Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Global Leadership 20171212

Good morning. Thanks for your patience director of the Strategy Group yen to welcome to this session on american in goal leadership first i want to take they thank you for giving us this base with our members of our Strategy Group let me tell you about our program this morning the Strategy Group is 35 years old with the notion that even in washington there could be an organization that is nonpartisan we have been resolutely nonpartisan over 35 years the founders meet annually in aspen in colorado to discuss and debate big ideas of americas Foreign Policy and our Global Leadership in each year we prepare a book for publication and this years book is available today that we are discussing today maintaining American Leadership. We will discuss the book this morning and with that global trade position about the impact of technology on the Global Military leadership continuing with a conversation i will moderate between former secretary of defense bill and Madeleine Albright about these issues to culminate in a panel chaired by the Washington Post to former National Security advisor so we have a full morning. This summer we took on in our conversation the major question that republicans and democrats have about our future will the United States maintain its leadership in the decades ahead . In his populist movements in poland and hungary and that democratic direction of the alternative for deutschland in germany some of these antidemocratic parties financed by the kremlin from the inside it is one day factor we are planting contending with like china and russia following the speech to the Party Conference in october clearly challenged the United States for leadership in Asia Pacific Region and pushing about violating the sovereignty of five other countries challenging japanese sovereignty in the East China Sea running red shot with extravagant legal claims and those that can manage this folderol democratic countries and in europe that Vladimir Putin with Eastern Ukraine over the last nine years los Intelligence Community said the of Vladimir Putin interfered with these elections there is no question the russian government cuts down to size to limit our power in the world that is the second factor because that technological edge that we have had is narrowed. Not just like powers like china but also the fact like north korea now have the ability to penetrate deep into the heart into the database of the United States government. This is also from within a major debate reflected in our conversation this summer President Trump came to office with the american first point of view and he believes with five members of the Trump Administration with us at our conference this summer were happy to have the National Security adviser and they talked about the need for retrenchment and stronger defense and to have more allies on the other side of you have critics who say President Trump is to ambivalent. He is the pending 60 years of american policy on trade on the immigration and refugee issues are hurting the of credibility on the crackdown of refugees and with the withdrawal of American Leadership on climate and the trade issue we look double sides of the issue with the nonpartisan effort to be fair to both sides and listen to be poolsides when Condoleezza Rice said the United States had lost his self confidence in the world as a Global Leader so we should look at that again this morning. Do we have Strategic Direction that these parties can agree on . We are looking forward to a good conversation i want to start with janet is a busy week for the senate and house thanks for being with us spending five days as the summit my desk this summer and aspen and someone that we know quite well serving as assistant secretary of state of Economic Affairs and the george w. Bush administration believes terrorist on financing i have great pleasure to work with him during those years also the attorney general of the state of alaska us now senator a member of the Armed Services committee a recognized expert with the global foreign defense policy but i did our realize until i was preparing for this session also lieutenantcolonel in the u. S. Marine corps reserves and spent 23 years as he conducted this career at the state department and National Security council and now for all of us in the senate. So now i ask all of you to join me to welcome him. [applause] thanks neck and it is up pleasure to be back first to my wife julie when you are the senator from alaska you dont get home that much so having her in town a couple weeks is said treat for me with my staff are also here. By had and then to ask bin before as bin before but we Work Together for secretary rice in when she was secretary of state so when you are asked by Condoleezza Rice to swing by a conference she is coasting , you. Posting you say yes man and do that because she is incredible figure for our country. But i had a wonderful time at the event and some bonding. We have three teenage daughters and the youngest is in high school and she actually went with me to all of the events in teethirty aspen and like millions of highschool kids across the country is a huge fan of hamilton the musical. We were listening on the whole drive and i started to get into it but if you are at the aspen meeting this summer in the meetings there were these referencereference s to hamilton. So every time that happened we would look at each other. [laughter] so there is the theme of the whole conference the world turned upside down that is a song from hamilton and another one talking about all the big shots and Madeleine Albright somebody said this is the room where it happens. I looked at my daughter. [laughter] even a reference for their real beaks somebody is mentioned how he was the righthand man so we were having a lot of fun you probably did not even though those references were going on. So thanks for the invitation the summer and to say a few words i want to dress up front the opening question to remain a predominant role power despite those challenges that everybody recognizes. My answer is yes, probably but we need to focus on key things. What i want to highlight is returning to robust lung lovells of Economic Growth, strengthening and deepening that network of alliances. And something i have focused on with a birdseye view is a stronger executive Legislature Cooperation in terms of Foreign Policy. So then the book above to take any questions or comments. First, my team has passed out a chart. This was the Biggest Surprise to give me as a u. S. Senator i have been in a little less than three years but when i came here i thought with the exception of National Security to grow the economy with a robust growth was the most important thing congress should focus on. So many challenges get worse the yes but yet my Biggest Surprise that nobody talked about it. The Obama Administration certainly did not. Democrats did not republicans didnt either to be perfectly honest. How come nobody talks about growth . I have been going on in the senate with this charge and other charts on the senate floor to give the same speech at least once a quarter. Look at this chart. This explains a lot and this is very bipartisan we have focused our country on strong growth. Redlining is 3 which is okay it is a good target to shoot for. We havent had created gdp growth alien almost 13 years. Nobody was talking about it. There is a lot of discussion of making america a great almost 4 percent gdp growth annually since the founding of the republican but yet we have said decade the entire Obama Administration never hit the so my view is the 2016 election . Boom. So we have to get back to strong levels of Economic Growth. Assistant secretary for the Economic Bureau at the state department under secretary rice but this is even more important than military power. But yet we really have not focused on it to. So what happened watching the narrative, people saw this and say wait a minute. How do i explain that . So they called this the new normal. One wipers and gdp growth american on all economic cylinders to me it is one the most dangerous narratives that there is because if we think 1 or 2 is good for the country we will have enormous challenges and were not in a position for Global Leadership. Idle thing that is the future one of their privileges to be in the u. S. Senate those who have time on their hands to talk about an issue i reached out to dozens of people with one question is this the future . Is this the new normal of 1. 5 . If not how we get back to robusta levels of gdp growth . Nobody believes in the new normal. That is why it is so dangerous. Finally were starting to focus on getting back to robust levels of growth i think the policies you can undertake remember a lot of these ideas you dont hear about Chuck Schumer had these ideas nobody thinks that is a good idea with competitiveness of america. And the one that i am focused on its Energy Energy energy the u. S. Is on the verge to be the Energy Superpower again largest producer of natural gas, largest producer of removals. To me that is an enormous opportunity to grow the economy talk about the instruments of Foreign Policy and power and energy is one were just scratching the surface on so many fronts jobs Energy Security and the environment. The last administration did not like to talk about hydrocarbons i was in charge of hydrocarbons in alaska via standard in the world. What do you do . You drive it to russia or cause expand or by ray and horror other places that dont have the focus to protect the environment that we do. So that strong robust growth it also goes back to the issue of american confidence the Foreign Policy practitioners recognize developing confident longterm Foreign Policy when the country feels confident. Nothing like the confidence of a growing economy versus something that is not growing. H. R. Mcmaster focused on this that the Reagan Defense forum Condoleezza Rice talked about this. One of my mentors when bob gave his very well no response to a stakeholder he talks about american and confidence that is one area to do better. And strengthen the position with the allies as nick mentioned over read decade this is that we are the ally rich nation and they are allied borer but not many countries are looking to duane the north korea a team or russia or china but in my experience those that really want to be part of the u. S. Alliance system. Well need to deepen the Current Alliance and expand them. That is a mixed assessment. Last year i thought we hit a low point to such a degree i gave a couple of speeches on the importance of our alliances because at the time president ial candidate trump talk about nato being obsolete questioning korea, japan as a candidate. There was a very big article in the atlantic about the obama doctrine. If you read that it made what Donald Trumps they palin comparison to how businesses of president obama was. Go read that article lit is remarkable a sitting president was smacking pretty much everybody but Angela Merkle in the article he knew millions of people would read. So that is what prompted a number of senators to say wait. Possibly a new president president , remember our allies are incredibly important to us. So with the assessment i think going back to the issue of strong Economic Growth, that kind of power binds us closer to aerosolized focusing on the asiapacific in many ways is much more important than our military presence if we turn that around to use new instruments of power that could help us with our allies. In asia we are starting to do well the president has put together of a team, the Vice President whos spent a lot of time in asia you may have seen in the last trip with the consultations between u. S. And japan it was a smart strategic move. We need to look at a much stronger trilateral security arrangement between korea and japan and the United States which has potential. In that area i think despite news last week with opportunities of alliances we have an opportunity to our traditional allies in israel were keen much closer together with that common interest in to hegemonic aspirations. So in terms of allies positive things are happening. The negatives . Europe for go there continues to be skepticism particularly a lot is driven with regard to the Paris Climate Accord and the iran nuclear deal. But also Strategic Communications in a thing Foreign Policy by definition is not strategic and we need to do a better job. Congress could play an Important Role in all of this bringing this to my third and final point in terms of setting the United States for continued Global Leadership we have to do a better job because it is difficult better executive corporation working together you are experts United States is strongest in the world with the executive branch and Congress Working together not easy widthwise it is hard people say it was easy to get it through the senate but it was hard work. It is durable so in my short time i have seen what has worked and talking about trade with republicans reach power in the 2014 election we really start working with the obama elite administration on the trade authority he couldnt get it with his own power but when republicans came back that is when the discussions have been i work closely with the secretary of the treasury to major we got tepee a past not one vote to spare but we did that and it is an opportunity percolated in the law. But with the Iranian Nuclear deal Paris Climate Accord from my experience there were zero engagement from the white house. O. Nobody came over to say senator this is what were trying to do. But to the contrary they did everything they could to avoid the Senate Ratification so it is of little bit difficult to complain a president that campaign against these agreements because they were not ratified by the senate and then he did it is now criticized. My view some of that criticism should of been on the Previous Administration and never came to the senate at all. Here is why you should ratify and how we will work hard to make sure you understand. When you dont do that you get dramatic swings of Foreign Policy so that is hard. It was predicted by the Founding Fathers looking at federalist papers number 63 madison lays out a Critical Role the u. S. And then plays