Infantry units against their . Ill, as we do men about 30 of infantrymen did not volunteer for combat. Its an entirely different discussion. Equalare going to have opportunity, society, instead saying every man for himself on a sinking ship, that is a discussion we ought to have. It lets us think about women in very dangerous roles. That is my sense of it at this point. Im not in a position to do anything about it. I know that the decisions will 2016. E during a january that last question to send us home. Create invasion of iraq isis . Create, technically no. Was before theq invasion in 2002. Did it intensify the growth of al qaeda in iraq after 2003 . That it did. It expanded the sunni insurgency. Ve forward to the irserise of isil after al qaedad iraq with largely defeated, it is largely a creation of the Syrian Civil War in the sanctuary. A lot of them operated from there during the iraq war. Al qaeda in iraq is not just al qaeda jihadists and former Iraqi Military officers and others. Created, were at least allowed to expand, by Iraqi Government action. I completely agree. On that note, thank you very much. Conversation to be continued. [applause] on the next washington journal, a look at the Donald Trump Campaign and his positions on key policies with Michael Warren of the weekly standard. Then the executive director of young invisibles talks about policy issues affecting millennial voters, including student to death and health care. Then a discussion on infighting in deep gone about how to combat china. Washington journal, live on 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. You can join the conversation with her calls and comments on facebook and twitter. With your calls and comments. Wednesday night on cspan, well bring you this from the annual net Roots Company conference in phoenix. Nina simone spoke at the event. Here is a look. Last your was the lowest voter turnout in our country in a 70 years. Think about what was happening in the u. S. 70 years ago. We were a little busy with a war, called the world for. 70 years. Called the world war. People are opting out because they dont believe folks that hold the elected space really give a about them. I will keep it pg. 70 years, that is pretty sad. Man, one vote, that the vote is the greatest equalizer. How hard it was for me to even get traction, i wasnt running for governor. When Everybody Knows the most important race is the secretary of state race. I am saying that because if people cant vote, if they do have access to the republic, if their voice cannot be heard through the power of their vote, then you cannot vote for a president , school board member, or mayor, or governor. The ballot box is the most important. What i think happened last november, i have to put my sister janet jackson. What have you done for me lately . Netrootsday, the nation conference from phoenix. Discussions focus on ways to elect more democrats to local office. And strategies for electing more women and minorities. 8 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. With the senate in its august break, we will feature book tv programming i prime time on cspan2 starting at 8 p. M. Eastern. At the end of the summer, look for two special book tv programs. On september 5, we are live from the Nations Capital for the book festival. Follow us on date with our wide indepth program with linda cheney. Book tv on the cspan2. Television for serious readers. In our final from the Aspen Institute security forum, the french and spanish ambassadors to the u. S. Joined former undersecretary of state public of risky to talk about russias annexation of crimea and the threat of isis in europe. This is 50 minutes. Thank you very much. Good morning everybody. Welcome to the second session of the aspen security forum. Thank you for inviting me to monitoring this panel. I am really delighted to lead this discussion with our excellent beakers. Excellent speakers. We have a fellow at the gsk association for affairs. A former undersecretary of state for global affairs. We also have the investor of spain to the u. S. , a diplomat since 1982. Serve in south africa and sudan. We also have the ambassador of the france to the u. S. And among many positions, he was the french permanent repetitive to the u. N. I was atd to tell you a reception at the French Embassy just a few days ago when the ambassador admitted that he was a headache for his communication teams. Because as he said, he is an uncontrollable speaker. He speaks his mind. Therefore, i trust if the other two speakers get to diplomatic, we can count on him to spice things up. [laughter] looking at the situation in europe. Many of you know me as an expert on middle eastern affairs, because that is where i am from, but i am also have touch. I am also half dutch. I feel that i also belong in europe. We look at the headlines, you get the feeling that the continent is under siege. Two wars in its vicinity with the annexation of crimea, with the conflict in syria. Internal turmoil with the crisis in greece. Talks about an exit with the u. K. And of course the threat from the devastating migrant crisis. The numbers are astounding. Europe under siege . Where does the u. S. Into the picture . Is europe the problem or is it part of the solution for the u. S. . We will also explore the threat , talk of the transatlantic relationship, and possible measures that we can take, europe and the u. S. , to strengthen the relationship going forward. I want to first start i asking our two ambassadors to tell me what they think about the title of this Panel Discussion threats to europe. Do any of you feel with the Obama Administration that the