It is special to be here today. I am honored you asked me to inaugurate this center for freedom and democracy. I was reminded of this quote from emerson, an institution is lengthened by the shadow of one man. There is no man who did more than reagan to a store to confidence inas the postworld war ii era. Event atno better continuing that work i launching this institution 40 years after we sent our 40th president to the white house. People watching online and those in this room are students of president reagan. As a kid growing up in california come i got to see him in action as governor. It was a very different california then. [laughter] but, it was Ronald Reagan as governor who believed in the promise of america. He understood that no other nation under god was conceived in liberty quite like the way we are. His deep innate understanding of americas exceptional place in the world gave him the strength to face down the soviet scourge. He was confident in every threat he faced. I must say, i am too. We have threats that remain, but i am equally confident america will overcome any challenge from commonest china to the terrorist regime in terror on to her on we win, they lose. Execute our Foreign Policy confident we are the shining city on the hill. That is what i want to talk about today. I know you all believe in the promise of americas freedom. President trump believes in it, i do too. Story is not about dehumanizing critical theories. It is not about oppressors and oppressed. It is not about materialism, or that might makes right. It is about the reality that all men and women are made in the image of god with certain inherent godgiven rights just by virtue of our humanity. Truths in the declaration are indeed selfevident. Never before in all of recorded history was a nation founded on the presence that government was made to secure those rights. That is what makes us so good. That is when i get to see every day as i work with my team and travel around the world. It is what always made our life so attractive to those seeking a better world. Do not see individual families try to migrate to iraq or russia. Note countries offer abuse, opportunity that free nations can afford peoples. I have talked about american exceptionalism. I did it in cairo and jakarta. Every opportunity ive had in public life. Sometimes it was met with a resounding thud. When president reagan talked about americas promise, he did it the same way every chance he got. He reminded the audience what kind of people they were. Free people. Worthy of freedom. Determined to not only remain so, but help others gain their freedom as well. President reagan put his belief in freedom and the american promise at the very center of how he thought about Foreign Policy. So has to Trump Administration. It was halfdozen years after his president reagan returned to [indiscernible] he said his foreignpolicy had been one of strength and candor. Those principles have guided president trumps Foreign Policy too. Look at what we have done so far. The middle east, [indiscernible] the efforts to deny tens of billions of dollars. American [indiscernible] by candidly recognizing jerusalem as the capital of israel and the goal on heights, we helped secure the jewish state as central to the regions future. Towne chagrin of some in we tied new with the abraham accords. We are not finished yet. Those pillars of strength and candor are also the foundation for americas number one threat to freedom, the chinese party. This atpoken about great length and have borrowed from president reagan tigre frequency as to how we think about this challenge. Plus, we steered a course correction. We changed. We we ignored the evidence that showed the regime in beijing is ,uthoritarian, brutish antithetical to Human Dignity and freedom. Have said clearly that the United States will not be dictated by exceptions carved out by the party. [indiscernible] the things we have told our counterparts in china, accountability, reciprocity from vision, this is exactly what president reagan in moscow. [indiscernible] no more stealing intellectual property. No more ignoring for the metal human rights violations. Will not beof tolerated. Onlychallenge requires not diplomatic action, but military strength to keep the peace. This administration has made historic investments to enhance our forces and bolster our privacy in the region. [microphone feedback] [indiscernible] i reminded them that we will prevail. The good news is the free world and sovereign nations are now rallying to the cause. I often hear, we do not want to the fight is between authoritarianism on one side and freedom on the other. Have begun to strengthen the titutions from [microphone feedback] we have woken them up to this marxist monster. Precisely the traits president reagan spoke of. Urgency of this matter is excepted across the political spectrum and shows the Trump Administration succeeded in National Security and for the freedoms of all humanity. It is an accomplishment that will steer a generation of american Foreign Policy makers. Also confident in our nations purpose. Sure of our values and determined to protect our way of life because we believe so deeply in americas promise. Just like reagan, we have every reason to be optimistic. Remindererves as a that freedom is the superior alternative to tyranny. If our policies are not grounded in the knowledge [indiscernible] exceptionald an nation, our future promise is special. [microphone feedback] [indiscernible] stronger,l emerge more confident and face the china challenge. President reagan knew that. Engagement makes us weak. Tehran take advantage of weakness. Multilateral institutions that seek to erode american sovereignty. [indiscernible] we cant sustain an empty dialogue with regimes with no exceptions diligently to build. Offers usn incredible lessons. 