with regard to the tenure with staggered elections with regard to our relations to keep steady Foreign Policy. When you avoid that my view is we need to get back to doing that but there is good news on the front. There is a lot more bipartisanship that you read about. And there is a lot more that goes along it just doesnt get reported. Let me give you examples big and small. The authorization act, that is an important piece of legislation. I sit on the Armed Services committee. It dramatically pluses up the military. It passed out of a committee unanimously. When it went to conference and came back to the senate for a vote if passed by unanimous consent. That means 100 u. S. Senators voted for which the president is going to sign this week. That is about as bipartisan as it get. We have the opportunity to sit on a panel when we were there talking about bipartisanship, but domestic homefront. He and i have a bill thats already passed the senate on a topic that all of a sudden is very timely to bring much more to the victims of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault especially attorneys to represent mostly women who as you are seeing across different parts of American Society have been abused. That is not a huge bill but it is important. Julie and i are going to have dinner with children in the white house. If you know Sheldon Whitehouse politics and Dan Sullivans politics, you might be like i cant believe they are going to dinner, but that happens in as a matter of fact we have a bill thats already passed the senate but about cleaning up the ocean trying to get passed in the house. I think in terms of the strong perspective in the future we need to have that kind of cooperation in the congress, so strong growth is an imperative, strengthening and deepening our alliances is an imperative. They do set us up for the next several decades on leading the probe during challenging times. [applause] the senator is going to take your questions. I would like to ask the first question. I can call on people. Ambassador, welcome. Given that has been in the news lately whether you might want to comment on your views and the work of. It is an honor to be asked a question by one of the deans of the service and one of the great leaders of american diplomacy no less who also had an opportunity to serve with that one of the things when i got to the senate if shows demonstration in support of the senate and there is a caucus on a lot of the issues that where they are strong there is the air force, coast guard, so strong constituencies in the congress for these very important aspects of american government. There is a lot of strong support for the troops and wonderful young men and women who go to those worldclass institutions that what was interesting to me and for those of you that served in the Foreign Service, there was not any kind of caucus or established group that established the Service Officers in as somebody that actually led a group of them as the eb assistant secretary or kind of the father of all of the econ foreign Service Officers i got to know what a great group of professionals our foreign Service Officers are through in many ways like the military deployed overseas dangerous places. Some have been killed in action, families sacrificing the risk. The service is kind of leftleaning but my experience was very professionally and to do great work. By the way, those of you that served in the state department theres also a culture that they hate coming up to the hill so it wont be that tv cameras to me t and let us show our support. To meet with senators that want to show their support and have questions or concerns, i think our foreign Service Officers know that they have strong support in the congress into constituency and it gets to this issue of the executive legislative cooperation because those are the kind of things that have that kind of cooperation when we first launched six months ago. Chris murphy on the democratic side, Catherine Cortez so w we d a good group but i think it is an important element of the strengthening executive legislation cooperation if i can total up thfollow up the ambassh served in the Service Administrations proposal that is a 31 budget production per state to take the officer corps down by 3 to secret morale is very low and busy dismantling. Can the congress intervened to defend the Foreign Service . I have concerns. Some of it is what you are reading in the paper and you have to get to the truth. Let me give you an example. Its an article recently that said applications for the Foreign Service or down by 50 . Now i dont know the truth of that. It was in a newspaper and im assuming they are correctly reporting. To me, that should be the cause we would be havingn. Hearings on the Armed Services committee. On the related programs they are going to see that kind of support in the appropriations process in the congress. But again, part of this ghost of goes toa broad issue of gettinge congress to understand and to know the great work that the men and women and their expertise in the Foreign Service have, and i think everybody when you do this code oversees people see it but to do it on a regular basis is what we try to do in the senate. We have time for one or two more questions. Member of our group, welcome. Its great to hear you on many topics we didnt get to today when we passed with all but wone both the authorization to use. The document is still the basis for most of the u. S. Activity in the middle east and elsewhere. They have been justified. The state department and the Defense Department testified that they dont need more authority. Do you think that is true or do you think as i do that there ought to be a robust debate in the senate and the house about the use of military force strategy behind it so that the American People will have the chance to consider and buy into the military activities we have underway. I will kind of addressed that in two parts. There was a debate recently rand paul had an amendment that i believe was part of the senate floor. The authorization has been used in a whole host of other ways. We either need to reauthorize it or cut it off. That is what this amendment essentially did. I have a lot of respect for those issues. I voted against that. We did debate it and come to the floor. The main reason i voted against was because i will just give you an example of alaska has a group of incredible young men and women going off. I spok spoke with a deployment ceremony and the one thing i said before they left is look, i am going to do everything i can to make sure that you are supported back home. As a matter of fact this weekend im trying to visit them in afghanistan. I thought having a debate on this where we might cut off the authorization of the mission. There were many others on the ground now and the last thing i think we should be doing is having some kind of debate where we say im not sure that you are authorized to do what youre doing as we risk lives and that is a commitment i made directly to the soldiers of the deployment ceremony so that is why i voted no. The president put together a very strong National Security team on north korea. In the new administrations i think that this administration has been faced with a stark challenge will have a Nuclear Missile that cant just range alaska. Weve been on the front lines fr years but chicago or new york, so i think the diplomacy right now has with the sanctions and the Security Council resolution has been very strong. We need a robust Missile Defense system and that is another good news story. They are supporting a strong Missile Defense system thats never happened before. Everybody here knows when theres serious military options that makes the diplomacy more effect if. There is a theme editor for preemptive ground war on the Korean Peninsula launched by the United States. The Resolution Says we support what they are doing, but if they move forward again preemptive, preventative, kind of like the gulf war in 1990 or 2003 that is the article one power of congress and i dont think there should be any debate about it. Ive been asking during confirmation hearings the members of the administration going defense and i would ask this question a thousand times do you believe you need to come to the congress to get the authorization to do this. Pretty much all of them including the reauthorization of the reconfirmation of the general. Its going to come to a head and not all of them agree with me on this. We are looking at the Afghanistan Deployment and other kind of war on terror organizations which again, still very valid i just think there are some ways that they are different from the context standpoint. I know you are busy but i think we have to ask a followup question this is such an important issue. A twofold question. Number one, on the merits of the issue it seems that secretary to worsen and that would like to maintain over north korea possibly move if it can happen to some kind of diplomatic negotiations that would involve the North Koreans and stop their program. But there are other people who believe we ought to think seriously about preemptive action. What do you think is the right step . On the point of congressional authorization, where is the Republican Party leadership in the senate on that and what kind of signal are you getting in the white house from President Trump and the National Security adviser . I think that they are actually interrelated and i think your diplomacy as i mentioned is much more effective if your adversaries believe that is a continuum. I do believe that the end of the Obama Administration, nobody because of the whole series of things. It made them ineffective, so in the military options on the table i think it is important particularly given this regime and how unstable and unpredictable they are. Decade after decade proves to be a very unreliable partner to negotiate with. I dont think that theyve ever kept one end of the bargain that they agreed to in the United States ever and i dont think that is going to change. You cant trust them. The key should be with regards to china. Thats where our focus both public and i also hope certainly privately discussions with regards to china on how to solve this problem. Some say that is a waste of time but that is a side show that they cannot be trusted. But china has i think hopefully converging interests with us on resolving this and they have the power and the ability to do that and so that is where i think our focus with regards to diplomacy and with your question on the republican side like i said, i voiced this very publicly. They believe that the Korean Peninsula needs the authorization of congress. Is the Republican Senate completely unified on that view . There are some very promised senators and good friends with and have the utmost respect for. We will have a resolution that say we are being supportive and we are not trying to do this aggressively there are senators on the democratic side who are. We will try to be supportive. It brings more credibility to the diplomacy and that would be a very serious debate. If it comes to that, we should have it. Its great to be here. [applause] thank you, senator. We are going to take a minute. Are we ready to go onto the next session . What they call up to the podium we looked at two issues this summer that are both important factors in whether the United States is going to maintain its Global Leadership role. First is trade where i think we have seen the most significant departure from democratic and republican policy over the last halfcentury to the Trump Administration and that is the Transpacific Partnership in the idea of the Free Trade Agreement and some fundamental changes to nafta. Second. Steve is a veteran of several administrations most notably the george w. Bush administration for the senior official and Vice President of the ford motor companys and a member of the group took the lead on trade. The podium is yours. [applause] good morning and thank you all for coming out today. As nick mentioned they work for another u. S. Company manufacturer and 2 in 25 countrs around the world and we trade enormous volumes of commodities and parts of automobiles. Its more than an ideologue or philosopher and i think that too much of the trade debate here in washington, d. C. Is about philosophy and ideology and not enough is about the practice of trade. If you want free trade, you are achieving a less constrained movement of goods and services across borders. It is across the institutions and the government, so like many of you, i was stunned in watching one of the candidates from the Major Political Party Running for the presidency of the United States not only denounce the north american Free Trade Agreement but actually to withdraw from it. It was moderated by tim russert that proposed to withdraw within six months exite exigency and te canadians didnt agree to renegotiate the treaty. I think that many thought that was empty and it was. Although to his credit, president obama in Office Sought to make some improvements in the course of the Transpacific Partnership agreement, but it is underlining the fact that the political expedient predates the administration by a long time. Its interesting to study the politics of trade and the Pew Charitable trust does an enormous amount on these issues and found some interesting results in the poll last year. 67 of self identified democratic voters believe the frefreetrade agreements make america stronger. Interestingly, 36 of Republican Voters endorse Free Trade Agreements is making the United States stronger. The freetrade agreement will not pass the United States Congress Unless they gain the support of every member in a small handful of democratic members of congress willing to support the freetrade agreements yet each of the parties is out of step with their own political base. The only Major Political figure who is iis in step with their pl basis among the self identified voters per second trump is not only speaking with and for his political base, but greater synergy and harmony. Its for the sentiment of the country and i was asked in the course. They forecast the steps forward. Its about americas role but the agreement didnt die this year the president trum presidep signed an executive order to withdraw the agreement. It