u. S. Was pivoting away from in europe towards asia . Ramon, why dont you start. Ramon first, thank you for allowing me to participate in this panel. Concerned,ecurity is i do not think it will ever happen. In the task of securing our values, we have a community of interests. It is true that maybe economically, the discovery of the pacific as a world statesred by the united will make that sentence become famous. Three months after my arrival in 2012, we went over 900 points in spain. There was word that we were going back to the bailout. Feel about what was happening in spain because it also affected the u. S. The impact on the economy. Ramon absolutely. In that sense, i dont think that the president has been as. Trong or as visible i dont think the u. S. Is looking for allies in asia. Was there ever a sense in france that there were concerns about a lack of interest in washington towards europe . The Obama Administration certainly wanted to spend more time on asia, but they were forced by events to focus on the reinvigorate. Peoplethe last 30 years, say the europeans dont spend americans are going to asia. China, ite it was not was japan. 80s inis in the the 1980s. We have to go back to asia. The fact is that the u. S. And European Union, the transatlantic relationship is the most important relationship in financial trade. Whatever people say, what matters is the reality. The reality is that our relationship is extremely important for both sides. Affordsimply we cant neglecting it. Let me go back to the state of the transatlantic relationship. I want your quick assessment. You might have a different perspective on how the Obama Administration has handled the relationship. I want you to lead us into the discussion of how the u. S. Has also managed the war in ukraine, the annexation of crimea. Paula on your first question, i think it is excellent that we are having this discussion. I like very much the title. Both of the ambassadors, in my view, were to dramatic on that question. We will have to look at gerards twitter feed after that. Paula part of the administration wanted to pull it back. There was an equation a question of what it meant, certainly in terms of symbolism and in practical actions of the importance attached to the relationship. Did it kind of thought the relationship did it con note that it wasnt as strategic were becoming less relevant . I think the relationship is a crucial one. It also underscores this title in the discussion. The need for stepping back and looking at, what is the future vision . But also, what is the strategy . I think we have been lacking th at. In a way, there has been a kind of taking for granted of one another. To answer the core question, i think the quality of the relationship has suffered. It has deteriorated. It is not what it once was. When you look in different areas medical, economic, military political, economic, military, there have been challenges. At the time when the administration drew i redline in syria in 2013, as we may remember from president hollande, he was out there supporting the administration. The Administration Flip its position. These are political parts. Arent political cards. On ukraine, the issue is that ukraine is certainly a threat for europe at large and for the u. S. First because of russian aggression into ukraine. It goes to the core of two things. One is literally the aggression that undermines the framework, the institutions, the values as we know it. In fact, president putin has been very clear in his statements in rejecting the institutions, not only the institutions,d but the values of the west. That is one of the core challenges. The second is, ukraine becomes failsafe, it will have economic and political ramifications for europe as a whole. I have heard many diplomats say, okay fine, but we are not ready to send our troops to die to help ukraine. You particularly took issue with the term cold war. What is it, in your view . Is it a hot war because of the casualty numbers, because of natos steppedup activity . Whether it is in the baltic states, other deployments. What is it, in your view, and how much is a threat is it to europe . Inare we looking too much making it to the vote for putin to step back . Gerard if i had a problem with the expression cold war, i think its important to name the problem in the correct way. It is easier to to find the solution in that way. The cold war was a global confrontation, and ideological and political. In a sense, it was existential. Nobody would tell us right now that the problems that we have with russia are existential. It doesnt make any sense. The 1980s, before the collapse of the soviet russian tanks were kilometers from paris. Now they are 100 kilometers from paris. As i have tweeted, the Russian Forces have never been so far from friends since 1972. From france since 1972. This situation has never been so bad since 1667. We need to look at the political reality of the world. In my sense, the conflict we are facing in ukraine is a very traditional one. Of you americans and dust europeans and us your opinions. Get out ofed to geopolitics, because it led us into two world wars. The question mark we should raise today is the rest of the world believing in the traditional geopolitics. If you look at the weight russians have reacted to the crisis, in a sense, you use the analysis of geopolitics, it was very predictable. At some point, the interpretation of what we were , or peopleraine speaking about nato, was that the west was going to take over ukraine. In a geopolitical sense i try to understand it from the Russian Point of view. If you want to look at the french, as we say in you have