I want to mention next week, next wednesday we will have our last webinar for the seminar partnerll be with our novelg about his new which is a look into the future of warfare and cyber warfare. He is a fantastic thinker and writer. Rhodes. Y, ben he is the former National Security deputy National Security advisor. Of pensee the world and ae the world, friend of ucla. Take it away. Mr. Rhodes thank you everyone for joining us for this. Commentske some open summarizing the argument i was and that this piece can set up the directions we go when in our conversation. Me, the genesis of this idea about the end of the 9 11 era is like anyone else, the extremity of the lockdown hit me in early march and for me, i was taking a walk with my daughters. We went down to venice beach which was completely empty, desolate. I had never seen it before. My daughter picks up a dandelion and i said make a wish. She said to make the coronavirus galway. Go away. For someone who worked in the white house, what hit me about that moment was that this crisis, covid19 is something that hit everybody in america. Including my daughter. She understood the crisis we are in in a way that terrorism never would or could. No terrorist could kill as many people as this disease already has. No terrorist act could have the economic impact. Impact willsocietal think about the fallout. You consider that we have spent trillions of dollars preventing terrorist attacks relative to what we spend on but it wasit hit me not a surprise. A pandemic is something people have been warning about for years. Ebola and by h1n1, the end of the Obama Administration, we were seized with the fact that issues other than terrorism far outweighed the risk of terrorism itself. I will come back to that and a second. For me, it recalled the sign tour of thence in a cia Operations Center that said every day is 9 11 september 12. I thought about what led the agency to put that up . That is kind of where america has been. I understood it because i witnessed 9 11. I worked with the 9 11 commission for two years. I entered politics because of the iraq war, which is how we got the response to wrong. For barack obama who would not have been elected president if it werent for the iraq war. As i reflected on the Obama Administration, i can see the many ways in which that presidency was shaped by 9 11. Inheritingoffice memo wars. Wars. Probably a bank shot to the financial crisis that we inherited from the trillions of dollars that were inherited from the counterterrorism in those years. In the first obama term in particular, you could feel working in National Security the kind of potential force of 9 11. He removed hundred 50,000 troops from iraq, he gets pulled deeper into afghanistan. We had very aggressive antiterrorism efforts. Controversial counterterrorism efforts like the drone policy. The hyper polarization of the middle east from u. S. Military interventions and the kind of leaders and places like egypt and saudi arabia in some ways legitimize themselves as partners of the u. S. Because of counterterrorism. Same time, particularly in the second term of the Obama Administration, obama was very deliberately trying to end this era. To move into a new one. If you look at the signature components of obamas foreignpolicy in the second term, each are trying to move us into a post9 11 world. Deal meant toar avoid another war in the middle east that could have been precipitated it around Getting Nuclear Weapons and dealing with a challenge to automatically. This climate accord meant to new focus ofbe the foreignpolicy. I dont think people fully appreciate how much work went into the paris accord not just in negotiating in the room but also in using our multilateral relationships to affect Climate Change. Tbp, sia, the chinaacific partnership, by then largely ignored United States in the decade after 9 11. We were trying to build an infrastructure that could shape the rise of china and shape rules of the road on everything from trade to technology to governance in ways that were meant to influence chinas behavior. Even the cuban [indiscernible] was meant to close a chapter in our history, type loose ends somebody get past that and engage not just cuba that our own hemisphere without the baggage of history. At the same time we were doing this, we were pulled back by world events and more so by american politics into this post 9 11 era. Isis and its emergence guaranteed we were going to remain militarily involved in the middle east albeit with a different model than the post9 11 wars without Ground Forces present. Even that is interesting to look back on because isis and ebola, terrorism and a pandemic emerged at the same time. One is so much more dangerous in a way that the other. Ebola threatened to kill millions of people. Think about how much attention was paid to isis, our media and politics and shows you how hardwired we have become as asricans to see terrorism inextricably linked to our National Security in a way that we dont think about pandemics. Just witht, not National Security, its what has been done to our politics that was so evident to me in a later obama years. Particularly as the Republican Party and key elements of it demonstrated on the radicalization around securitize, us versus them post 9 11 mindset. There was a toxic stew of issues. , demagogy refugees, immigration, that all very much tied back to this idea of fear of the other and polarization for the purpose of