1952, the Ronald Reagan head actor went to the middle of america, not far from kansas. He had delivered his iron curtain speech a few years earlier. From there he said, america is an idea that since man started his [indiscernible] the inherent level of freedom, like millie left millions to tear down the berlin wall years ago. The iron curtain felt too. We have seen these across the world to read received the people of hong kong waiting the american flag. We see the people of venezuela, tired of nicolas maduros destructive regime. Iranians and belarus this human condition. [indiscernible] debate ntinue continue to debate how to approach the china challenge. North, we what to which we must always return a more Perfect Union must remain. This special place, the reagan would like to be part of that. Today, youre reaffirming americas belief in the great things at the heart of an amazing nation. I am glad you are focusing your work on that. We are early on in this presidency. We look forward at what he says is true. Forwardlooking and optimistic. Reagan you those principles were right. Knew those principles were right. It is an honor to be here as we are getting started. To taking some questions today. God bless the United States of america. Thank you all. [applause] thank you, mr. Secretary. Ou clearly are capable we will take a few questions. That was a remarkable set of remarks, and inspiring, the way you integrated resident reagans legacy with the work you have done as secretary of state. Lets start with china and the Chinese Communist party, that was a big piece of your speech. You referenced president reagans speech in missouri. Many people look at churchills speech as the beginning of the cold war. Administration, in your time in this administration, did you witness a moment where you had that iron curtain moment . There only reference was really going back to the cold war. If you go back and look at the president s remarks in his campaign, he had identified a number of the challenges connected to the Chinese Communist party and its behavior. Early on, we developed the National Security strategy. The you get a chance to have a glimpse inside the apparatus and its intense . Which is critical. The combination of capacity and intent on behalf of the current leader of the chinese come in his party became very clear. That this was the central challenge this administration would face. Americave the challenge will face in the years ahead. We put together all the institutions, the state department, we have reshipped at how we think about the world. Ambassadors have china at the top of their list. I articulated some remarks i gave at the next in library. Took we for the first time a completely down of the scope of the challenge presented and have a jump in ministration has laid out its response both in world response. Just as reagan needed other partners in the fight against the soviet union, this will take a global response, as well. A little bitown more on china, the famous image of president reagan in front of. He berlin wall when you think about china, you ,hink about the great firewall what china is doing in the digital age. Wrestling how we manage the competition with china. Some would suggest that we world keep the free outside of it. Thee we should take down great firewall and aspire for that in the same fashion that we wanted the berlin wall to come down. In the end, the people of china will ultimately determine the course of history inside of that country. It is our fundamental effort to work to make sure the Chinese People have access to information, data, all the things they will need to see so they can also share in these very freedoms we care so much about. The analogy of the cold war is not perfect. Make no mistake about it, there is an innate desire for freedom, for Human Dignity. As reagan said, something that rests in the soul of each of us. Separating the people from the Party Obviously a big emphasis of your remarks. We recently had the opportunity to have a conversation with a famous dissident in the soviet union, which really impacted the Reagan Administration from beginning to end. The concept of lincoln, how president reagan , nohis secretary of state matter how the conversation was with other leaders around the world, human rights, people seeking freedom always begin the conversation. It was always top of the list. Tell me about the importance as explained by president reagan. Do we need to do more of it . How do we continue advancing that . It is a complicated topic. We put two things in the state department. Is a commission on alienable rights. It was an attempt to regret american foreignpolicy and understandings about Human Dignity. I think the commission did a phenomenal job of going back to our declaration of independence and counting for these prepolitical rights that were provided by god, not government. It refocused our efforts in the state department. Policies, but principles. We spend a lot of time working on religious freedom issues. The capacity to exercise one s conscience. , it ister where we go the case. No matter what country we are dealing with. Everyplace that human freedom wants to flourish, the Chinese Communist party is resisting it. China, we raise these issues, in part because the