didnt have the support of the congress or the American Public and it most definitely didnt have the unified support of the business community. I could attest to that. It was too big and ambitious and too small to justify locking into place the status quo which is largely what it did. The geopolitics makes for the lousy freetrade agreements. Youve got to get the economics right first. They are the competing views of trade. They are embedding the relations of the trading partners. Nafta is a different take. They dont work for the United States in terms of producing a trade balance. I would argue that it works quite well in the United States far more competitive for the north American Space but it is indisputable that we have more than the 60 billiondollar trade deficit with mexico. The problem is that you cannot fix a 60 plus trade deficit by growing the exports to mexico. As beneficial as it is, the reality is a 12 prevents us a balancing trade with mexico on the revenue side. Its the only tool available to fix the problems with nafta will be trade limiting which is antithetical to the freetrade agreement, so i had have a faiy gloomy expectation of the ability of u. S. Trade representatives to achieve the goal they want in nafta which is to balance out the trade. Many argue the trade surplus and trade deficit isnt an indicator to the quality and i intend to completely endorse the point of view however i see as the cabbie got the large trade deficits may indicate problems in the relationship as well and thats what i think we see with our trading partners. Let me highlight very briefly the ten steps we should consider as we look forward at the traded how to take the trade agenda forward in a constructive way. With senator sullivans point of view this as a holistic picture that isnt just about trade, its about regulation and tax reform answer to me about growth. In fact i have to believe a full year of Economic Growth will go a long way towards ameliorating a lot of the attention in the debates wand thedebates we don. Ironically incidentally that kind of growth will probably ballooned the trade deficit and at the same time treat the dissatisfaction of thdissatisfac thats produced this poisonous environment. First who. You have to pick the right partners. They agree. To tie together a handful of countries that have a high level of support for free trade but in the course of the ambitions we began to bring parties into that agreement by any measure of their records. Second, we should pursue the agreements and the powers on a bilateral basis so we can more effectively focus on the challenges and those particular economies and craft the necessary tools to force open those economies. Multiliberals are for the partners. Adding between 250 to 5 billion to the american trade deficit at an annual basis that heretofore hasnt been addressed by the trade negotiators. Competition in the policy and corruption that undermines comparable advantage and free trade. We have to use tools and tie that to the trade agreement. Regulation, harmonizing the regulation removes the cover of the countries use to put the barriers in place and then enforce. Finally, how. First of trade negotiations generated skepticism among the public and critics. While there are some tools we need to do better, there are some ideas on capitol hill such as requiring a negotiating session to be shared in detail with members of congress, one that is a bit of a stretch, but i like doing is freetrade negotiations in public to completely dismiss the notion that anything is being hidden. I think the reason why the negotiators in private for the agreement is because they are advocating positions that are relatively indefensible and the public. We have to trust the market. We have a partner that isnt willing to embrace the model of the freetrade week and wait them out. Give them some time. I wish i had a dollar for every time i heard in the long run the policies would be the benefit in the long run they wont be able to sustain that it would be a disadvantage for them. If a country isnt willing to make the steps to open up the economy, to the freetrade of the goods and services, then its okay to say no. Finally, as i said a moment ago, the geopolitics and economics. Of osco. Before we hear from richard, its only fair because i saw our friend walking in. You are here, right . When we had a meeting in aspen, they made a major presentation on trade and i thought it was one of the most interesting discussions, most vital but also where we see of conceptual differences. We are going to get the microphone to you. You just heard the tail end of the presentation, bu that you he both pretend papers on this. Can i give you a twominute reply . I only caught the last end of the speech and he has changed his views and has finally seen the light and came over to the right side. I agree with steve on a lot of things when you take the Transpacific Partnership as an example, it wasnt to ever actually bring the countries into a freetrade area. We cannot justify a freetrade agreement other than how it benefits our economy. But if it is about who gets to write the economic rules of the road and what is playing out right now its a that the u. S. Didnt move forward. Others would move forward to find the rules of the road and carve up Market Access in the way that benefited the producers and thats what youre seeing over the last nine months. Moving ahead with its view of balance we all know what balance means on the chinese perspecti perspective. Its the free flow of data come information, non taxability of the products etc. But the great firewall is their model. Theyve opened up the vision and its one of the blunders theyve engaged in in the Market Access perspective as we have seen. Whether it is the eu finalizing its agreement with japan so that the producers get the access they fought so hard for world getting access to japan that is happening in realtime we are losing market share and losing jobs because people prefer to sit on the sidelines. Im going to give steve a twominute reply. One of the issues we look at as 2018 among the u. S. And canada there is speculation that he would better be informed than me that the administration might even be considering trying to build up some kind of a bilateral arrangement in u. S. Canada and mexico. This would be a significant point of departure before republicans and democrats over the last 23 years. What is your view on that and what is your sense of where the administration is putting . Im not a spokesman for the administration, so i do not pretend to have any greater insight into what is happening. We put on the table and heres where we should step back about 90 of whats been put on the table in the renegotiation is the tpp. Several of the criticism of the administration and th in the tp of the tracks the tpp. It matters things like sunsetting or changing the rule of order that would have a Significant Impact on other sectors and it will determine whether it was or not. I think the best option is to renegotiate the agreement but without much room for compromise but they are perfectly prepared to trigger the withdrawal notice and withdrawal from the agreement with all of the disruptive effects that that would have. Nothing new in my arguments. We do agree on quite a bit. And let me emphasize the issues we do agree upon. First, it is critical the United States plays a strong leadership or whether it is through the trade negotiations or other means it is absolutely critical to the interest of the United States in the course of the next century. The next thing that might surprise mike to hear me say that i think if he listens carefully he would have heard the sayinmesaying it during then tv i certainly personally in my company for that matter did not want the United States to withdraw and we regret that they didnt move forward if we didnt have any regrets that it moved forward in its current form because the reality from the perspective of many of us is as good as some of the details of thithe agreement were fundamenty failed to change the economic model that doesnt work in the Pacific Region and you dont have to take my point of view of the trade commission does an exhaustive analysis of every agreement to try to understand what the consequences are before it considers it and the consequences in terms of actually impacting the flow of American Goods was negligible. In the Manufacturing Sector the International Trade Commission Found that there would be a net loss. In the United States as a consequence its not that it was bad in and of itself but there were some key issues that were left unaddressed. This is one of the most pernicious trade their years used by partners today. Currency manipulation is a simple supply and demand manipulation. If you have a lot of your currency coming you blow that into the global marketplace and buy up somebody elses and put it in your bank reserves. Supply and demand there is a lot of karen c. So there is less. Very simplistic explanation but this impacts the trade flow. On a product like an automobile that costs 30,000 an export price, 25 of manipulation is probably 400 of the profit margin on the product. You cant produce in the United States profitably those like japan. They havent done it in the last five years or since 2011 or 2012. Not necessarily the attention to the content but with a mass of quantitative easing that dwarfs the quantitative easing in the United States during the great recession. So, i would argue that it was a good start and i complement the administration for making that a part of their trade agenda but they were addressing some of the Biggest Challenges that we have and as a consequence just like today, i think it would have been just as possible to become a source of irritation and friction in the relationship i think it would have been better to separate and move forward in the agreement. Those that dont support free trade lets bring them on one at a time and deal with the issues that they are using to subvert global trade because it is indisputable that the global trade has been subverted with tactics like this in a manner that makes participants in the American Economy the obvious question. Im doing everything right, building great products and get your falling behind and losing. You will never get those people to support free trade if they are doing everything right and still the wind is blowing in their face. This is going to be one of the most important issues for 2018 and 2020. For those watching on cspan, this is a book called world turned upside down maintaining leadership being published today. Mike and steve have complementary chapters with different points of view on these issues, so i would recommend them to you. Here is the order of battle and we are going to turn to a conversatiointo aconversation wr secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Im going to give my friend each minutes to tell us why the technologies in on the antiliberal world to world orded order ought to be on our radar screen. In terms of limited time im here on a deep topic that stands alongside the kind of classical analysis of International Relations that are naturally triggered by topic about the liberal world order and with me upset is. It seems to me the most fundamental thing in many respects underlining all thi uns is the Technology Tsunami that we all experience. Its reflected when we talk about china and the internet we are all aware of the it revolution. I just want to underscore to you we shouldnt treat the technology at the moment as the end of technological history. We are seeing dramatic innovations in biology, robotics, new materials, space, additive manufacturing, data and analysis etc. , Artificial Intelligence. I could go on with a list by which require more than the eight minutes given to me. I would suggest that these are fundamentally affecting the notions of the liberal world order. It shouldnt surprise us that they do. If you look back at the great changes in history you see technology for Printing Press and galileo overturning the status quo when the world order as the church has it you see in the 19th century the effect of the Industrial Revolution and the notions oin thenotions of se statecontrolled. Its one of the changes that undergirds the revolution that we call feminism in our time so. Its not something that exists in its own realm but to switch metaphors from the tsunami to Something Else it is an underlining change in the tectonic plate. It appears to be a disparate earthquake whether you look at this mornings newspaper or the proliferation of biology where the carpenter pays for the ability of the state to see cell phones and the like. We know the paper in the book i sketched three things im not going to talk about now im just going to briefly mention the fourth. One is the way in which it empowers the groups and nonstate entities as a familiar song but i think theres some interesting things that can be said about it. They are empowering them not just in the weapons that the equivalent of what any state was required as an astonishing Intelligence Agency by the virtue of what they can harvest from commercial data and the like. The way that it balances out u. S. Power used to be preeminent and dominant and spread it to other countries and enable them to compete with us and this changes the world order and i think imported ways. We need to recognize the risk of accidents and emerging effects as a complex of peak novel system to interact with one another particularly in the military context in ways we cannot anticipate and i think that there are grea grave risksf unintended effects for us in that arena are also worthy of discussion. The point i want to focus on in conclusion is more radical which is the way in which the technologies challenge the very notion of the liberal order. We see how the authoritarian states can use technology to restrict privacy to monitor individuals and the like. Very striking how we all leave trails of dna. We also be trails of digital dust everyone will know for monitoring your cell phone etc. But you were here. I doubt you are in a singular wr minority that didnt bring a cell phone to this event. These things are in power can onlimportant onlyin authoritario our own state. I can anticipate dramatic issues associated with for example how we manipulate our bodies imbues and unlike. What happens when people begin to try to choose to maximize their intelligence of their offspring to avoid diseases and the like. What happens when they begin to make a choice in that regard and intelligence is something to be optimized and americans make different decisions. 