece of art behind you. So today we came to the park to draw a picture of the sculpture and everyone is doing that and if we finished we like say we didn't do all of it in one picture we could use another one of these pieces of paper and draw the rest. Would you mind showing the audience your piece? Now could you talk a little bit about your perspective and and how you went about drawing it how you started to just stop from the top down or the bottom up or? I started from the outline where the rocks are and then I went up as I did the statue. This was the second project. I was looking at the sculpture while I was doing my picture and I couldn't look down at my picture so I didn't know what I was doing. Oh my goodness. Just looking up at the sculpture. What did they call that? Free form kind of without that's amazing how it turned out. Without looking down. I only got to look at it once I was done with the picture. Are you pleased with the way it turned out? Yeah I think it turned out good.  Well all that really went through my head is this isn't a basic thing just to draw the sculpture over there just to see what happens and this is it. That's it. Let's see. Can we show everybody? Can you explain it a little? Well it says right here I saw four houses stacked on top of each other and I wrote right here it's a lot harder to write with a small piece of chalk than you think it is. That's lovely. Tell me are you do you do a lot of art? I did some homes and I dry it. It's right here and one is right here. You did two. Oh my goodness. I did two.  Because I want to do two but I like that one. That one I like that one first and next is that one. And so this has more detail than the first one? Yep. And you thought it needed that just you wanted to compare? Yep. Now I like first one that one here and next is right here. Can I hold one of those and you hold the other and we'll show the camera what they look like they're amazing. I just love it I love that you're working together and the children are delightful. They've been learning and thinking about the sculpture over the past week or so writing about their ideas of home which is the title of the sculpture They all come from very diverse backgrounds and have different experiences of home and housing and what that means to them is really interesting for us to learn about and for them to be engaged in this conversation that we're having about home in Portland and what that means. I think that's absolutely wonderful. Thank you so much for doing this. Yeah thank you.


For the past year, C4 has been working with community institutions for the management of forests, the Community Forest Associations, CFA's and the Water Resource Users Association's RUAS. The purpose was to strengthen the capacity of these institutions to work jointly and collaboratively to manage forests and water together. C4 has been partnering with NGOs and government organizations, including the Green Belt Movement, the East African Wildlife Society, the Kenya Forest Service and the Water Resources Agency. This work has been conducted in two forest sites, in the Mau Forest Complex and in three sites, in the Mount Elgon Forest. In Itari and Lundiani, up to about 15,000 trees have been planted in the sites that were identified. This was undertaken jointly after our planning process in the first capacity building activity. In the previous participatory management forest plan 2012-2017, more than 500 hectares of land in Lundiani Forest were planted with both exotic and indigenous tree seedlings. So, what we are seeing here is a typical well-managed forest. The species is Cuprisas luisternica, the other side you can see Pinas patula. This is the future of forestry in Kenya, whereby the community are allowed to embrace participatory forest management. Another program in this station is the Natural Forest Rehabilitation, which occurs in 7,000 hectares. Again, the CFA has been actively engaged in planting a variety of sort of indigenous trees like Punas Africana, Cedar, Podokap, Podo, the Dombayas in this area. We have a lot of work to do here in the forest, we have a lot of work to do in the forest. In Itari Forest, the situation is not different either. From 2016, there was intervention of C4 and its partners in sensitization of the communities in Itari. There was capacity building of CFA and Rua members and the main objective was to encourage these two community associations to work together. There is need to come together in terms of joint activities so that we do conservation to the best of our ability. So earlier on there was missing care, but as it now, we are together, we agreed to work together as I join entities who has a common agenda of conservation and protection of our environment and water. You will find that each association was operating separately. You know, the CFA, we were so much inclined in the issues of forest. So issues of Rua came later when we realized that we are dealing with a common natural resource that is inseparable. In along Itari Jemosit Water Resources Association, we have 13 indigenous tree nursery right from the source and inclusive to the middle and to the lower. Now how they started before was just a passion of the community. There is no option away from working together because Rua, as much as their interest is mainly on water, the forest is the main source of water, but we also realize that it is still important for the Rua to still operate. We are operating jointly, but our reduction is five kilometers away from the main forest. But the Rua, for them, they even extend up to the lake. And there are so many joint activities that we really will share. Remember, the Riberian area extends very far. Our thinking is that we raise seedlings, we sell to them, where they are going to be all five kilometers, we allow them. On top of the source of the Riva Itari, we also came together with another community forest association of Donet and we planted almost 85.4 hectares, almost 200,000 indigenous tree seedlings. So you see that working together with the CFA is the direction I would wish to as the chairperson of Itari Jemosit. The county government strongly supports the journey of conservation and rehabilitation of forest and water resources and has contributed riverine, land and equipment towards riverine tree planting. For you to move the best way forward, move with the county. And what we did is that we integrated our SCAM, the new SCAM that was done through CFA. Then we agreed to integrate with the CIDB, the county integrated development plan.