president had it right to link certain matters. Obligation to do this on behalf of the american people. , you your remarks reference international they haveons and how often eroded our sovereignty. The often talk about strength, candor, the need to have a foreignpolicy that advances and speaks that way. These same time,. Rganizations are necessary wither the iran, dealing security council, dealing with covid. And the need to engage. As our your take diplomat in chief, how you come to think and appreciate the role of international organizations. Youre right. I appreciated and not appreciated. And notciate it appreciate it. Seven years on, 100 years on, is it still functional . Does the institutional structure permit us to get to the place we were intending . If it is broken beyond repair, i give you the Human Rights Council of the u. N. Itr is broken be a repaire, i dont want to be connected to that, i dont want to fix it. Theres other things you try to fix. Through three, maybe four efforts at reforming the world health organization. Significant efforts. American led efforts. Epic failures. Thathe president concluded we are to build an infrastructure that would actually deliver the very outcome the who is designed to deliver. Doesnt stick, does it work does it stick, does it work . Called an organization the world inaugural property organization. This matters a lot to americas wealth and jobs. It was run by someone, controlled by the Chinese Communist party. The state department built out a team. The world intellectual property organization. It turns out it was a close call. It was a hot, intensive race. What we said, this is an institution of matters. If we dont think we can get this institution to function, lets measure we have the right structure in place to do that, so we did. Bout a coalition in 50 countries. We built a coalition of 50 countries. I remember my first trip abroad. They were giving up on huawei. Day, was a report the next pompei of those himself against the wall and bounces. But it is good thought, candor, data. These international infrastructures matter. We should use it for the good of the world. But we never should permit ourselves to be in a situation where the organization no longer has any possibility of delivering a good outcome. That is infrastructure, the models, the approach, see if it is working for you. The organizations that came out of president reagan, all those umbrella organizations, those are nearly 40 years old. We have people here that have led some of those organizations. The world has changed dramatically since then. How do we update and modernize . Pick your favorite word on how we as a country promote freedom and democracy around the world. I think a lot of these institutions need a makeover. We all know voice of america. We all know these institutions that deliver in powerful ways across the world. Im not convinced we have it right yet. Theres an awful lot left to do. We need to make sure we empower them with the right leaders and tools to deliver on those objectives. I would be remiss without ammenting how you will be foot soldier. Please join me in thanking the secretary of state for joining us and launching our center for human democracy. [applause] thank you so much to secretary pompeo for the wonderful remarks. And for that insightful conversation. My name is rachel hoff. I serve as policy director here at the Ronald Reagan institute. My honor to join you today, those in this room and joining us virtually online as well, to watch the new was policy center here at the institute, the center for freedom and democracy. Ofwe turn to the second half todays event, we are going to focus on the policy work the center will advance. As we start that, i would like to go back to a quote that roger shared in his opening remarks. You wont be surprised to hear it from the westminster address. President reagan said, we must be staunch in our convictions not of thems are lucky few, but in any label right of all human beings. Convictionjust president reagan demanded of us. It was action. Hise have heard today, with westminster address that inspired the creation of our infrastructure to proactively support democracy around the world, and architecture as we heard that we have relied on for nearly four decades. As we approach the 40th anniversary of that speech in a few years, the Reagan Institute launched the westminster 2. 0 working group. The working groups goal is to take on this challenge that roger and pompeo were discussing of modernizing efforts to theote democracy and strategy and toolkit for advancing freedoms in todays world. The need for this work could not be more clear. Secretary pompeo told us about our adversaries. Their authoritarian, brutish. Are authoritarian, brutish. They are antithetical to human freedom. They undermine democracy beyond their borders. When he technology in order to restrict freedom. The job of the center for freedom and democracy in this working group is to answer the question of how we should leverage new tools to advance freedom. What should be the westminster approach of the 21st century . How should we organize our government, Civil Society institutions, and our alliances to execute that approach . In this work, we are honored to be led by two esteemed coaches, they have joined us here today. On the working group, there are current andmbers, former public officials, technology experts, freedom and democracy advocates, leaders from the business community, who will spend the next two years digging into this conversation and after receiving