to put yourself in the shoes of the other side. It is not bad against good. It is two sides. What is the vision of the other side . They think that we are taking over ukraine, which is an injury for them. And they reacted in consequence. In a sense, if we are going back to 1914 or before, it is a traditional conflict. After that, you have military posturing. A sense of trying to send a signal to the other side that i am very serious. The russians are also bluffing. We have to counterbluff. That, i think, is the country we are facing in russia. The conflict we are facing in russia. It has a lot of parts. My conviction is that a lot of emerging powers we are facing and have to work with are very much engaged in the very traditional geopolitical vision of the world. There we seeing, falsely, narrative of a cold war . Is the u. S. Leaving putin no choice . Trying, and were we are trying to do it with our legitimate friends, is trying to Ukraine Russia and taking into account this russian narrative, trying to find a balance. A balance between the russian passions u. S. The russian, what is ukraine you ask a russian, what is ukraine, and they will say it is part of themselves. Existentially or historically. I dont justify, but that is a fact. And also trying to find the independence of ukraine. Thatg to convince Russia Ukraine without using as a threat would not be seen as a threat. We have been negotiating for a few months with russia. We have been negotiating with some success, but also with some shortcomings in our actions. Kim i think he wants to step it. Step in. There are also areas of corporation. Areas of corporation. Especially on the Nuclear Negotiations on i runs nuclear program. On Irans Nuclear program, which we just saw conclude. Paula i think the core of the challenge in what we are witnessing, because of the illegal annexation of crimea and the aggression in Eastern Ukraine what this does is impose a direct challenge to the institutions postworld war ii, postcold war as we know it. Which is to maintain peace, security, and stability for decades. It also has posed a challenge to the very values that we hold. But it is not just about europe. I have to add this. It is a broader issue where other parts of the globe were watching. Asia, by the way, is watching what is playing out in europe, because this goes to the heart of the sustainment of the global liberal order. Nato a has also given renewed edge. Atla then there is also,a this time, countries concerned about what will come next from russia, like the baltic states. Then the question about what will happen with regard to article 5. I thinkadn nd, there has been this reenergizing. But on the other hand, this also lets see how it plays out in the in limitation and the implementation moving forward. Gerard we have to understand that for a lot of these countries, this order is a western order. We may say that it is the only order possible, and you have to follow it, which frankly wont work. Or we try to include in our order the new emerging powers. Discussed and abbasid are i discussed with an ambassador of an emerging nato country. I said that he voted in a negative way. And he said, we are on the board of directors. Un, we haveto the three veto powers. We always have 9 votes, which is the majority. You go to the un building, all the people are from the west. American, british, swedish, and someone. You go to the imf, the french, the world bank, americans. You have to realize that our world order is really ours. There are many democracies in the world that dont see that own in the world order. Kim you talked about walking in the other persons shoe. What is happening in ukraine is the most pressing problem. But for problems like yours, it is the migrant crisis. In france, it is also the war in syria. That has implications with radical militants returning from syria. Ukraine is very far from spain. I think your foreign minister said to an american secretary of state. Do you feel that russia can understand the urgency of the problem for a country like yours . Were talking about 200,000 people trying to cross the mediterranean in the last year. 8000 of them have died in doing so. Ramon two things. We have never had that feeling. What paula was saying about the many lawse established were being violated by russia. There is not only an immigrant issue, but a difference in a per capita income between the northern and southern numbers. Southern members. We see that between the u. S. And mexico. Countries to the south of morocco and algeria, multiply that by a couple. We have the problems that those problems have. It is one of them that is a big feel the state, which is libya. A big failed state. The arab looking arab awakening, whatever you want to call it. Have algeria that suffered the arab spring 10 years back. Pretty well. Ing this is not solid in the whole region. The small that, groups linked to al qaeda, some of them linked to isil, get weapons from the armory of gaddafi. Business of human oldficking going along the lines of trade in africa. It has been taking place in the last five years at least. Now the most successful trade is going from libya. That. H suffered in 2004, the attacks were done by immigrants. Kim the European Union countries have failed to address this problem. Bringing people across the mediterranean, that hasnt gone anywhere and is probably not the right solution. Your foreign minister saying trying to distribute the migrants that arrived in europe across the continent is like trying to deal with a leaky roof by distributing the water between the roof instead of fixing it. How does europe come together to find a solution . And