Hello friends, I am Bhasha and today I am going to talk with you on a very burning issue. It's about seaver and septic tank deaths which are happening across the country and there is a campaign which is going across the country. It has already covered 100 days.  Here, the community who is engaged in cleaning of seaver and septic tank, they are coming to streets around 18 states. They are raising just in single voice that the government should give answer to them why their life, Dalit life doesn't matter for this government. And in this campaign across the country just the single and simple question is being asked that why when we are talking about 75 years of glorified Indian independence and the way forward, why Indian citizens are forced to clean seaver and septic tank manually and die there. We are going to talk about this campaign in detail how it started from national capital, Delhi on 11th May and still it's going on. On this issue we had talked to different activists who are running in the streets raising their slogans and raising the basic demand. They are asking right to live, right to live with dignity and there should be no caste barricades or discrimination which is much prevalent in the country right now. We went to Deepthi Sukumar. She is in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. She is heading the whole campaign there and there she is able to make some interventions with the legal fraternity. Tamil Nadu High Court is very responsive. Let's ask to her why there at least this difference has been created why the judiciary is listening to them. Let's go and have a word and just ask what is all about stop killing us. Deepthi, welcome to news click. I just wanted to know your experience about stop killing us when you were crossing the High Court. What was the reaction from the High Court and from the people? I would like to know that when in Chennai we started this campaign in Chennai on the 16th of this month and not 16th I'm sorry on the 13th of this month 13th of August we started this campaign and it has been going on. In fact it was the last day of the campaign that we were having in a place called Aminji Kare in Chennai. So as we were going to that place we received a phone call from our advocate. We have filed a PIL in the High Court in Chennai High Court in Madras High Court. This has been filed about almost six years ago and the court is and the case is still ongoing. So in fact there was a hearing scheduled even last month which got adjourned to this month and that time our advocate called us while we were on the way to Aminji Kare saying that just outside the High Court right then as we were traveling to this campaign there were two young men who were inside a sewer for cleaning out a sewer and were fully immersed and we also just outside the main gate of the High Court just opposite the main gate. So there is no way that anybody can miss that site even as they're walking up I know on on that road or even entering the court premises also you cannot miss that site. So he called us and we were in Aminji Kare. We were going to Aminji Kare. Aminji Kare is a different part of the city and he said right now there is this thing happening in the in front of the Madras High Court. So then we were having a discussion and immediately Safa Karmancharya Antolan team has rushed to the spot there and those two men we have taken the details we've collected all the content and in the meantime our advocate also he immediately went to the Chief Justice and he asked and he informed the Chief Justice he made a comment to the Chief Justice saying that this is happening and a case also the same thing to prevent the entry of human beings into sewer lines and manholes and septic tanks. So this kind of you know the Chief Justice also was taken was quite shocked that you know there is so much of this absolute contempt of court and contempt of humanity everything. So he was very shocked and immediately he passed an order that they must stop the work immediately and he was very angry so he has now I think given the and he wanted to have the hearing on Thursday immediately the next day after we saw this you know the hearing that has been that is being adjourned. So then I think the attorney general that is the AG of Tamil Nadu state they are not prepared already so they have said they are not prepared already so we want some more time to respond because I think the Chief Justice came on very heavily on them and said you need to give us some answer why this kind of thing is continuing when the case is still going on you are giving the responses but this on the one side it is still going so what what is the meaning of this. So now they have asked for daily Monday so we are having the hearing on Monday so now I think Monday we need to go and find out even in this campaign also when we have been having this campaign for stop killing us in all of these seven places locations in Chennai where we have done this campaign the community is the one who has organized the entire thing because the community is really fed up for them you know they are saying enough is enough because in Tamil Nadu if you see though