briefings and a liberating and deliberating reports, findings and recommendations for how to do just that. We will preview those conversations today with a conversation with americas work to promote democracy abroad. He is a thicket of director of the mccain institute. He served previously as a u. S. Congressman of wisconsin. Ambassador to tanzania. Can wallick. \ oferves on the board the advisory council. He cochairs the commission on president ial debates. Please join me now and join me in welcoming them. [applause] i thought it would be useful to start today by picking up on where pompeo left off. He spoke about the westminster speech at the end of his remarks and described that while it was rooted in our nations founding principles, it was also forwardlooking and optimistic. Share what us your own reflections on the speech and its enduring legacy. Beforemember a few years i joined this enterprise, but what was most surprising to people was not only visionary, but it institutionalized democracy. The atlantic charter, the marshall plan, the preamble to the foreign assistance act. President carters human rights policies. Legislation was introduced years the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee in florida. Don fraser from minnesota. But none of those efforts really crossed the finish line in the sense of institutionalizing the infrastructure of democracy that president reagan talked about. That was why it was such a historic event and a historic speech. At the time, who became the godfather of National Endowment for democracy on capitol hill, thought it would something everybody could support. Republicans and democrats all coming together to support the principles that were outlined. Little did he know it was something for everyone to dislike, as well. If they can agree on such and in, you have to be suspicious. What was the motive . The motive is these were institutions that were looking to feed off the government trust. It crossed party lines. And philosophical lines. It was not going to challenge authoritarian regimes on the right. And there were those on the right who felt that are larger struggle against soviet communism should be the priority. And feared that the downfall of leadds on the right would by communist insurgency. I would just conclude by saying what was ironic about all of this. It was the snap elections in the civil opinions of 1986. It changed the entire debate over this enterprise. Those on the right saw there was a Democratic Alternative to pinochet in chile. Had an fact, they symbiotic relationship between the forces of the communist insurgency in the regimesm they needed each other and the regimes, they needed each other. As then opportunity, secretary talked about and president reagan talked about, there was a large section of society that wanted certain functioning Democratic Institutions and a political voice. Was suddenly saw there was this alternative. On the left, we saw there was a challenge supported by the institutes of the authoritarian regimes on the right. It changed the entire debate in the congress. And so, as they go back to looking i reread this last night. It is as relevant today as it was back then. It led not only to the institution of democracy promotion in the u. S. , but i think it led to the notion of democracy promotion by other intergovernmental organizations, networks of Civil Society organizations that had a profound effect on the sort of International Democracy architecture that is still in existence today. It is interesting, that speech, like some of the greatest speeches we all hearken , was appreciated by the time was appreciated at the time. If you go back and actually read the press accounts of the iron curtain speech, it was not appreciated. In fact, it was dismissed. The same thing with this speech. It resonated in some places here in washington, but i dont think received its due. For me, it was several years later. I was a young teacher in kenya. Just north of the equator. Infamouslly saw the cueing collections in kenya. Where they held up photographs of candidates and you simply lined up behind the portal graph of the candidate the photograph of your candidate and they would cap the number of people in each line. I remember chuckling to myself, my wife and i were talking about what we had seen. But at least we were counting heads and not breaking them, they said. It startled me, because it put things in a context. I read the reagan speech, and instantly, i thought, this is it. This is what america stands for. This is what i believe in. It really was something to which i can for myself. For a lot of americans interested in going into Public Service and trying to make a difference, this was a vision you could embrace, because it once held up Human Dignity and at the same time talked about a global effort. It was not fully appreciated at the time. It was also interesting, the relevance of the speech is just as great today. What i find fascinating is going back and looking at the historical context. We are all talking about the challenges we see in the world, the economic challenges, the challenges of covid, look back at westminster. Re was a lot of talk about the soviet models success. Not exactly the best time to make a speech like that. But it was boldness, completely blowing away all the assumptions that so many people had. That is what made it startling than and that is why i think the speech is so important today. This is the time, given the challenges we see in the world, then rise of authoritarianism, this is persuasive the