200 babies are born every day that were conceived in test tubes. Where are we going from here . And i have a set of issues associated with the fact that most fundamentally, i would point out to you the idea that the liberal notion of what it means to be an individual and with individual choice of how in a democracy we put together the majority that make choices or challenge the technologies we tend to ascribe this to things like the russian interference in facebook and the like and we marvel at the technological attributes of that. They take 3 million ads everyday its mouthpiece too simplistic about these things to think also about the way that the data and analysis combines in the observation about the digital tracking that ie may add in terms of political persuasion. Its more accurately than your friends can about what you will choose to do with 150 facebook likes they can produce more accurately than your family members can with 300 more accurately than your spouse. I am not amazed others can produce more accurately than my spouse think about what this means in terms of Political Action because when you link this capability with our capability to reach individual targets now as a politician i can select your preference and target you individually. That may seem to you to be okay but i can create highly differentiated messages and i donnolonger have to put togethe majoritys. I can put together a group of people sliced together with individuals and speaking broadside to the group. This changes the fundamental premise of the democracy associated with the political speech and electoral processes and ultimately what it means to be an individual and of the way in which we are subject to manipulation while understood. Much more could be said about this but i understand my time is up so im going to stop and yield the floor. Thank you. [applause] i want to thank steve and mike for their thoughts on trade and richard for his technology. One point on this. We began 35 years ago as a nonpartisan National Security group focused on the big arms control, the arms race with the soviets in the 80s. Trending in the next year or two, all of us in and out of government have to have a much more acute understanding of Artificial Intelligence and the emerging digital age. The impact changing technologies will have on the balance of power in the United States and china, the United States into terrorist groups that will have access to these and as a group of people who come out of government from both parties are going to need a lot of help from people in the community in boston and the Information Technology group in Silicon Valley that we have to have a private sector and Public Sector to get our hands around this big challenge to the United States. I want to thank you for giving a snapshot and steve and mike. I would like the podium to disappear and and ive asked secretary to join me. [inaudible conversations] while we are waiting for the arrival, in a filibuster since the cspan cameras are rolling with the first introduce [inaudible] let me first introduce secretary albright. I had the great pleasure to work with both of these individuals. Everybody knows secretary Madeleine Albright and extraordinary career she has had as a professor at Georgetown University and also in the Public Service she served as the secretary of state and one of the great pleasures of my career is working as her spokesperson and the ambassador she is someone who stood up for our values including democracy and human rights. Her whole life story is a commitment to the United States and i want to ask you all to welcome secretary albright. [applause] and i also want to ask you to welcome former secretary of defense, former secretary william cohen. He should be welcoming us because the group wit groups ofe chair is right upstairs. I have the pleasure of being a senior counselor for the group, happily so. Senator cohen, the representative came to washington in the early 1970s, served in the house judiciary oy committee during the impeachment proceedings against president nixonixon at another time and a leadership crisis in washington, moved to the senate in 1978, and one of those people that became one of the acknowledged experts in the senate on the American Defense policy and Foreign Policy served for several decades in the leadership positions in the senate and became secretary of defense for president clinton and served with secretary albright as part of the team in the cabinet. We couldnt have two better people to discuss this issue of americas future as a global power. I think starting at the president ial level there is no coherent philosophy that is guiding us in terms of who are we, who do we want to be in this world, what can we be and how do we go about bringing that to pass . So i think it should be of concern because in a unipolar world or bipolar world we may be living in a nonpolar world which may be the most dangerous of all but i think for me the concern is that we seem to be seating International Leadership in many Different Levels and i think while the president has promoted to make America Great again he is doing it on that basis it seems to me of transactional at two goodies without a comprehensive plan of how the individual components or transactions actually fit into the pattern that is cohesive and continuous. It depends on where one goes in terms of the impression that other countries have of us. If you go to japan i think the japanese Prime Minister would say hes very fond of President Trump and what he has been saying and if you go to saudi arabia the same thing would be said. If you go to our european friends, if you were talked to the Prime Minister he is worried that the United States is no longer, can be counted on to carry the leadership role for freedom and democracy and we need to continue to fill that role so it depends on where you go. My own fear is that we are seeing a wrecking ball being taken to the institution which we have worked very hard to construct. Not unusual. Most president s come into washington and they look at the white house or the institution then say the carpet needs to be repaired, the walls are a little bit then select have some remodeling done and upgrade our capability. I dont see that yet. Im hoping that will be the case but if you are going to tear down institutions which you think no longer work then tell me who the architects are, what their plans are, who the masons are, who the carpenters arent tell me what kind of an institution or building you are trying to construct. I havent seen that take place. So why worry about it. I worry that other countries are turning away from us. The chancellor of germany saying germany will have to go forward in the future without the assurance of the United States to be counted upon. Thats a very big change in our relationship with germany. We have a similar type of relation with her partners the british. If you go around to our allied partners and they worry there is no consistency that no predictability. The president likes to say i want to be unpredictable. I like keeping people on their heels are on their toes but i like being unpredictable. In geopolitics it doesnt quite work that way. The people that ive talked to and i just returned from india and elsewhere like more predictability. They want more continuity. They want to be able to gauge the reliability of the policies that we are articulating and identify who is actually speaking for the president. So i worry about this and i look at china and ive been going to china since 1978. I look at what has happened in 35 and 40 years and i say this is dramatic in its remarkable and is transformational. Its admirable and somewhat intimidating that there is a country that has a strategic vision. They know where they want to get to. They have very few innovations on how they are going to get there. Theres no congress to contend with and theres no Supreme Court to contend with so you can see what their goal is and they have the capacity to carry it out. Thats not necessarily true on the part of United States because we are a democracy. We take time and we debate but the biggest criticism i hear is there is no plan, identifiable plan on what normal is going to be in the future other than lets make a bilateral deal. I think that doesnt work in the geopolitical world. We will stop here because secretary albright needs a comment on that. I was remiss in one thing. Secretary cohen shares the cohen group and we have to give equal time to our sister i just returned from a trip last week to germany the Czech Republic and slovakia and you know this better than anybody. In poland, hungary and now the Czech Republic here native country we see antidemocratic nationalist populist forces taking over to governments, and maybe even the check government but i came away listening to the europeans. I dont think we are any longer the leader of the left the way that every american president republican and democratic is deemed to be. This is a fun though mental plan as to how we understand our leadership . Im concerned that it actually is and let the say it was terrific to work with secretary cohen. He proved bipartisanship and we spent a lot of time together and its great to be with you. Let me just say i think there are a lot of contradictions that are out there at the moment and need to be put within some kind of historical content. I am a preworld war ii person but my most of my life is a functional human being has been after world war ii. We had a saying there afterwards with United States was obviously the winner of world war ii and also in a position of creating the institution that governs everything that we have been involved in. That period started in a fight with the soviet union and the policy that the United States undertook weather was assistance or defense policies or Financial Issues were done in the context of the world being divided into the red, white and blue. That ends with the fall of the berlin wall and then we are in the second phase and i have to say as the secretary is privileged to be a part of looking at what our policy should the and in the second term we learned this entirely new aspect of things with the soviet union and the countries you mentioned all of them had become independent. I think we are now in the third phase and richard yout pointed out the technology i think played a very large part in that and affecting us. The question is what is the role of United States within an entirely new construct and actually president clinton used the term indispensable. The term became identified with me. But there is nothing about the definition of indispensable. This means that the u. S. Needs to be engaged and i think for the world to function the u. S. Needs to be engaged. I am really concerned that we are becoming the dispensable nation. If i were president or if i were in office i would say its quite different than when we were there. I think that the bottom line is that there is a question about how one defense american i find it appalling that our president the moment is talking that where victims of everything and nobody wants to do anything with us and all of a sudden everything one is taking advantage of us. That is not the kind of america that i think is necessary at this point. I do think we need to figure out what our role is but specifically to the question you asked and that is i do think most of the things that have happened are really so what happened certainly with the fall of the wall but also globalization has created an interaction among all of us and most of the people in this room have all been beneficiaries of localization. The problem however is people want an identity. What is interesting next year we are going to be celebrating the creation of most of those countries after world war i and the bottom line is they were created on the basis of National Identity after the end of the austrian hungarian empire so with the tastelessness the localization especially those countries and obviously others in the middle east are now into identity politics in so many ways whether its linguistic or ethnic or religious and thats fine. I believe in patriotism. What i dont believe in is nationalism and hypernationalism that creates my group doesnt like your group and i think its very dangerous. That is the doubleedged sword and theres also a doubleedged sword to technology which as we all like to talk about the woman farmer in kenya who no longer has to work miles to pay her bills but she could do it on her mobile phone but to knowledge he has done Something Else which can disaggregate us to a point where its difficult to have Political Parties and to try to figure out how we belong and we all listen to echo chambers of what we are to believe in. I tried desperately to listen to things i dont believe in which would make it stay out of my way when im driving on the right rang the rightwing radio. The autumn line is we need to do that in some of you heard me say this and that is the following and i apologize for plagiarizing because i tell my students not to do that. People are talking to their government on 21st Century Technology. The government listens to them on 20th Century Technology and provides 19th century responses. So there is no faith in institutions. There are the issues about where the u. S. Stands and of national and what is happening nationally with the institutional structure may think and i fully agree personally i do teach. Im waiting for the National Security strategy to come out and i teach off of them. We know how they are made. Its complicated and its a bureaucracy working to produce documents that are okayed by the Principles Committee that emerge and you actually have some clue about where the administration to get our going. We have absolutely no clue when the world is that one of our most dangerous moments. Thank you very much. I think the National Security strategy will be out all materially with the Trump Administration but i want to ask you about the two big