where does the u. S. Fit into this . Ramon the truth of the matter is that we are doing the best we can. This is a wave of immigration that is coming out of control with countries that cannot be controlled. They are doing their best within. Heir own country the issue of security is something that we are very concerned about. To do some birdi urdensharing. It is difficult. The proposal came out and we do not know what the russians are doing. Not found solidarity with italy. We will solve that. The real problem is the immensity of the ungoverned states. It is the small groups related to al qaeda or isil. You tell us if you thought the u. S. Failed to see the gravity of the conflict in syria and what it would me an with the back and forth of militants, whether to do with others,ant crisis or that the u. S. Failed to see. In the new world that we are unavoidable that the u. S. Or the asian allies could have different strategy priorities. The problem with the fighters. The number of americans in syria is in the dozens. 1600he french, we have french who went to syria or are back from syria. Right now, we have 500 french in syria. Already, one has been killed. So, you know the figures. You look at the figures and it is dramatically different. It is a major security problem that we have been facing. These guys are coming back trained and radicalized. We have not identified all of them and you know that we have already been subjected to terrorist attacks. Some may happen. So, in a sense, we can consider that we have a very legitimate way, considering the American National interests, and there may be different priorities. The nuance at isil, between the americans and europeans is that it is it is a that, ifhe impression isil or isis could be pushed back to syria, for the americans, the solution would be reached. Disaster, would be a in a sense. That is the new world world we are living in and we cannot expect the americans to rush to solve any crisis anywhere in the world. Moderator you are the allies in europe. When america is not there when it needs to be or fast enough . For example, libya, or when obama pulled that from a strike. The president felt rather let down. He felt the same way after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. He said that if the International Community had notd more, we would perhaps the there. Provocative and interesting and i would like you in and tell us how the u. S. Views the problems. We have a direct interest for our own National Security and helping maintain stability in europe. Issue, theon terrorism issue, the ambassadors discussed all of these and they are of concern to europe. By economicnded stagnation and unemployment. There have been a range of issues and we have a stake in that. I think you asked about syria and i suggested that we missed some very direct opportunities for collaboration with our allies in europe and in the middle east. The missed opportunities have had strong ramifications and consequences that we are witnessing today. I think you go back and there are missed opportunities and political costs. I think that we spoke about the ukraine and there are 1. 3 million displaced in the ukraine. It is not that wellknown. War. E are impacted by the leadership matters. It does not mean we have to have the same tactical script. If you look at the strength of the institutions, values, and the common vision that we had it, it is act up with consultation and figuring out how to go forward. Not been the vigorous consultation in this period, until recent. It is necessary to ensure the strength of our relationship. All of our administrations have had it. Administrations have had it. Until present, not vigorous. It is needed. That leads us to the next part of the conversation and i would like to go to you on this. Is there something from 2013 where people felt let down . I will not comment on what my president said. Moderator a true diplomat. I want you to respond to paulas point and whether there has been enough consultation with european allies. Almost do notthey need an ambassador anymore because the relationship is strong. You would be out of a job and we like to have you in washington. Obama has gone to europe and john kerry goes there. There has been a lot of bilateral back and forth. To clarify, i am talking conversation,ic during which leaders have formed relationships and it has had an impact. When a diplomat wants to widens thestion, he debate. Am really deeply convinced that we are facing a new world and it would be dangerous to go back to the old recipe of americans trying to solve the problems of the world. It will not work anymore. So, i really insist on this lazy andountries are the software the americans have is containment. And we have a new world and new actors. We have countries that are vibrant and active. We have to work with these countries and it does not mean simply going to the president of brazil and saying, what do you think of that . We have to think about the fromtutions that are born 1945s security council. When the chinese create this development, why . Because the u. S. Has refused the reforms of the imf. It is totally normal for the chinese to say, if you do not want us, we will create our institutions. Ofhave to think in terms world order. Goodnk kissinger was a aces. Order andhave a world speak the same language anymore. To sorry to be intellectual. Tradition. I disagree a little bit with that. Go from the north of africa and over, it is difficult they are what they think. When you have a country like libya and all of this has been done in different malicious and in it. Lts u. S. , of course, and you see the Security Matters that