security. It is very characteristic of post9 11 america. It shows you how what might have started as a legitimate fear of terrorism morphed over time into and intoersus them donald trump. Too is thes psychology of a nation that after 9 11 was promised rate victories. I try to imagine what it was like to consume fox news throughout the bush presidency. You are constantly on the precipice of a great victory in iraq and afghanistan. Those victories did not materialize and never will. Win wars,ries dont often politicians look for people to blame within. That is the most tried and true tactic of how these things happen in history. It became blame obama. Blame muslims in the United States. Blame illegal immigrants. All of these things coming up melted together in the person of donald trump. The president , despite his rhetoric about winning wars, he has done the opposite. He has escalated every war. His with ae of rock. ,he narrative that i talk about ms 13 as a focus, immigrants as a focus, recently antifa, he a terroristos organization. Ofe we are in the midst multiple crises. The covid crisis will be the most transformative, and economic crisis and structural systemic racism and police violence. This is a time for fundamental transformation of how we think about National Security. The threats that we face, the challenges we have to deal with are not terrorism. It is still going to be an issue. Im not suggesting we dont Pay Attention to it. Time aure it against change, pandemics, emergence of new technologies and how that is going to pose risks to security. Authoritarian trend around the world that is challenging the very idea of democracy. The rise of china is a part of that. When we look at all that, we are not focused on the right tank. Our eye is not on the ball. At the same time, we have to get our act together at home. This innpack some of q a. What does that mean . In terms of National Security privatization, it means shifting to the threats i just talked about. That means resourcing. We have a pentagon budget that is way too big. It makes no sense that we have a plan as a country to spend a trillion dollars in the next decade modernizing our Nuclear Weapons infrastructure. What for . Why is that money not being spent on the things that can prepare us for the world we are facing . Why are we not investing more research and development in this country in the development of Artificial Intelligence . The National Institutes of health so we are better prepared to deal with things like a pandemic. It helped us win the cold war. These are the kinds of investments we will have to make. It is Climate Change even as a threat to the climate which it is. The amount of money were spending on that challenge from Climate Mitigation to support for other countries for the development of new technologies that can accelerate our ability to slow global warming, that resource allocation has to shift. So did the personal structure of the u. S. Government, the promotion structure, the experts brought in the last 20 years state the dod and elsewhere, they are focused on terrorism. They are great people and they need to be a part of the answer. There has to be a shift to this other issues that. There comes a fundamental realignment of what the United States ask about National Security and how we build a government to deal with that. I think that is what is required. One of the good things happening we shouldment is recognize its going to take a lot of work to get there. That, we have to also recognize the change in mindset has to take place. One of the things i talk about is a mindset toward government itself. There has been a multidecade itself on the role of government. Government is bad, bureaucrats are bad. We learned and covid, thats who you need. Thats the backstop against all of these threats were going to face. We need to reinvest in the idea of what the government can do for people in this country. And bring more people into serving in government and try to reenergize United States to deal with this new set of challenges that are going to shape our world. At the same time, i think we obviously have to deal with ourselves at home. America is not going to have any credibility in standing to do things in the world we are not seeing if we are not being seen as having our act together. We are not credible and democracy if were going to make it is hard for people to vote. There is a connection with how we get our democracy and order and will do around the world. We are not going to be credible in Climate Change if we dont do something aggressive here at home. Were not going to be credible in the regulation of new technologies and disinformation and Artificial Intelligence if we are doing that at home with Companies Like facebook. Across the board, we have to see that the line between what were doing here and has to go way. These issues are all fundamentally interconnected. Peopleofoundly as young have reminded us the last few are not seen as dealing with our own systemic issues involving race and immigration and how people are treated in this country. We have no moral authority to lead the world. If we are seen as correcting those issues, that gives us a lot of standing to have some authority in the world. All of these things are very much connected. I will end before the to , when i taught at ucla last year i was teaching residential speeches. President ial speeches. We looked at a president a speech that president bush gave. It was