autocratic powers that we have to contend with russia and china and then we will open this up to questions from the guests here. Starting with russia you both know this brief exceptionally well. Heres a country that has annexed crimea that has dividing one part of ukraine from another is pressuring the Baltic States as already kept moldova and georgia off balance. Our Intelligence Community is united in saying that the russians launched an attack of sorts on our elections in 2016. They intervene with the dutch french and german elections this past year. If you are both in office now working with President Trump what would you advise that he do to contain the more pernicious aspects of russian power in europe and in our own country but also by necessity on iran north korea afghanistan to find a way also to have a channel open to them . Secretary cohen. The first thing that has to happen is we have to remove the cloud that is hanging over russia and russias involvement and attack upon our democratic system. I think as long as the cloud continues to hang over the white house with these unresolved issues is going to be very difficult or the president to either take a positive, make a positive approach to the russians. They think everybody in this room would say we need to have a better relationship with russia. Russia is a big country with 11 timezones. They have Nuclear Weapons and they can cause great instability instability. So it would be important for us to have a positive relationship with russia. That cannot take place as long as this cloud of doubt is hanging over the white house in terms of what is the nature of his relationship between the president and putin and as long as there is suspicion and cynicism about what has either taken place or what someone wants to take place i think its going to be hard for us to formulate a policy, continuing to punish the russians for their past behavior in crimea and georgia and certainly their attack upon the United States, the digital attack thats been launched against us at the heart of our democracy. We are not going to be able to do that unless that cloud is removed. I have from the very beginning tried to talk about this public leg that i thought the president has to take action to remove that by number one thing i asked the questions what do you own mr. President , what do you owe and to whom do you own it . If you answer those questions and clear ways, i dont know this but heres what i believe. I believe with the trump real estate. Theres nothing wrong with that at all. Investing in real estate and when the president was in a private enterprise so the question is why i have have any innovation about disclosing this . That is where the doubt and cynicism comes from. Theres something that doesnt quite fit in this picture. You can criticize the british premise or the chancellor and the australian Prime Minister calling the president of south korea and appeaser and on and on and never wants to say a word of negative criticism toward putin who has done things that the international and now the National Level which are appalling. I think its going to be hard. I would intensify the sanctions against russia. I would go after individuals. I would deny them the one thing that they want the most of that is respect. That is what president putin for as long as hes been in power wants russia to be respected and he should. Its a country with a great history and race scientists and mathematicians and artists and writers. He wants his country to be respected. If you want to be respected at the act respectfully and he has not been acting respectfully and i think hes been engaged in activities which have been contrary to the established ones we expect of a great country. I would not allow him to have that status until such time that a modification in behavior. I believe it would nice if the clouds were lifted but the bottom line is i think it would just go deeper because of the cloud within a cloud and i think we have to be very concerned about what has gone on. I do believe that putin has played a big hand. Hes a kgb officer. We never can forget that and he has played this in an unbelievable way. We always talk about russia. They are trying to contain democracy by the kinds of things that they are doing and that they have done in the United States and evidently are doing throughout europe as you pointed out. And i think they have made a very strong play for equal assessments of what is going on in the middle east. I think what i was secretary we knew a lot about asserting russian power in the middle east and he would be very proud of what is going on now because the russians have become equal partners on syria and they have helped support bashar assad there who very much played the game generally playing with israel on a number of different issues. I think that they have played the hand well. We have to be very concerned because they are systematically making it more and more difficult for us to carry out what we need to carry out. Putin has made clear he is going to run forever and one thing that he has done that he has been really and about in the early 90s i ran a survey across europe with questionnaires and focus groups and i will never forget the focus group in moscow. This man stands up and said im so embarrassed. We used to be a superpower and now we are bangladesh with missiles and what has happened is putin has managed to keep the russian people and a weakened economy by having restored the socalled dignity by doing what he has done in crimea and the pressure you pointed out in trying to contain democracy. I want to ask you a followup question on this and its how we conduct American Leadership and diplomacy in the world. Its a surreal environment when two weeks ago on wednesday the british Prime Minister and the archbishop of canterbury felt compelled to criticize publicly the president of the United States. Im quite confident that it happens in 93. The treaty of paris and similarly over the weekend you have a situation where the president at the rally in pensacola when after aye mark all in the nato allies public way and just having returned from europe and seeing the sensitivity of the european allies and the criticism juxtaposed to the president s embrace of xi jinping and duterte and Vladimir Putin what has produced this and what are the consequences for our credibility as a result of . What has produced it . You have a president who was elected who had very little if any experience in the political world and he came with no serious level of in my judgment at least, curiosity about the geopolitical situation. I was listening to steve earlier and he said trade first in geopolitics would follow. Im not sure thats quite right. I think they are almost inseparable. When we are talking about tpp to give you another example i was in beijing the day after the election last year. I voted early and went. I met with a highlevel chinese official only were having dinner at his office in the afscme now that President Trump has been elected does that mean the tpp is dead . I said regrettably, yes. He reached over and he touched me and he said good, and good. Now it was good from the chinese perspective. It was not good for our allies perspective the asean countries. A person that came over in the spring and appear to csis and gave a presentation and they indicated number one we wasted seven years. Seven years we wasted negotiating this deal and number two you undermine their credibility with their own constituents. That was the sentiment that was deeply felt. Beyond the trade issue was one where we were the ones who were going to be the leaders of the architecture foreign economic. [inaudible] are determined to set up an economic system. That means they will take a leadership role or try to take a leadership role so trade has an interconnection with geopolitics and they cant be separated at my judgment. What it says is that the president has yet to decide what our role is going to be. You have mr. Bannon who isnt visor of his who would like to see a less engaged role in the United States. But the europeans take your vrap vrap. Nato has not been doing as much as it should and by the way its not wrong in suggesting that nato countries have not given up in terms of making and the contribution that they should have made. I made that argument and i think secretary albright has made the same argument. Bob gates has made it. Ever secretary of defense including jim mattis. He is not wrong in saying they have to do more but the way in which he do it sometimes matters more than what you are asking. If you insult people, if you criticize them publicly as opposed to dealing with them privately that tends to create friction. You can see this playing out. The europeans feel that we have disengaged from their affairs. Started during the Obama Administration and pivoted from our focus on europe to the pacific. It may have been bad words at work chosen on that in the signal that was sent was not a positive one so europeans are to feel that way word distancing ourselves in looking east. I think the policy, we have got to decide we are suffering from war fatigue. That is clear. The American People say hey we have been out this for a long time and we spent a couple of trillion dollars. Its time for us to take care of nationbuilding at home and thats a sentiment the president has tapped into and theres a justification for that. Its time we do adjust things at home but you cant do that at the expense of disengaging from Global Affairs because when you do other countries fill the gap. Chinas filling the gap. Russia is filling the gap in syria is moving into egypt. They are establishing influence in the middle east and they are working on north korea as well. When we pulled back the move then and that does not work to our advantage. I do think, i know this president wants to be remembered for being the greatest whatever. He will have in fact have been the one that diminished American Power more than a single president. That is not a record that and if i should be proud of. I do not believe the world works if the United States is not engage and we are seeing that. The chinese were talking about about they must have a very large stomach because the belt keeps getting bigger and bigger and they are more and more interested in taking her place everywhere. Ive just been to argentina and we did a lot of discussion about what the chinese are doing in terms of investing through latin america. They are everywhere where we are not so i think this is the time to be very concerned about this. What i dont understand is the contradiction among the American People in terms of i have always seen no at sporting events or olympics we issa to be number one. All of a sudden we dont want to be a part of anything and America First is not number one. America first as isolationists. Its a country that does not know how to operate internationally or in fact trying to determine where we protect their people the best. I am stunned by this and i am stunned by a lot of contradictions. The title of this is there an overturning of the liberal order . I believe we are in danger which is why a book im writing which is called fascism, a warning and i think we have to be very very careful about the things that are going on in terms of people, the working class people who feel they have been left out of things who are very angry who dont want regulation from washington but do want a strong leader. I think there are very many things we need to look at history, whats going on here and i have tried for the last year to be polite and ive had it. I think we do have to say what is going on here. There are some very dangerous aspects in terms of some of us thought this will go way. There are so many things being put into place at the moment and the end of tpp and the whole thing that has happened in the chinese running what is left over i think its a great concern. What is happening with arab budget, the fact that they are dismantling Diplomatic Service is stunning to me. What has happened is in terms of respect secretary tillerson going abroad having been gained by what is going on here and he does not have the respect that he needs to talk to the europeans are anybody. I think we need to say enough is enough. We need to figure out a way, people asked me to describe myself as an american. I came here 11 years old and nothing was more poured in my life and becoming an american citizen and a respected people have for america. I do not wish to end my life by not seeing america as respected and strong as we need to be to make the world a better place. I agree with secretary albright and i who have worked arm in arm on so many issues together. I dont think we could have played a victory and kosovo without secretary albright taking a leadership role in pushing for active intervention in that complex. I want to go back for seconds to this issue of having a philosophy or a geostrategy as such. I watched secretary tillerson get the speech this speech a month ago. Sitting in the front row was named and i was really quite impressed. Im sitting next to the ambassador is the matter factor in that time the secretary tillerson laid out a vision for the relationship but what really caught my eye or year i should say is that he went out of his way to say china is an important country but its india that the United States looks to to the future is our strategic partners, not china. He went on several times to say that and make that very definitive point. I thought it was interesting that he would be back forwardleaning toward india as the president is getting ready to go to china and that i thought maybe it is a Good Cop Bad Cop situation where he is laying the foundation for xi jinping and its not where you are now but it hopes to be at some point. The point was the tillerson speech to me laid out a blueprint for u. S. And india, india and japan, usjapan, india, australia and u. S. Australia. That is a quad so to speak a relationship between the u. S. India japan and australia. The union so far than willing to think of a trilateral u. S. Engaged japan. Theyve been more reluctant on the australian component not because they dont share similar ideas with australia but because you start looking at the quad and it looks more like the containment strategy of china. The indians