are important. It would be reacting to a different crisis. The secretary of state speaks of the transatlantic renaissance and you think that is great . That is great. When thee questions obviou the answer is obvious. Moderator it is part of a new way of working. You talk about countries going back to old toolboxes. Do you disagree with u. S. Concerns of defense spending in europe . We hear some say that there is a spending. Fense i will quote someone who is colorful with her language. Peopleismayed to see worked on the cheap and cheaper. Only the u. K. Is meeting the target of 2 on defense spending. And greece. Moderator we cannot talk about the greek crisis. There will be no end to it. I have heard american leaders talk about sharing the burden. That is the usual story. Noise int is the usual a transatlantic relationship. We decide our budget because we decide on the basis of the United States and the threat. Nobody has to complain about what we have decided in a sovereign way. It is not an issue. I would add, do not forget that , nato, japan, australia , we are spending 70 in the military world expenditure and i am not convinced that we need to spend more. Really, the problems we are facing are not military. Emphasis on another the military means. It is dangerous. When you have a big hammer, you consider any problem is a nail. Insistent ontoo military power. When you see immigrants trying to cross the mediterranean, it is not the military. It is not mainly a military fight. I say that with respect to my british colleagues. Really, i can say, the french are not that at all. We are fighting in africa against the terrorists and fighting them in iraq. We are doing our job. Do not forget that the European Union is giving 70 of the world aid to the problem. That is also quite important. Of course. That defenseadd spending and members of our congress have brought this question forward, the nature of the alliance, the threats it is facing, and burden sharing. I want to say that the comments that are made in my book really call for an important point and i have been excited about the forum. Back andot stepped really look at where europe is going and what is the future of europe. Lets assess the problems and what the u. S. Strategy should be. Withpen to be affiliated the atlantic council, who is launching the assessment that is long overdue. It is crucial that this is done for the reasons that were stated. I want to talk about the ttip. We will go to questions shortly. A mechanism, aside from defense, diplomacy, is the Economic Partnership between the two sides of the atlantic on par with security and diplomatic ties. Absolutely. Ttip matters greatly and the ambassador mentioned the importance of the economic relationship and at the volume of our trade. It is a winwin. We have a challenge with the European Commission and the regulatory challenges that some of the businesses are encountering. That is in the mix. It has to be sorted. Ttip, absolutely. We have been preaching for the free economy and we with everybody and in both the u. S. And the eu. Where not punching below our way and we will not meet reach agreement. There is a political message that we have to solve. Moderator before we go to questions, i have two more questions before we bring it to a close. Is it about mechanisms to strengthen the cooperation . Is it about a military and bilateral cooperation . Or, is it about going back to the basics of sustained diplomacy . It is spanishbased. I think that the new one is more complicated. , we have these relations and others with issues. Maybe not brussels. Of course. For sure. I forgot what the question was. Is it about diplomacy or new structures . A bit more visibility. For theengagement ambassadors in washington. But you have to have both. Absolutely. Briefly, each one of you, how do you define a common goal for the u. S. And europe and what are you working towards . To build a new world order. Murmurs] i would say it is the ,aintenance of ts, stability in europe and globally. I believe i agree with both and i would say that we believe in our values and it can be adjusted to other cultures and we should defend the values. Moderator it is time for questions. The gentleman with the checkered shirt. Questione the panelists have to leave at 10 45. Scholarer i am a brought over here graciously to meet all of you distinguished thinkers and practitioners. You described the many challenges that europe is facing. Issounds like the consensus that there are common cause to bring more Nuclear Weapons to europe and asia and the issues are not easily addressed by these capabilities. What is the role you see for Nuclear Weapons moving forward . [crosstalking] Nuclear Deterrence for my country, because it is national, it is no way integrated in nato and it is the ultimate assurance. You have to understand that, the basic experience of recent 1940 in front of germany. Lecture to president roosevelt saying, we are a democracy overwhelmed. Of course, the u. S. Did not do it and we were overwhelmed. Dark times come, you are alone. That is why you have do why you have Nuclear Deterrence. And defense iner the world where you cannot forecast anything. For the moment, it is unlikely that you would need that. In 2040 years, we dont know. The is really, in a sense,. Ore of the commitment the nuclearbout weapons given up for the territory and sovereignty. When you hear the officials speak, they regret that action. Nuclear deterrence is out there. Was happened in that case the press and other parts of the world. Pressmber the japanese questioning about extended deterrent. Terrible i have vision. Men by going to call the their jackets