right time to step back and reaffirm those principles that unite us. I think it is a fantastic time for this project. Delighted to be part of it. As you think about your work and the organizations that emerged from the inspiration of , etc. ,tminster speech most recent role. What did you identify as kind of a threat of successful effort on behalf of Civil Society . What is working . A number of things are working. One thing i will point to that i think is doing particularly well these days is the relationship and the symbolic importance of the institutes working together in those places around the world. They are nonpartisan organizations. But symbolically, they were set the aspects of american political life. What i think is remarkable is to settings. Pact and when we go together, it is a projection of consensus and the fundamental importance of freedom and democracy and human liberty that i think is particularly important right now and resonates in many places, where sometimes people see partisanship in the u. S. And elsewhere. That i think is having a real impact. Think there were two parts of this that if we had been successful over the last 40 years, the first has to be joining something larger than ourselves. Democracy promotion has been portrayed inaccurately, wrongly. As sort of the u. S. Export product. It is not. From the very beginning, we saw this as being part of an International Solidarity network, with other democrats of democrats around the world. It was not a country seeking, asking them to cede something to the u. S. , but rather having those democratic partners on the ground become part of something larger. Part of a support network internationally. Also, we dont have all the expertise and experiences of going through a transition. Its been 250 years. Other countries have a more relevant experience and expertise. Filipinosit was the who want to chile to share their expertise. Whor it was the chileans shared their experience on Coalition Building with 16 Political Parties are in the world. Building this network of people who could share those experiences i think was so important. The second has to do with relationships. David brooks wrote an interesting column in the New York Times a number of years ago. I do have a family about a hadly that disaffected youth around. They asked the youth leader what programs are most successful. A said, ive never seen program that has been effective. Its relationships that have been effective. Overseas, it is not organizational framework. It is not programs themselves. It is the people who have been engaged in this and the relationships of trust and partnerships that are developed. Programs are only effective when those relationships are built and sustained in these countries. When programs fail, its because those relationships fail. In talking about the International Solidarity in recognizing this is the universal aspiration, not merely an american project or policy, it is interesting when you look back at the westminster speech. It was as though reagan were anticipating those arguments today. My favorite line from the speech is where he says, goes after , cant work in various settings, cat work in latin america and he says, that is cultural condescension, or worse. It is as he were anticipating the arguments we sometimes get pushback on, particularly in authoritarian settings. He anticipated it. We should take that and hold it up. Ndihe founding chair of talked about this notion of imposing democracy, which she called an oxymoron. Democracy is about choice. Not about imposition. Overcoming this stereotypical view of what democracy promotion is. Americans going overseas and standing in front of a classroom, telling them to adopt this structure or support this principle. But it is something much more complex and profound than this. The strength of the Movement Comes from students in hong kong. It comes from women in belarus. It comes from the ladies in white in cuba. That is the power of this. What we can do is stand with them and help to provide tools and assistance and support. But make no mistake, if it does not start overseas, it fails. It cannot possibly succeed. When it starts overseas, theres no stopping it. That is what scared the authoritarians. When they do their crackdowns, that is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of weakness. They are afraid of their own people. Often times, when those same regimes go after organizations like ndi, we become the canary in the coal mine. We assume they are trying to go after local groups, but they are too trying to d delink these groups. You want to deny to their own citizens. Lets talk more about those places where freedom is on the march. You mentioned belarusian hong kong. Where do you see these movements, regardless of the u. S. Role we have been talking about . Where do you see freedom on the march . Where are the people making change . And maybe further, how can we we,icate, not necessarily but how can the free world Work Together to try to replicate some of those examples . About there talking history since once mr. , there are a number of democracies around the world. Reagans vision had a remarkable effect. That framework. There are Extraordinary Stores all around the world. Place of what mongolia. Mongolia only has two countries on their border. China and russia. Its a tough neighborhood. Yet they spontaneously chose democracy. The framework of assistance back here provided some tools, provided some support, but it sawe from mongolians who painfully the cause of authoritarianism and also