do not want to have the United States think that we are playing and india card against china. We have to be careful in that respect but to me it gets back to this fundamental notion of what is in our interest . Are interests is to establish relationships with democratic countries who share our interests and our ideals and to the extent that we can do that we are not trying to contain china but we are trying to send a signal to the chinese. We know you are good at growing economic power and you are going to be a big military power but we want you to use that power in the way a way that is integrated into the International System and not for aggressive for destabilizing purposes. We are going to build these relationships with all of the countries that share our interest in art deals and we are going to make sure that we hold those relationships close to us. The danger i see from what has been happening as we are pushing away some of those allies. We insult them and we do not pay them the respect that they deserve and as a result they are pulling away from us. Thats the danger that i see that we are not cultivating and nurturing the people and the countries who Share Interests and ideals and opportunities. That to me is one of the great problems we are going to face in the future. Tonight thank you. We are focused on bipartisanship and nonpartisanship. I would say for this next question i want to ask you about china and north korea. There has been a consensus in the george w. Bush barack obama and at least at the cabinet level in the Trump Administration thats mrs. Secretary u. Are talking about it close Strategic Partnership between the United States and india joined by her lines with japan and that triangular relationship sometimes joined by australia. Its not going to contain china but manage chinas rise to power running roughshod over the i think theres a democratic consensus on that. The problem is we havent heard that from the president and it gets back to your first strategic plan. Let me ask both of you on this question should we give President Trump some credit on china north korea . He is developed a relationship with xi jinping. One can argue that the president has got more out of the chinese with some other sanctions against north korea than any previous president has put the chinese now are engaged perhaps because they fear President Trump id initiate a literary action against north korea. Are we close to war . Do you think theres a high probability of up rain to strike the United States or do you think this is more kabuki in the sense of what is really trying to drive us to negotiation text you could make a case for either but we will start with you. I have to say im not sure i agree that we have developed or the president has gotten something out of the chinese. Im not sure that they are doing everything they could as far as north korea is concerned because they are concerned is more that the place will fall apart but they havent cut off some of the major aspects of the support for the chinese economy. In the meantime they are messing around in the South China Sea and taking over Climate Change and a variety of other things. I do think the celebrations of xi jinping now are putting him into a greater and greater role and what worries me is what you have said, that you think that he has gotten something out of the chinese. So that is worrisome. I am very worried about whats happening in north korea. Leaves are not im still the highest level sitting official to have gone to pyongyang to meet with his father and im very glad the United Nations has sent over an envoy and i understand now that Dennis Rodman is going back and that will be really useful. And the u. N. Envoys. Which i think hes a very smart gerson and the fact that the u. N. Is more interested in it but i think what makes me nervous is an accident and part of the problem as we know you need to have hot lines and you need to have some kind of connection. I think it is worrisome and i think its unclear where the chinese are. What surprises me is the chinese and the russians if in fact there is now some hydergine test or whether there is radioactive fallout from the test that they have party taken that they dont think that affects their people and they are going to have to be more helpful. I dont see them, the folks in the u. N. Are nice but they are not dispositive in terms of some of the sanctions. I agree with secretary albright. Think the chinese could be doing more. The North Koreans have had, and this goes back to the l. Lbj days where they have the guns and butter policy. The russians and the chinese have been giving them the butter. In fact if you look at the Economic Situation the economy of north korea has been improving. Actually growing. There are some signs that there is an entrepreneurial ship taking place thanks to the support they had been getting from the chinese and the russians and others. So i think the chinese are in a position to do much more. There were lots and to do much more and they constantly say they fear if theres a collapse of the north korean regime that there will be millions of people flooding into china. I think there would be millions of people trying to get into south korea. You can see that in the defector and the number of shots it took for him to get over the wall. I think they play the long game. They feel and im speculating now but they feel the long game they benefit. Ultimately by having this with kim jongun still in power with the United States in a state of contention but not military action at this point that is the north gets stronger the south will get weaker because they will have less and less confidence in the United States by virtue of the perception we are holding back and then eventually the North Koreans will be able to unify the peninsula. I dont know what changes that calculus with them. I think the president does deserve credit for ratcheting up the pressure but i think there is always a danger. I think theres a danger when you start using words like fire and fury and we are going to eliminate you from the map. Henry kissinger in his white house years said something that i have forgotten. He said an idle threat is taken seriously can be helpful but a serious threat that is treated as being idle can be catastrophic. The issue becomes the president is making idle threats which gets the attention and the positive response from the North Koreans were from the chinese that is good but if we continue to make threats which are idle and are in fact serious we could find ourselves in a situation that madam just described that escalates almost immediately. My own recommendation and what it is we need to go back to the south koreans and say you have been slow. The chinese have really come down hard on you and imputed your economy tried to slow this process down. You need to speed it up. It would be helpful if the president didnt president didnt go to south korea until the south korean president not only are you going to take it that you are going to pay for with the Free Trade Agreement. It didnt exactly built a lot confidence in terms of the south korean president that we have to impress on south korea. I would put thaad in japan as well. Even though the sea basin land based i would put the thaad system there as well at the japanese will have it and i would increase their missile capability both in japan and south korea. If theres going to be a threat to our people, to our allies in the japanese those in guam and south korea thousands of people in the region you are going to be put at risk and to the extent that causes any discomfort on the part of the chinese is not a bad thing in my judgment. Think it will do more to bring a solution rather than letting it keep kicking the can forever. Think one of the things you described we are in a third new era that no matter who has gotten elected this is going to be an incredibly complicated. Not. Thereve been a lot of questions about how people and institutions at 870 need a little refurbishing so the bottom line is there are many nations that needed to be worked on that require a subtlety and an understanding of the International Situation that seems to be missing. I think that is what worries me the most, that no matter what things will be hard. The issues that you mentioned are very complex and they require an understanding of some very basic issues and not just gut reactions. I really do think that i hope very much that the team becomes increasingly stronger and operates together and works with members of congress to try to figure out how we fit in this third era of postworld war ii. There are reports this morning that victor cha will be nominated as the ambassador of korea. I think thats a very good choice. We havent had an ambassador. We are just out about time to ask you this because its probably the most important question for americans for americans when 18 and such a hard question to answer. How close are we to were quite excited than assuming watching secretary mattis is a real professional watching secretary tillerson that a combination of sanctions extended deterrence and a file that we will protect ourselves and our allies might be enough with china to maneuver the North Koreans at least towards some kind of diplomatic conversation. We havent talked of his government as you pointed out matalin. Youve are the only american senior official that has been to pyongyang. No one in this administration less have met kim jongun. I think that would be a necessary event before talking about a preemptive american attack but there are some in the administration who think we ought to consider a preemptive attack so the question for both of you is how close are we to war in 2018 . I am often asked if i meant optimist or pessimist. Im an optimist who worries a lot and i think there is no reason to go to war. Foreign policies just trying to get the country to do what you want. There are a lot of other schools besides the actual use of force through the threat of use of force is Something Else that what you said on thaad is very important but i think we also need to figure out how you get the tools together and try to figure out how to restore our credibility. Im very glad that he is going but its not going to be an easy story there. I think its a matter of how to work with congress to infect begin to restore our credibility so we dont have war because it is going to be a disastrous one. Correct think we should really activate an Information Warfare campaign. I think we should try and have a career free radio free korea and really saturate the airwaves as best we can to save president putin has said the North Koreans will eat grass if you put more sanctions on them. Let them eat grass but also offer them some texas thief that we now export to south korea so they can see life is good and south korea. Life is not good in north korea. I would create as much instability as i could on the part of the people of north korea through information campaigns. In terms of going to war i dont think anyone has been in a position in the pentagon or the state department that would advocate that we take preemptive action. Military action, the reason this cam has been kicked down the road since Richard Nixon is because the consequences of going to war are so horrific. If we are talking about tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people thats the reason takana spend kicked down the road. The president is correct in saying i have a mess i have inherited that as you once said to the widow of the officer we lost in niger you knew what you were getting into. You were running for the highest office in the world and problems come with this job. Think it down the road that now the issue is what are you going to do with it . The danger for me is the combine our show of military force with not so vague allegations or statements coming out of the white house that we are preparing for a fire and fury storm coupled with general mcmaster said we are closer to war than ever before. It then gets into the rum of could we start something by accident, misinterpretation that the really feels we are coming with submarines in the region etc. Coupled with the language we are using. If we are going to continue use of language and yet not do anything once again that erodes the credibility of what the president might have in mind. He might be serious or be taken seriously. Think we are closer than some of the experts who say we are 20 that i would put it higher, closer to 35 or 40 just because i think we have ratcheted up the language. We are putting more and more troops and resources into the region and i think it accentuates the possibility that there could be action taken by miscalculation. Dont begin a military leader will recommend that we fire against them on a preemptive basis. I dont believe that what could but it could happen. No wish we had another hour to talk about this and i want to thank secretary cohen and secretary all great for being with us and thank you for your service to the United States. Thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] without further ado we are going to go to our last panel. We have as members of her Strategy Group former members of the cabinet former National Security advisers and journalists. David sanger nick kristof and David Ignatius are all with us so im going to turn this over to our moderator David Ignatius but welcome. Would the end you nick. As you have been seeing on morning and as you will see in this panel the reason the aspen Strategy Group is unusual is that it does bring together an unusually high level of genuinely nonpartisan discussions. This summer as every summer for someone like me journalists give an extraordinary chance to listen to what really matters, the questions that are going to drive our world Going Forward and to hear the smartest people in our country on Foreign Policy so its a special pleasure to be here with susan rice former National Security advisers both heart of what i sometimes call the great chain of the and National Security policy from thoughtful leader to thoughtful leader through the years. I thought we might again by asking if each of you were to write a memo at yearend at the end of this year turned upside down to take the title of our session this summer write a memo to your successor