the deaths are going on the deaths are coming people are still entering in receptive times and even though there is this there is the kind of scenario where there is missionary and they are saying that they have spent so much of you know money on buying machinery and mechanization but it is why people are still dying and we don't see that happening anywhere you know machines that are really cleaning out this kind of the sewerage and so to do the sewerage work so the people are also fed up and they have been asking for some you know some some immediate action from the government to take steps to stop this immediately. Court reacts to this, we are not able to see such a reaction in North India in North India. Why do you think there are more responses from the government from the judiciary in South and specifically in Tamil Nadu which is missing entirely missing in North India. Yeah actually in Tamil Nadu if you see even the reporting also is quite high whenever there is a death or whenever there is an incident like this the reporting is also very immediate very timely and quite high I think because of that only the numbers are also showing as very high in Tamil Nadu but even in Tamil Nadu even though the numbers the reporting is good and the numbers are high the numbers that are coming out is only coming from very very urban areas so what is happening in the semi urban because septic tanks are everywhere semi urban areas and rural areas also so whether there is more and more deaths happening even in semi urban areas and rural areas that is not coming to light because whatever reports are whatever is being reported the deaths is more from the more urban areas so that is that is one that is on one side the other thing is also that why Tamil Nadu is having this kind of a responsiveness from the judiciary I think basically I think there is a kind of there is they have been sensitive to these if the judiciary has been showing some sensitivity to this issue especially from the very beginning so that is also there and also I think when the government is also having the numbers but for a long time what we are seeing is that the government is not able to give the proper direct answer for prevention of deaths I think they are and they're also giving the numbers that there are so many deaths that are happening because one thing is the media is very alert on this issue media is quite alert as soon as the death happens the media is reporting so when these issues are being highlighted and giving some prominence in the media definitely the government cannot undermine the issue that is one strength that is there in the state so that one thing one thing I just want to know from you that finally what do you think that from a stop killing us campaign it has completed a hundred days it's going beyond what is the target what you want to achieve if you can just tell us in briefly if you tell us that stop killing us campaign so we have been focusing on the stop killing us campaign that this particular sewage work is a is a caste atrocity it's a caste discrimination and it is a it is a violence against it is a it is an atrocity and there was a violation of human rights basic human right right to life and right to equality so and this is something one one side I think the communities that have been engaging in this campaign are getting empowered to demand that's on one side on the other side I think the government is also is also kind of making these issues becoming visible so they are forced actually pay attention to this issue that is one side but our main focus is that there has to be prevention of deaths because now deaths are happening and it is it has become very simple and very easy for any government or local government to just give a compensation of 10 lakhs and close the case FIR say yes FIR is being filed but then nowhere does FIR actually go on progress to even a charge sheet so this is a problem yeah charge sheet has not progressed to charge sheet so what we are saying is that deaths are happening compensation is being given FIRs are being filed but that is a very kind of a token action it's not really there's no deep commitment or sincere it's just done because it's it's a routine mechanical way of dealing a routine thing that they are doing so what we are saying is that prevention of death so what do you do for prevention of deaths is that reach to the community and it has to be addressed as a caste atrocity and as a caste-based violence and from that angle only we must take this whole issue and make sure that every person who is even who has a vulnerability who has who's at risk of you know being engaged as a manual scavenger to do storage work must be identified by a survey by a proper survey and brought under the you know radar of the government and liberated and rehabilitated fully so there has to be a proper budget allocation for this for prevention of deaths I think now the focus is more that we want to have prevention of deaths more than compensation and you know after death then after death kind of action no we want that before death you know act to make people live not to make not not to do something after