very well received at the time. When you read it today, he is calling for nothing less than making americas entire National Purpose a global war on terrorism. He compared terrorists to nazi germany and soviet communism. Reading it now was like reading another language. I understood it, but my students, it was like a document came from another planet. We have to reckon with the fact that we got the response to 9 11 wrong and it is time to move on. The purpose of this country has to be about bigger things than just fighting terrorism. And National Priorities should reflect more the interests of those young people who are the future of this country than we litigated and trying to course correct and do one more search in the middle east to deal with the fact that we got it wrong. It is time to move on. In a strange tragic way, i think this covid moment offers that opportunity if there is a change in presidency bid it goes far beyond the presidency. This has to be embedded in lots of different aspects of american politics, government and society. I look forward to the conversation. Fantastic way to open. At the very end, you talk about the covid moment as being a particular opportunity and obviously the piece itself which i recommend to the viewers, you invert your remarks, you have a anecdote about your daughter at the end of the message comes through. I wanted to get you to expand a little bit on what you think the particular impact of the covid moment is for your argument. In other words, were we already the end of the post9 11 era covid just makes it really clear or did it have a causal impact . Think wes first, i should have been at the end of the 9 11 era about a decade ago. I thought these battles and left the Obama Administration with a lot of stars did with a lot of scars. Covid was already out. The president knew about it. This country came this close to going to war with iraq. That happened in january. It seems like a decade ago. Dont think that thats not a post on 11 more. Post 9 11 war. Getting the Saddam Hussein and thinking that we have to get rid of iranian regime, that to me is a clear indicator. Look at what we talk about with Foreign Policy. Iran, terrorist. We still very much were in the sense that trumps brand of politics is impossible without 9 11. This xenophobic America First mentality is very post9 11. It was very much the case. Probably a favorite to be elected before covid. That has changed. Covid communicated to america the cost of having an incompetent government and an incompetent demagogue as engaged in a not way that can allow you to work with other countries to mitigate this. The other thing i would say quickly is that having looked at the financial crisis, which was aseismic event albeit not big as covid, that transformed Politics Around the world. My basic theory is that that event caused a collapse of confidence around the world particularly in the west and globalization and democracy. All of this nationalism has roots in the financial crisis. It is a backlash to globalization and democracy which people felt had failed. Theres going to be a backlash because of covid. Theicularly because of economic fallout that is going to come from covid. When is that backlash going to hit . A firstnd this is effort in this article by me that i hope everyone will have to think about this, to try to figure that out. Over 35 want to doubt years. What lessons does the world draw from covid and what we do about it . Those are going to be huge issues. Let me focus on two things. Number one is china. Is it your sense that one of the problems with the 9 11 approach you talk about this unyielding focus on terrorism that continued through the Obama Administration to a large degree that it allowed us to take our eye off the real ball which was the fact that china was rising with incredible speed economically, politically, diplomatically, militarily, and now we face a different world and covid might be accelerating that . Is that the single biggest problem with what we did is that now we are not prepared . I am not trying to argue that china is an enemy but it is certainly a competitor or a rival. That we were not sufficiently focused on china as a result. There is no question that is true. When i looked back at the Obama Administration, the things i were thet with us on , the in afghanistan support for the saudi war in yemen. Those are not things that we were faulted for the time. Particularly in the form policy establishment, those were basically status quo policies. It was these other things we were trying to do the principal things that president obama did was to get us out of the middle east so we should focus on asia and china. That was a Strategic Point he was making. The iran deal was very much part of the china strategy which is that we cannot afford to fight a war with these guys. The chinese are catching up and passing us while we are focused country. Tively small it is totally bizarre kid if people look back at this obsession with iran and it makes very little sense that at a time when there was a massive emerging superpower in asia, so much of washington was consumed with this relatively small country. Where the only real issue for our National Security in terms of an existential threat was a nuclear issue. War,nt have to fight that iran can get a nuclear weapon, we will continue to deal with the issues related to the Foreign Policy but china is a much bigger challenge than iran. One anecdote i tell