h. R. Mcmaster looking at where we are and we have come through the first year of this term presidency and where we are going what would be the bowl of points in that memo to h. R. Mcmaster, susan . Thank you david. I would again with a little bit of humility. Its a tough job that h. R. Mcmaster has and arguably more difficult in the current context then i faced. I would say several things. First of all i would encourage him and i would imagine hes trying to do it but im particularly difficult context to affect a higher degree of message discipline within the administration. One of the challenges we have seen is we have different members of the Senior Leadership team at different times saying quite divergent things on very important and substandard issues. Thats not only a function of the president and his tweeting that sometimes seems divorced from what i believe has been considered policy but also within the and at times we hear Different Things for example from the u. N. Ambassador then perhaps from the secretary of state or the secretary of defense and i think in the time when our leadership is being questioned and when our stability and consistency is being questioned have a greater message discipline would be very helpful. Secondly i would encourage general mcmaster to work with secretary tillerson and others from the administrations to staff up the department with urgency and to cease efforts to reduce the budget by 30 and to reassure our career diplomats that in fact the work they do is valued and necessary. I think we have a huge crisis of confidence within the state department which is not the shortterm problem but with the exodus of the senior ranks and the lack of recruits at the junior ranks i fear we are facing a generational deficit. Its one that undermines their efficacy across every region in the world. I would also urge general master to give very careful five to the conversation we were just having on north korea to the public assertion that there is a viable military solution to the problem in north korea. For all the people that we just discussed previously. I fear that while publicly those administration shouldnt take any option off the table we are boxing ourselves into a set of options on a very complex problem that could leave us in a corner where we dont want to be and where the outcomes can only be counterproductive. Then finally i think the list could go on but i would also encourage a renewed effort in 2018 to reinforce and reinvigorate our alliances, our traditional alliances in europe and also our relationships with asia. I think we are in different places with different allies but each of them at different times has been buffeted by ambiguity if not downright confusion as to the constancy of our Commission Commission commitment and in this and certain time its not helpful. Let me stop there. Steve golub points for h. R. I would start by telling him hes doing something is right. When you are in those jobs everyone is telling you you are doing things wrong so its nice to start out saying you done something right. You have set the table pretty well on policies. I have spent a lot of time in the middle east and i spent some time in asia. People are feeling pretty good. They feel connected pretty well with traditional allies and he certainly has a Good Relationship with japan. A lot of the concerns people had from the rhetoric in the election have been mitigated because of policies adopted that have strayed considerably from that rhetoric. I would start with you set the table well for set apologies and strategies and now you have to put food on it and they will start doing that with their National Security strategy. I would probably say the perception from the outside is the process is not working as smoothly as it needs to at any level. Doesnt seem to have gotten into a battle rhythm and that is of course an issue for the National Security advisers in an issue for the president. They dont seem to be working together as a team in a coordinate away particularly at the senior level yet. That is worrisome. I would say to them one of the things they need to figure out is roles and responsibilities. It sounds a little silly and it may be wrong. I need to say i was not part of the Trump Campaign or the transition or the administration. Ive never met President Trump so you can decide how much weight to give to what im going to say but this is the man who is now president of the United States who has never been a government at any level for single day. He does know how it works. I think theres a problem of figuring out helping the president understand what his role is, what he needs to do and what he needs other people to do and getting some kind of roles and responsibilities clarified. Everybody seems to be trampling over each other and not going to work. And another thing i would say is there is a Military Pass to their policies and to some of the people who are former military who were in cabinet level positions in no very well from their own experience that the problems we have with terrorism and the problems in the middle east cannot be solved by military means alone. My worry is that im not i am not seeing them rolling out the kinds of integrative strategies that you need to in iraq in syria against the isis to break basically the caliphate and exclude those forces. You now need to come in behind with a set of policies that help those victimized communities reestablish Good Governance for Economic Prosperity and security. People say there shouldnt be any nation building. We are not nationbuilding. These people need to build themselves that they need that help and its in our interest to give them that help. If we dont theres not a longterm stability. I would say they are not giving evidence to develop a full set of strategies integrative Economic Security and military to achieve stability in some of these areas. That is important thing that needs to be done. One big theme of this world turned upside down in my judgment has been the rise, the validation of the rise of china as a global power. That was symbolized in xi jinpings extraordinary performance at the plenum which was followed by President Trumps visit to beijing which seemed to me to be an american validation of this new chinese role, and i want to ask each of you to reflect on china and the United States. Susan, let me ask you to begin that. North korea so ive aske id aso assess that judgment a Good Relationship with china is essential and best to get that threatening them with trade, sanctions etc. But then this extraordinary embrace in the last few months. David david, i think the challenge is first of all in my estimation the bilateral relationship is the most consequential that we have in the world and also one of the most complex and difficult because we have a mix of competition and potential in some instances the reality of cooperation. And i think what we have seen in the Trump Administration is a sort of pivoting to extremes. On the one hand as you mentioned, he came in during the transition putting and not just china but many on edge with his statements on taiwan that suggested they recalibration of our historical balancing of taiwan and china and also some very hot rhetoric about the potential for trade war and now particularly culminating in his visit in november we have seen a bit with as you said more accolades than almost any other leader with the possible exception of Vladimir Putin. Yet governing in a very iron handed way and said nothing at all publicly about human rights and the rule of law. At one extreme not the other. China is a country with which we must find avenues for cooperation with the. With th a the asiapacific regin and the South China Sea to the various other areas and we cant frown over china or brush under the rug fee the various practicr create a enemy so that balance is one that we have to strike and i dont think we quite found our footing. North korea is an important issue which we have to work with but i think we have to be realistic. Yes, china has the capacity to tighten the economic screws on north korea and weve seen it incrementally do so over the including in recent months. We want to encourage that and be able to continue to work with china to ratchet up the pressure in the United Nations and that remains a necessity but also to have a productive dialogue with future scenarios that might unfold so that we are not surprising one another but to expect china to go as far as we might like it to go to put this sort of regime threatening destabilizing pressure on north korea that american administrations have sought for many years to. What is your judgment is the Trump Administration being too accommodating and optimistic about what this china rhythm of the way i would describe it can do. We have another global like the soviet union that had great military power but was fairly weak in the economic terms of influence. China is a formidable competitor and when we talk about the change and th disruption of the International Order weve had since world war ii, one of the big factors is the reemergence of the Great Power Competition and china is at the forefront of and in a sense it is not just china, we are actually seeing emerging to major world powers, china and india so it becomes a very complicated geometry but i think chinas significance is the enormous. One build one Road Initiative that utah about is in my view the most remarkable initiative so far in this century. Its basically saying to the United States and others you think you can box me in while i got in and land access route thats going to take me of me ae way to europe and im going to build infrastructure and if you look at the impact theyve had in Southeast Asia and the extent to which countries are dependent on china and using the politics of the countries that is what is potentially a head when you block west as china builds out its infrastructure, so this is an enormous challenge for the International Order and i think to manage it, its going to take us all working together. I was very troubled by its withdrawal from the chains Pacific Partnership not just because the Economic Significance but the strategic significance it looks like we are not playing in the region when we have to do just the opposite. We need to be active in the world and in that part of the region in every dimension, diplomatic, economic, military, you name it and we need to look at it as not to northeas northe, Southeast Asia, south asia. Itits old age and we have to k with japan, south korea, australia, india all these countries ancountries incountriy not to draw a new lines, not to contain china to engage china and try to shape its policies because it is going to have a decisive influence on the region and the world and its our job to try to shape it in productive ways and to engage them into designing a revised International Order that is stable an and serbs are interesd preserves as much as we can havf the Democratic Foundation of the existing order. So yeah we have to deal with north korea and all the rest that i dont think that we really appreciate or have taken into account the magnitude of the challenge that we face. I want to just note we are going to be turning to the audience in about ten minutes for your questions, so please be thinking of what you would like to ask a. Of up to turn now to a discussion. I want to ask you to focus this looking forward and ask suzanne to begin with a. I remember the phrase exit ramp. We want to leave Vladimir Putin and exit ramp and allow him to stop this policy thats damaging and destructive and there seemed to be some optimism given the sanctions we were fighting against russia at some point it would become too costly and he would take one of these exit ramps. I havent seen that so i want to ask you as you look towards 2018 whether you think it is still time to keep them open or as you look at the policy if you would think that maybe it is time for the different strategic view towards russia. Initially it was with ukraine we had organized the European Union in ourselves and our g7 partners to implement increasingly stringent sanctions with the aim of trying to get them to roll back and were also engaged with our partners in europe on an effort to negotiate the mens agreements france and germany played a role in a it would have resolved the issue of Eastern Ukraine in a fashion consistent with International Law and the interest of the sovereign and we did all tha ths we were also substantially increasing our support for the financial economic, political and military to the government of ukraine. They were not punished as an end to themselves you dont close off the opportunity to succeed if an event the pressure that you have applied is having the desired impact you want to be able to capitalize on that with a diplomatic opening. And the same theory applied in the context of this area. So those are different circumstances but in the case of ukraine into syria. In recent months we have seen not the opportunity but frankly a superhighway where there is no constraint to what they might do because not only have we not increased the sanctions even though Congress Mandated that we must sanctions havent been forthcoming from the administration not only that but we talked about rolling back existing sanctions and we have essentially left the diplomacy both in ukraine and serious so i think we are at a place now where the question is what are our tools to address the ukrainian challenge and you asked a broad question is it time for a rather radical readjustment to the approach to russia i think it is time for clarity and understanding across the party lines that we face a russia that is pursuing policies that are antithetical to our interest. Russia is not our friend and putin isnt worthy of the nobel prize as it has been suggested by some. He is acting in a way that is in violation of International Law and the norms of humanity particularly in the seriou serid we need to implement the sanctions Congress Mandated and consider additional sanctions. There are steps we can take which would in fact be more complex than the sanctions weve imposed to dat date because they would implicate not only european interest but in some instances also our interest as well but theyve implement russia even more so we should consider that