saw what they wanted. But places like liberia and the iron ladys of liberia, who overthrew the warlords, i look at the strength of people like juan guaido in venezuela. To me, the march for freedom is represented best by those who refuse to be pushed back by the authoritarian crackdowns. I look at the Student Movement and the strength of Roman Catholic priests in places like nicaragua. Their refusal to back down and be cowed by the regime. For the ladies in white Everything Else on the march peacefully on behalf of their fathers and relatives who are occupying prisons in havana. There are plenty of examples we can all point to. Thaterybody knows elections are not equal democracy. It is obvious. Nobody makes that argument. But you do find that in many of place,olutions that take many of them surround elections that are not only fraud, but fraudulent. People stand up for their rights, if you look for the socalled Color Revolution from serbia, to georgia, to ukraine, to kyrgyzstan, they all followed seriously flawed elections in which the regimes use elections to legitimize themselves, but they are stagemanaged. Ofot of times, it is a way it is the way institutions and government three people. Treat people. Security forces are involved, media are involved. It is a way of taking a snapshot of what is going on in the country. Around elections and around protest movements, there have of theny studies protesters are motivated not necessarily by economic hopederations, they there are economic consequences, but its about dignity, it is about democracy. It is about corruption, honesty in government. It is about political issues. Issues that the motivate people. Animate people to have a political voice. But we cant ignore the challenge about sustaining democracy. The late former foreign minister of poland once said democracy is not necessarily going from triumph the tramp. Perhaps we were a little nauv going from triumph to triumph. Perhaps we were a little naive. Democraciesis new do not deliver on the promise of democracy but one of two things happen, either people go to the streets, which is not the way public polish Public Policy issues should be solved. I think one of the great challenges of this century will become a how to democratic how do you protect democratic we have hard power, soft power, sharp power, which is the effort by authoritarians tapirs pierce thecal to political process, to undermine it, we can it, delegitimize it. This is simply in many cases not a linear journey forward. It is also under attack. We see a free press under attack. We see all those different institutions that we all recognize as being part of the core of the Democratic Society with a hostile force. That is part of the challenge. In the long run. Because the power that we believe in lies with people. Because the people will eventually prevail. But as ken pointed, this is not a linear progression. It is a series of challenges. I think the worst thing we can do and we are guilty of making the mistake of over and over again is we get to a successful election and say, see you later, then we pull out to whirly to o early when democracy is fragile. And we wonder why it didnt survive, or we wonder why it was taken. Its because we got carried away and the band of these countries right as the machinery of democracy, which has to deliver and be responsive to peoples needs, right around that time, the machinerys under threat, we tend to walk away. It is a terrible mistake. One that we have made numerous times, republican and democratic administrations. It is a mistake. If you look at soviet propaganda, it used to be in the 1970s and 1980s that our tractor is better than your tractor. It was never particularly effective, because nobody believed it. The propaganda today and the Disinformation Campaign is quite different. If you think we are corrupt, look at your own system. It tends to resonate in some of these populations, because they are skeptical about their own governments performance. They view government as being corrupt come out of touch. Therefore, those types of relatively inexpensive Disinformation Campaigns could have a huge impact. Whereas the old soviet propaganda campaigns were effective. That leads into this concept of the westminster 2. 0 working group. About theization makeover. As you look at these new Disinformation Campaigns and face the competitors, as we think about the role corruption , technologiestion play in these conversations, what would it really mean to reimagine a westminster approach for the 21st century . I dont want to prejudge the working groups. I think weve got experienced, thoughtful individuals engaged in those working groups. I look forward to what they put together. But there are so many new tools that we have that i think we have not quite figured out how to fully harness. Kenya in thein 80s, there was but one telephone in the village. It was literally one telephone in a box. The young man who was my night watchman now calls me every week. The connectivity around the world was extraordinary. It can be challenged, because authoritarians know how to abuse it. On the other hand, tools of transparency and tools of connectivity. That are opportunities lincoln could not have imagined. Usef we understand how to this is frugal technology, not cuttingedge technology, this is actually frugal, Old Technology we are applying to the challenge. I think the promise is enormous. I think a big difference today and what existed 40 years ago and president reagan referred to this in his speech, there was no International