about this is, i remember going to copenhagen for the Climate Change conference develop heart. We get there and the whole conference is in disarray. The reason why is that the europeans were thinking that europe would craft the agreement and americans would come in and we figure out in middle and get everybody on board. The chinese had more in that room than we did. They had the entire block of the rest of the world. I remember flying home with people likeama and to write articles about how china is rising. They already rose. That happened in the first decade of the 21st century. After the financial crisis, they saw we can start flexing our muscles and it is very much the case that while america was focused on the middle east, china was steadily advancing and asserting itself and i dont want to suggest that is all bad. Its natural that a country who was lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is going to want more influence. Where does that influence lead . Turmp trump, the u. S. Left the table. It walked away from it. At everything how they assert themselves in territorial disputes with hong kong, the application of surveillance technology, the construction of this technototalitarian model, putting a million uighurs in prison camps i could go on. They are accelerating their behaviors to take advantage of a moment in america is maximally distract did by the fact that distracted by the fact that Donald Trumps president. It worries me. I could go on about this. But i just point to the fact that it is not if you just look at it as china is the new superpower, they are the enemy, what do we do about that, i think that is the wrong prism, and not just because of the worry that prism could lead to conflict. It is not just china. It is what is underneath these issues. What do i worry about . I worry about the fact that china is basically perfecting this authoritarian model where you use Artificial Intelligence and technology to set up kind of a perfect, hermetically sealed surveillance of your country, and you basically wipe out any possibility for political opposition, any sense of liberty and privacy as i understand it. That is what the people are afraid of in hong kong. That is what they are protesting. They see that coming to them. And i see that exploding beyond chinas borders. That is not just a china issue. That is a technology issue. What privacy constraints can you put on technologies . What is the definition of liberty and democracy in a world where states have access to that kind of technology . Yes, china is the clearest manifestation of what you worry about in terms of the scenarios. But it is a much bigger issue than just china. When you look at territorial disputes in the flashpoints of war in the South China Sea and taiwan, and recently in the himalayas, with india, that shows you the International System has broken down its capacity to resolve territorial disputes, that what worked in europe is frayed and is not working in other parts of the world. I could keep going on. Wont, but the point is that part of this is, yes, china emerged and they are throwing their weight around and they are supplanting our in in africa, in south america, in asia, potentially in europe. But it also means that as they do that, they are going to be the ones answering these questions about how are these technologies used. What is the future of the internet . What is the future of politics . They are not shy about suggesting we have a better model than your democracy everybody should sign onto to this model. I dont want to live in that world, you know . It is not just because of china. I dont like authoritarianism and i dont like a world in which there is no rules except might makes right. We talk about china. Obama, i think to his credit, was really trying to do swimming against the current not just here, but in many ways around the world was trying to put in place new rules. There were standards on labor and the environment in the tpp. There was the Paris Agreement for Climate Change. What are the rules that govern cyber . Sign theot china to first step, and hopefully would have built on that. To me, the china question is inextricably linked to the fact that we are paying attention to the wrong issues. It is not just not paying attention to china. We are not paying enough attention to the issues that china raises. I agree 100 with that and you kind of run into along the way the focus on the middle east, which i think we both share the view that it has been somewhat unrelenting for a. Eriod of time even before 9 11 it does not make sense from an american foreignpolicy perspective. It does not make sense today. Let me ask you about something else. You talk about a sense of new rules or lack of rules, china being emboldened. Im thinking yesterday i got a call from a reporter in a Major Chinese newspaper, asking about trumps claim that he was going to withdraw a large number of troops from germany, and what did that signal, what did that mean, and obviously from the point of view of the japanese newspaper, what did it mean for japan and for american credibility in asia. You do not need to focus on asia necessarily, but number one, i know in the Obama Administration, you did you, the president , and others did at times push our allies to spend more on defense. Do you think that is a legitimate problem . Or to what degree do you think . Do you think it makes sense to bring some trips back . You talked earlier about our