balance. We need to continue to build up our support for the eastern flank and nato and not open the door to russian meddling in nato through rhetoric or any ambiguity about the constancy of the commitment so far to the nato allies and in places elsewhere in the middle east where russia is running around arguably eating our lunch in places like egypt we need to be very clear about where we are with our partners in different regions and make it clear that we are not leaving open doors for russia and as i said whose interests are in opposition to gain advantage of our expense. Steve, President Trump has been remarkably consistent through the campaign, through all the turmoil that surrounds the question of russia in saying he believes the interest is served by a better relationship with russia and Vladimir Putin n and you cant solvthat you can r problems unless you have to. Is he wrong facts to be complex and how would you assess the question i put to suzanne, is it time that we change how we deal with this powerful russia and i will tag on a comment i made before. A friend of mine recently said to me thinking about all these issues we need to give russia a punch in the nose. We need to find somewhere in the world and give them a punch in the nose. But more generally about this interesting paradox of the policy. I think that we can all agree that and improved relationship with russia would be a good thing. Russia is active in a lot of theaters. My worry is that in some sense he decided his role is to be a spoiler in some sense. The ambassador before he left said youve all decided russia is the enemy and putin is going to start show you what its like to have russia as an enemy. Its not a good place to be. The question is can we change the behavior in a way that is consistent with our terms so that it can be a partner. How do you get there . A couple things to me and you see it in ukraine. Mind you for what its worth putin is not a great strategist and isnt particularly reckless but a brilliant opportunist. You see it in other instances, he will make a move and then see whether his intervention succeeds and whether he is resistant and if it starts to flounder and if he is resistant. He will up its objectives. We saw that in georgia and elsewhere. What do you need to do . Two things. One, you need to take things off the table. The night and opportunities. Thats what we need to do for example in the baltic state and central and eastern europe. We are trying to put to strengthen their presence and put troops on the ground and make it clear that the states are off the table. The balkans are off the table. They are not going to be an opportunity for putin to do what he did in ukraine. Second, where he does act i dont know whether it is punch him in the nose that you need to act in such a way he pays tactically and cannot achieve his tactical objectives and to see that hes been strategically defeated. His aspirations i think were much more ambitious in terms of taking a more swath of the country on the eastern side and having it be very much pro russian. Hes paying a price in terms of sanctions and isolation and at some point it will come time to test to see whether hes going to have a settlement with ukraine to reducing investment on terms that are acceptable. I dont know. We ought to test the proposition if it is not available or not an option then we need to increase sanctions and do things like arming them with lethal weapons. Hes going to be a problem and needs to be engaged on each of those scenarios and i think it is a combination of hardening the opportunities so that he cannot make mischief and then, prompting him to become them when they act. The thing we havent figured out is the campaign he is using to the societies you see it here in the United States and in europe. Wwe havent figured out how to counter that anyway and we are not doing it effectively. This is part of the ideological struggle we have now, china they say the authoritarian state capitalism is an alternative to the western Democratic Free freemarket model and putin certainly seems to believe the same thing and if they are actively trying to convince the worlworld affairs is a superior model and we are on our back foot. We are not responding in a sensible way. Before i turn this over to the audience for questions i want to ask a last question of my own and pull the camera back if you go so the basic question we were struggling with last august i think its fair to say that every member of the group grew up in the shadow of the world that was created after world war ii and the idea of American Power that was embodied in the work of president truman, George Marshall of the liberal american order, the liberal International Order as we describe it. I want to ask as a final question how lasting each of you think the damage to that order is a and what are the best ways to defend the broad idea maybe you can start. Is the damage going to be blasting or will thi while thisf revert to its previous shape after this period . I think we have to distinguish between the various forces pulling the liberal world order. Some of them might be considered predominantly exogenous coming from outside and we considered a number of those in aspen the direction of europe, the rise of china, the new economy, russias role and each of those has in origin and momentum of its own, which i think we need to be very realistic about and the point about how significant this is is valid but i dont think it represents a threat to the United States if we manage it carefully. Then there are the endogenous origins or causes of the fraying of the liberal world and those are things i would argue come from within ourselves as the principal theater and creator of this liberal world order and these things are relatively new. They are shocks that have been added to these factors and i think we can work to manage and limit those aspects of this but we have the greatest control theoretically over these aspects and i dont know that we have fully grasped the significance of what i term the abdication oe abdication of American Leadership internationally which we have seen take on new forms as we walk out of agreements that we ourselves committed to whether it is paris were petite kiki or putting in jeopardy the deal or now taking decisions on things like jerusalem which we thus substantially isolated internationally. Theres many different ways that we have ceded the stage and left a vacuum of American Leadership which only accelerates china and others to fill the void. But we also have our own domestic internal divisions which are so debilitating which facilitate the kinds of disruptive efforts that the russians engaged in daring and arguably since the election when we ourselves are so polarized and unable to agree even on the facts that we are debating, much less on where we are going we are threatening our own ability to come back. So the answer to the question i think if we are playing wit witl our cards on the table with a degree of National Unity and strength and clarity as a leader in the world, i think that these challenges can be met and we can see the evolution of the liberal world order. It will not be identical to what it was in 45 or 90 but it can be a 21st century version that upholds our values. But if we dont get our domestic house in order and decide what kind of leader we want to be and do it from the position of National Unity, then i think a lot of the best media off. You always say to me in our conversations we need to remember that this president is an insurgent and i have grown to understand thinking about that point, so with that in mind, what just ask you directly is the old world order finished . Is it over, and if its possible that is so, what might be coming to replace it . There will always be an order of some sort, but the question is whether it will be like the order we had since the end of world war ii which is basically the creation of the United States and our allies based on democratic principles and open economies. Its been very successful not just for the United States but the world in terms of providing an unprecedented period of prosperity and security. The alternative to that is a different kind of order. And one of the answers to send data to that that order will fade away, but it depends on the policies. If we try to exclude and not adapt that order to the changes that we have seen, it is more likely to fade away. If we do not embrace china and we try to incorporate china in an effort to adapt the International Order by for example we should have tried to use our influence a is part of t to make sure that International Standards of transparency and accountability in helping those that received funds we should be giving the same thing. If we do that, china would prefer to be at the existing order and we can preserve it. If on the other hand we do not cover the risk is china that ch, russia and others will form an alternative International Order based on the authoritarian principles and that becomes a safe haven for all the bad actors in the world who want to get out from under the International Order that makes them subject to things like sanctions. A space for the money launderers and the alternative structure if you will which will not be the place any of us would want to live and would be competitive in the International Order we have seen. Everybody thinks becaus becausee withdrawal from certain agreements that you are withdrawing from the world. I dont think that is the intention. They have to come up with an explanation of the theory of engagement that they can sell to the American People. Last point, one of the things we need in the Strategy Group he can say all we want about reconstituting the International Order but its also loss of the support of the American People and there is a group that dave and expression and feel victimized by globalization, threatened by immigration, abandoned by their political leaders and betrayed by People Like Us and those people are the ones who say International Order should go away. Weve got to address their grievances and ways to do that. I wish we had a tax cut that helped the middle class and the Infrastructure Program that would give people an their 50s and 60s jobs and then a real job training to adapt the economy. Lets turn to members of the audience, if they have questions please identify yourself. What advice would you give President Trump in the middle east in jerusalem . I think it is a little later in jerusalem. I think they are off to a good start. They have embraced her allies, i made it clear we are on their side and we have their back. I think that is a good thing. They focus effort and build on what was done on the Obama Administration to go after isis a Great Success in iraq and syria. A lot of rhetoric about checking iran and the problem in the region is on adjust problems we havent really got a strategy for. I think theyre off to a good start. The other thing is that bad alumni did a study attacked about a lot of bottomup activity young people who are forming social organizations, we need to be supporting them and supporting their government that reads them as allies in building a better future. You see that what the crown prince of saudi arabias trying to do with this country and for his country. We should be supporting the efforts. In this study we did we came away optimistic in the sense that there are things to work within the middle east that offer the prospect of a more peaceful and prosperous middle east. We have to help them mowing down the civil wars and then support those governments that are making positive steps to reform their economies and engage their people in developing a common future. If we do those things and with some like the middle east can turn into a positive direction. Any thoughts from you susan . I think the following is true. With the broader middle east it would be bad top and iran do. We are to sustain it not threaten its viability. We will be the ones isolated and will be isolated from our european allies. Secondly, we need to continue continue not take right off the ball assisting in the gains we have made against isis. Much better generally speaking with military campaigns with dealing with post conflict Political Economic and social reconstruction. Steves point earlier about staying engaged in iraq and syria building behind the military victory so it will see isis to prancer is vital. Its not clear to me that we know what the post conflict outcome will be in syria. I would suggest with respect to the Peace Process or potential Peace Process that the mood in jerusalem, while might be done its not helpful. If the aim was to put on the table of peace plan that results in potential for to state outcome, what it has done is make it very difficult if not impossible for the palestinians to approach the proposal with anything with a positive attitude. Maybe that was the point. If it wasnt it has the inadvertent or consequence of making the effort more remote. Finally, we retake a different point of view, we need to continue to sustain our efforts if not intensified the to counter irans activities in the region. But not with blind Carte Blanche support for the saudis and their partners in the region. I think we have underestimated the ability of the young Saudi Crown Prince to engage in behavior outside his borders thats detrimental to interests. I think were exacerbating the sunni fissures in the region by our unqualified and untempered for everything that comes out of including destructive policies in yemen. We need to make clear to her good friends and partners in saudi in the golf that we share their concerns about security and the threat iran poses in the region. Theres a smart way and a dangerous way to do that. A way that might make the iranian problem more dangerous over time even if it gives us shortterm gratification. I think our support is over at the moment. We have time for one more question. The megabanks her director, nick, this conversation makes me look fortunate summer in aspen. Reporting back to you after that. Limit think david and susan, madame albright. Steve, those are the people left this morning. I hope youll consult our book, it is nonpartisan. Were trying to provide solutions for the whole country. I think you to our panelists. [applause] [inaudible]tr