Architecture on democracy. He made reference to the german party foundation, they were basically the only entities in the world engaged in this effort. They played an Important Role in spain, portugal, and helping to steer those democratic transitions. Today, that has changed. President reagan deserves a good deal of credit for helping to lay the foundation for that. Governmentaltergu organizations organized are on the principle of nonintervention. That are engaged in democracy promotion. There are networks of Civil Society organizations and Political Parties in parliaments and governments engaged in this work. They dont always work effectively. But they exist. Nowlexicon of democracy plays an Important Role in bilateral relations and international dialogues. And the question is, how do you harness the . Harness that . How does the u. S. Play a leadership role with this architecture that did not exist. It has the capability. I think when we confront the iran, russia, others, we dont want to go into countries and say you have to choose between them and us. That is not the approach. Because then people get the sense, in terms of partnerships, that we want them to join us in order to serve our interests. No one wants to be seen as serving a National Security doctrine of the United States. But we have to join with others to convey that notion that they are enjoying a community, the chinese dont have such community, the russians dont have such a community. And itsed States Friends and allies around the world do have a community. And how to strengthen the community and then apply that strength, use that strength in various countries, and confront what has become transnational issues, whether it is corruption , migration, climate change, other issues. Those have to be addressed collectively. They cannot simply be addressed by the u. S. How to deal with that International Architecture i think is a huge challenge and something extremely important in this field. Of ndiercentage of d staff are not american . In the eye staff ndi staff has 100 nationalities and the staff. A yemeni ran our program in afghanistan. Institute areur not necessarily an american face. I think that has an important impact. Yet the relationships with the parties are important. I have always said this. Because it provides some standing, some reputation. Where part of an International Club of parties around the world. There are 350 parties that belong to this club. So we can go into a country, work at the grassroots, than the next day, meet with the president or Prime Minister on they keepes, because us as arms of americans into shoes. It provides an important calling card and establishes important relations. It is a multinational effort. That is what i think gives the endowment and other organizations, as well as well, a great deal of strength and credibility. One of the most important principles in the work that we do is we make it clear, not every democracy is the same. That every democracy needs to look like ours. We have to understand the cultural context. It has to be there democracy. Which we can support, we can offer lessons. We are most successful when we are open and honest about our own shortfalls in mistakes. But when you have that kind of relationship, you can in fact foster democracy, citizen responsiveness, human liberty, Human Dignity. It does not need to look like ours. Delighted it, i am does not look like ours. But it is a way of advancing the broader cause that was at the heart of westminster. Lets talk a little bit about our democracy. We have talked about democracy around the world. You know, even before the elections, of course, this year deep societal divisions over fundamental issues, like human rights, the rule of law. And now, we are seeing in many ways a stress test of our very democratic system, the itution that protected talk about how that process that we are going through here in impactsur ability to our ability to promote the advancement of freedom around the world. When i served overseas as a mbassador, one of the things i said to my tanzanian partners is, im not saying we have all the answers, but maybe we have made all the mistakes, and you dont need to make the same mistakes that we have. They actually loved it, because it made us real to them. It made us human to them. So talking about the lessons that we have learned, in some cases, the hardware, is a particularly compelling story and message in advancing democracy. I think we are in a turbulent time at the moment. This will be resolved. I think it will be resolved in a way that we can all point to and say, look at the end of the day. Democracy prevailed. Thathe institutions enforce democracy prevailed. Its a great question. It is accommodated answer. First of all, there is a number of countries who will say, we aspire to have the democracy you are having in your country. Those places, the challenges we have here, and they are real challenges, in our political system and discourse, when youre working in northern syria, trying to work with Community Groups that can work intern with many elected Administrative Councils in northern syria, administered of deliver onn try to priorities and then if i buy the citizens in their community. It is really grassroots democracy you hope can take hold once there is some type of peace and stability in syria. They look at that and say, you are having problems with redistricting in the u. S. They can very easily compartmentalize. As mark said, it is one of the. Essages of democracy democracy eventually does the right