overspending on new their weapons, which i completely agree with, but many people today are also i personally agree a little less with this, but are focused on our overseas bases as a wasteful exercise. I hear that rhetoric around even issues around policing, and we should be diverting money from overseas bases to put into social programs to be able to defund pulleys, that kind of logic. Im curious how you see americas footprint abroad. Do you think we need to rethink that in this current era that we are entering . Well, obviously in the middle east we have too big of a footprint. That ithe issue here is is the bases, but also with the bases represent to those countries, right . For japan, for south korea, for germany, these are major allies of the u. S. It is a manifestation of our absolute commitment to their security, broadly defined. Is not just that that is that it would protect them if the russians come in, if the chinese come in. It is also the clearest of the fact that we are on the same team, you know . We are allies. And we pretty much agree with where you are trying to go. We might disagree about some tactics, but the starting point is that we all agree, so therefore lets figure out what we are going to do together about this issue. And because we have that kind of role, the europeans, for a long time, looked to us to set the direction on a lot of geostrategic issues. They went beyond hard security. They went into development. They went into issues of human rights. Wheret into even issues europe was out in front of us on Climate Change. When we come in, we can get a Paris Agreement done. Id like to make the point that what i see in europe is, they dont feel like the united know, cares anymore. That we dont have a fundamental, baseline commitment to their security. We dont have an agreedupon upon set of common interests which is the basis for us doing things together. And that could be very dangerous for us. It is easy to say we should to say they should spend more money on defense. But here is what they are going to do. They are going to make their own deals with china, you know . They prefer that on issues like how are we going to set standards around the internet, i we set standards on the development of 5g, how we set standards on the development of Artificial Intelligence technologies all of this can implicate privacy concerns, the weaponization of Artificial Intelligence. All of these things, i would rather that we set down with europe and figured out what our standards are, and japan and south korea and the others, and then went to china and said, here is what we have figured out a know we will discuss it with you. The chinese way is to get the americans out of it and go bilateral. Germany, lets figure out what the rules are, and we are going to lose in that game. I think people do not fully appreciate that doing things like pulling troops out of germany like that, without consulting with the german government, has all these other ripple effects. It will affect all these other issues. It is not just whether we have troops there. It is whether germany things we are together on all of these issues. So on the basic question like should europe spend a bit more on defense, yes. On the scale of things i worry about, that is way down the list. Regard to her Defense Budget, these bases are not the preponderance of the expenditures. Time we canink over figure out how to reduce our footprint in some places, but we should do this in consultation with our allies, and the last thing i would say about this is the idea that this has been a gift from us to these countries is one of the worst ideas that emanates from the America First movement. We have gotten so much out of the influence that we have because of our relationships with countries like japan and south korea and germany. Like, that is what allowed us to basically write the rules that the world operated under for 75 years. And to think that that was a charity to them when we could count on them we could count on them for not just the military alliance. How much has japan funded our Development Priorities over the years . Every time we had a development priority, japan would step up to the plate more than anybody. Why can they do that . In part because they dont have a huge Defense Budget because we have the bases there. There are all kinds of secondary benefits we get from these relationships that i think people dont see in this country, but they see them in those countries, and that is where they are so offended, frankly, rightly, by how trump has approached this. Kal i agree 100 . We have some any Great Questions from viewers. Im going to go to them. I want to apologize in advance for the many people who post questions that i wont get to. But let me start off with this one. A bit of a long question, but a good one. The question is, is part of the problem and absence of longterm Strategic Thinking . We spent a decade and trillions of dollars expanding the National Security state, reacting to a single terrorist attack. But of course 9 11 was a more focusing event than the multitude of challenges we face now. What is at the root of the problem . Is it the media, a failure of leadership, our Education System, polarization politically . What do you see as the chief driving force . Ben that is a fantastic question. That is the question. Kal you are muted. Ben i should be an muted now, right . That is a fantastic question and the question, and i think about this all the time. Some days i think it is one thing. I will tell you what it is not. It is not the fact that people have not sat down and written a grand strategy. It is not about the Strategic Thinking. It is not about the National Security strategy. It is not about needing to read a telegram. It is about our politics. Ultimately, our National Security is responsive to our politics. Strategy to a grand deal with all of that stuff, it was the politics and media culture in this country that kept pulling us back in. I mentioned isis. Isis, you know, when that became the hyperfocus of this entire country in 2014, it was when the killed americans, tragically. And i am not minimizing the loss of any american life, but what is it about our politics and society that a terrorist organization can kidnap and kill for americans entering this country completely upside down . I remember even early in the Obama Administration, we were in the depths of a financial isis. We have a hundred 50,000 troops in failing wars. There is a Christmas Day bomber who did not even succeed in hurting anybody except himself, letting his underwear on fire. It consumed our media for weeks. This is why am talking about this kind of mindset. You can have the best strategies in the world, but if the politics of this country that Congress Responds to, that media responds to it is hardwired to be afraid of certain things and not others. To quoteg to do my old boss stupid stuff like going to war after war in the middle east area middle east. Kal i dont think you are directly quoting your boss. Im not going to defend that position vociferously, but isnt part of the issue that people fear that if you do not react strongly, you will embolden . So at bottom, there is a deterrence rationale and ability rationale. Overboard,gree we go but its not like being hit by lightning. I would say here is, how Many Americans are killed by gun violence in this country tomorrow clearly, americans can be resilient. To resilient. We can be resilient to tens of thousands of americans getting killed by weapons. We know if we removed those weapons, it would be done. That would not happen. Why is it acceptable that tens of thousands of americans get killed by gun violence in this country, but it is an acceptable if for americans get killed in the middle east to mark if four americans get killed in the middle east . That question, and i dont want to go too long, because there are others, it is all of that. After 9 11, americans were told by their leaders that terrace can make is out. They will get Nuclear Weapons and they will wipe us out. That was the rationale of the iraq or. It is a media that lives to cover a scary story about brown people trying to kill americans, to put it plainly. Terrorism came up, it was like a herd to cover that it why arent we covering Climate Change . We went to paris for the talks around Climate Change, we kept getting this question what is the bigger threat, isis or Climate Change . Which is insane. Of course Climate Change. But that was a controversial thing to say. Think,cation system, i is the least appreciated of those, and i absolutely agree, and i am unfortunately not an expert on this, but something is broken in our Education System that led us here. And all the smarter people at ucla can figure this out, but there is something about how americans the base conditioning of history and the world. And i dont want to come across i willare just not leave it at this. The fact that america has the only country on the world that has Major Political parties that does not believe that Climate Change exists, that denies the reality of science that directly links to the fact that there are americans who refuse to wear masks today. Something is wrong in our Education System when science and facts are not viewed as science and fact so i will stop there. That question is the whole ballgame. Kal right, so ok, next question. How does the issue of insecure Nuclear Facilities which terrorist groups try to infiltrate, such as those in pakistan, factor into the end of the 9 11 your you identify as to mark there is one more sentence. I will read the last part. Could one say that the insecurity of certain weapons of mass destruction and the desire for terrorist organizations to obtain them means a new wave of the 9 11 era to mark in other words, could it come back . Ben it could come back. And i dont want to minimize or suggest there is no threat from terrorism. But what i encounter in government is we did a series of Nuclear Security summits, which is entirely devoted to Nuclear Terrorism, bringing together dozens of countries to do very hard, steady work on how you set better Security Standards at Nuclear Facilities how do you dispose of certain Nuclear Materials . Preventing Nuclear Terrorism is about that it is not about invading and occupying iraq, you know . So it is not that you should not do counterterrorism. It is that the most impactful counterterrorism is like good intelligence work, good Law Enforcement work, cooperative approaches about what Security Standards at Nuclear Facilities should be. Like that is what is so baffling to me about it, is that even if you the things that you need to do to prevent these truly catastrophic terrorist scenarios are not the things that we have been doing. I mean, i would like we have been doing them, but they are not the focal point, which was the wars in iraq and kal it is not exciting to people, unfortunately. But