thing, but after exhausting all the alternatives. Its true. It is a messy system. But ultimately, it is the most stable of systems. And i think that people overseas understand that. I think when there are problems here, when there are certain weaknesses of our system, and those weaknesses somehow are amplified because of who we are, tohink it gives us time autocrat leaders overseas, who want to irrigate power to themselves. Saying, you cant stand up to these principles, look what is happening in your country. In that community, among authoritarians point now have relationships with each other, theres a part of the authoritarian learning that these autocrats have a community now in the communicate. The laws that are passed in russia one day might find themselves appearing in an african country three weeks later. These are ruled by law, not rule of law societies. I think in that community, of autocratic leaders, it does undermine this effort, weakens this effort overseas. Also, i think it is important for us to remind ourselves that, yes, we are seeing partisanship right now and we are seeing some bickering, if you will. But that is because we have a free press. It actually gets covered. In many places around the world, such stories never make it to the newspaper. The first time a journalist reports on it is the first time and last time a journalist reports, period. In most places we were, they look at the freewheeling discussion, what they see in the strength. The the actually like that. They like the ability to debate and discuss and work things through. Especially as this gets resolved, they will look at this as one where they say, we would like to have the problems that you have. Democracy is messy. We will never argue otherwise. We are very open. It is messy. But at the end of the day, it is the only way that a government can reconstitute itself and realign itself according to the aspirations and the needs of their people. Democracy is accountability. Democracy is transparency. Democracy is finding a way to one brace the will of the people. That is something we should not apologize for. We should talk about it openly. Ultimately, it is a source of strength, not a source of weakness. One final question. Here in america, what would be your response to a skeptic, a fellow american, who says, we have our own problems here at home, why should we do this work elsewhere . Its not the first time you have been asked that question, im sure. When my daughter was in the fourth grade, she want to lafayette elementary school. She asked if i could come in and speak to the class. I spoke to the class about the work of democracy support around the world and took a vote after my remarks, whether the u. S. Should be doing this. Half the class said yes and half the class said no. It sort of flu affected its sort of a frick di its sort of reflect its sort of reflected the debate in congress at the time. Was. All knew who lafayette. Went over one vote i think there is a growing recognition in the United States that what happens in syria does not stay in syria. That what happens for good or for bad overseas impacts everybody. Look at the countries around the world, that are hotspots, that harbor terrorists, that of the source of refugees across the borders, that produce drugs, these are all with the Defense Department would call the arc of instability. Most of these places are nondemocratic. Placesappens in these what happens in these places, as we have seen with coronavirus, affects us. We have not only responsibility, but an interest for a more stable, prosperous democratic world. That ultimately provides better security for the u. S. And everybody. And i think there is a growing understanding even among poor even among foreignpolicy realists. I think the world has changed. I think there is an understanding that democracy is nd of humane e development, but the best means of achieving that. We should do this because it is the right thing to do, but that is not how i sell it. Iselle democracy assistance, because it is in our interest. It promotes american interest. We know citizen centered, citizen responsive governments are our trading partners, they are better security partners, they are less likely to produce weapons of mass destruction, less likely to begin movements that destabilize the world. Ken makes a very good point. They are less likely to hide the emergence of a virus. If you take a look at the story of what happened in wuhan, you actually had local officials detecting and saying, we have a problem here, but immediately, upy looked at their bosses the authoritarian chain and they said, it im not going to tell them, are you going to tell them . That is what happens in authoritarian societies. It is in our interest to follow democracy foster democracy, foster transparency, not everywhere has to look like us. But the more that you can create that transparency and foster , responding to the needs and desires of our people, that is in our interest as well as theirs. Thank you very much for joining us today, thank you for taking on leadership with us in the westminster 2. 0 working group. Thank you for joining us. Stay tuned for more of our work. Thank you. You are watching cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Americas public Cable Companies and brought to you today as a service. We will take you live to wilmington, delaware, to hear from president elect joe biden. Continuing that is coming up again in just a couple of minutes, live on cspan. I look at the transition to a Biden Administration in january. N