it is not exciting, thousands of american lives have been saved by the counterterrorism structure and the brilliant people who work within it. But the point is, that work can continue without fighting war after war in the middle east. That is my basic proposition. Kal great, ok, next question. Do you believe that the way the u. S. Has handled our Covid Response will affect its previous number one superpower standing relative to the east asia countries that had rapid and strong responses . Obviously, we do not look good. How do you think this will play out geo strategically over time . Ben i think we are no longer seen as the superpower in the world, and i think americans thet fully appreciate extent to which everybody else has already moved on. The kind of took the measure of this. This was already happening because of iraq. We had kind of an artificial hegemony after the cold war that was never going to endure, you know . No country is that powerful for that long. I think iraq really accelerated people saying this is unfeasible. Having america be so powerful they can do something that stupid is not a good approach. You see at that point russia beginning to push back, vladimir putin. You the china again see china beginning to emerge from their show. With trump obama was trying to manage this process of america remaining the kind of number one superpower, but adjusting to a world in which america is not dominant. It was controversial about obamas Foreign Policy in washington. He was acknowledging, we dont dominate the world. To john bolton, that was offensive. Trump, we aref not seen as having unique moral standing, and we are not seen as competent. Five years ago, when ebola happened, we took over the whole response. When i say we, it was not we. Im giving credit to other people who are the experts in the government, but obama stepped in. The w. H. O. Failed. We went in and said, we are taking this whole thing over, but we are working through the w. H. O. , and so we are going to become the captain of the team. We are going to send the u. S. Military to west africa. Theyre going to build logistics hubs. We will divide this up. The u. S. Will take the liberia response. The french will take the response in guinea. The british with take response in sierra leone. We went around the world to everybody and said, send us healthcare workers, send us equipment, give us money. We basically passed the hat around. Obama convened dozens of countries at the went to do that. We surged into west africa. We stamped out the outbreak there. That is what america did five years ago. In this, we did not even try. Absolutely, i think it is good to create a sense that the chinese may have been responsible for this initial outbreak, but, like, they had a more competent way of dealing with it. That is going to be damaging to the rest standing. I think where there is still an opening to the u. S. Is that nobody else can really fill that void. So it is a World Without american leadership, but china is not leading the world. They may be more capable of shutting down whole cities, but they are not leading the whole world, they are just doing this better. I think the opening for the next administration is that there is still a need for someone who can mobilize collective action. I dont think it will ever get back to what we had, but we can still be kind of the first among several in mobilizing collective action. That is what i think we need to do. Kal agreed. I want to turn to something about the biden administration. I resisted raising john bolton, but since you mentioned him, do you want to take 30 seconds to talk about what you think should happen with this book, and what is happening right now in terms of the lawsuit, and whether you appropriates behavior for a president ial administration to clamp on books of this nature . One, anybody should be able to publish the book. We had plenty of people in our administration right critical of us, in and former cabinet secretaries. Both secretaries of defense, gates and panetta, credit new cycles for weeks about they did not like obamas policies. Number two, john bolton, if he cared somuch if he much about the truth, he could have testified in the impeachment inquiry. So what i think should happen i think he should be able to publish his book, and a think every but it should read the newspaper summaries of his book, and they dont have to buy it, because if you really wanted to do that, he couldve delivered it at the impeachment. But as much as i dont care for john boltons views, it is pretty extraordinary that they are just saying that if we dont like this, you cannot publish it. Exhibit 999 of things happening in this country that we usually associate with authoritarianism. Kal next question. The Trump Administration has rescinded many of the Foreign Policy accomplishments of the Obama Administration. How do you think future Foreign Policy initiatives can be insulated on domestic volatility, or is this risk unavoidable . And you might want to opine on what you think biden will do. Ben i think the risk to some extent is unavoidable. Though it is painful to see Foreign Policy unwound, joe biden will come back to the Paris Agreement and i think well probably resume the cuba opening we did. He will probably try to get into Something Like the iran deal. What is interesting as these things never go away. They keep happening. And, you know, the tempting answer is to say you could insulate it giving congressional by legislating these things. But that is not entirely true. Frankly, trump is also pulled out of bunch of treaties that were confirmed by the senate. Basically every armscontrol treaty that the United States senate confirmed, he has pulled. Ut of those too you could make them more durable by having some sort of legislative confirmatory on them, legislative imprimatur. But that only gives a guard rails and makes it harder. Winmately, you just have to debates. I think it is destabilizing and terrible for the u. S. Even if joe biden wins, or other countries really going to trust that if we make an agreement with joe biden, tom cotton could get elected and rip it up. That will be in the back of everyones head. The cuban opening is to get the cubans to trust me that we would follow through on this. It was not an obvious thing for the cubans to open embassies with us when they are still under an embargo. And they got burned. The people i negotiated with suffered. That is a terrible precedent for coming back. Sometimes, the onus is put on people who pursue International Agreements to somehow solve this problem. I think people should not tear of International Agreements. Is a way to not have a Foreign Policy mindset that is predominant in the Republican Party, that rips up International Agreements. That, more than anything, but solve this problem. Kal would solve this problem. Kal you repeated use of the term the rise of china and smacks of yellow peril. Why not collaborate as equals to deal with covid, nuclear war, economic development, etc. . Can we do that . Is that something realistic . Ben first of all, i take real issue with the charge, because the chinese talk about the rise of china. If you look at xi jinping, the chinese dream, if you look at the goals he sets, the coming is pretty measures itself on how it is rising. We are going to become a middle income country and then a wealthy country. So i do want to make very clear that you can talk about the rise all the things you talk about are a problem. I do not want to see yellow peril. But just saying there is a rise of china the chinese talk about that. Kal let alone most of asia. To talkhave to be able frankly about it. But you are right. Is if you lookth at Stephen Bannon or the language trump uses, yes, it is driving in this direction of racism and demagoguery. Hink the basic point is look, i think it would be a mistake to sugarcoat. I am a liberal. Have e people should i do not like the fact that there are people with Civil Liberties in hong kong today and the Chinese Government wants to take those away, you know to mark that is, i think, an area where america should stand up and say we disagree with this. Im not saying we should go to war with it, but we should have that debate. By the way, read Chinese Media about the u. S. It is not pleasant, right . Lets have that debate. But to your point, lets cooperate where we can. We have to have a mature enough relationship here, one where this does not have to become a cold war. I want to have a vigorous debate about the political models of the Chinese Government. I want to try to put in place multilateral frameworks for how you resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea. I could go on. But i want to work with the chinese on Climate Change. In africa, lets Work Together on development and Investment Strategies that can benefit countries. Space, you need to have even if you are having very tense disagreements over here, that you still have some areas are you are working together. The pandemic is a classic example of that. I would like for us to have the kind of relationship where we could be in fights with the chinese about trade, technology, but when a pandemic happens, lets Work Together. If the u. S. And china were working together from the get go of this pandemic, it wouldve been a lot better. A lot less people would die. Minimizeont want to some of the dangers i see of the Chinese Communist partys approach in their country and around the world, i also dont want to suggest that that has to take over american Foreign Policy or even americas relationship with trina. It should be big enough that we can cooperate on some things while being competitive or even confrontational on others. Kal i think that is a great place to end. Are very closely intertwined, but it is one of these things where you can occasionally see aoc and tom cotton signing onto the same basic position around china, which you see really nowhere else. Kind of a unique political issue at the moment. Where at the end of our our. Thank you so much for coming on. Thank you, everyone, for tuning in. And this will be available on youtube and i believe monday night on the communicators, in cta president and ceo michael powell. Mistake ofd make the thinking because something is important, we are little too facile in assuming those are the same thing. I dont think its a luxury, i think it is an essential Service Route does for most americans. Watch monday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. House energy, the committee will hear from White House CoronavirusTask Force Member dr. Anthony ouchi on the federal response to the pandemic. Watch live Tuesday Morning at 11 00 eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Joe biden called on President Trump and congress to continue supporting businesses and workers affected by the coronavirus and to keep expanding access to testing and Contact Tracing as businesses reopen