Kevin youngs boat and roxanne memoir hunger. Booktv is covered several of this years finalist. I think most of us, it means an end to come it means losing people we love. One of the things i learned from reading especially the dying writers like Christopher Hitchens who are writing about their own death, and even with my parents one of the things i realize that dying people want to tell us is to live. Like, live the best life you can. Live it so you dont have any regrets at the end. Do we, to the living find that message . I think the living [inaudible] we want to put that in the back of her mind. We dont concentrate on our mortality because its depressing but one of the things Christopher Hitchens writes in his book mortality is that he found at the end, can before, hes a living dying, the differences you are constantly where you have an expiration date. For most of us its a possibility, its something that life has. But for dying people they know that every single day is a gift. Normally, ideally i think would be great if we all lived like that but itss also, it would be you can watch these programs in full online at booktv. Org. For the complete list of this Years National book critics circle spineless in all six categories had to book critics. Org. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] you are watching booktv cspan2, live coverage of the savannah book festival. Yale Law School ProfessorScott Shapiro is about to begin. His book, the internationalists, is about the 1928 peace pact that outlawed war around the world. [inaudible conversations] good morning, book lovers. My name is al stiles, and im delighted to welcome you to this 11th annual savannah book festival if the book festival is presented by georgia power, david and nancy cintron, the Sheehan Family foundation, and mark and pat soon. Many thanks to jack and mary romanos, our sponsors for this glorious venue, the Trinity United Methodist church. We would also like to extend thanks to our literary members who, and individual donors, who make this saturday free all of the presentations possible. 90 90 of our revenue comes frm donors just likee you. We are very excited to have a savannah book festival app available this year for your phone. Just look in your program for information on downloading it. Immediately following the presentation, Scott Shapiro will be signing festival purchased copies of his book. If you are planning to stay for the next author presentations, we just ask that you please move forward so that the ushers can count the available seats so we can let in the right amount of people. No flash photography. Also, now is a good time to set your phone to do not disturb, or turn it off. For the question and answer portion, please raise your hand and i sure will bring a microphone too you, and then you need to wait until the microphone gets to you before you ask your question, because no one will be able to hear you otherwise. Please limit yourself, to be fair, to one question, and no long stories, please. Scott shapiro is with us today courtesy of liz and cant ernest. Scott teaches both law and philosophy at Yale Law School where he directs the center for law and philosophy. He earned his bachelors and doctorate degrees in philosophy from columbia, and then at j. D. From Yale Law School. Hes the author of legality and editor of the oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law, one ofan my favorites. Please give a warm welcome to Scott Shapiro. [applause] hello, everyone. Good morning. First of all, i have yankee blood, so i brought a jacket, but its just too hot for me. Although it is snowing in new york, so im enjoying being overheated. So our book, the internationalists, is the story of the modern international order. Its about the people who helped to build it and why, despite its imperfections, its crucial that it be defended now more than ever. The central argument of the book is that the origins of the modern world order can be traced to a specific date in history, august 27, 1928 when d World Leaders gather together in paris to outlaw war. Now, the treaty that was signed on that date which goes by the name that kelloggbriand pact, catalog for frank keller, the american secretary of state and the French Foreign minister, has largely been forgotten. Im just, just curious, show of hands was overheard of the kelloggbriand j pact . That is a lot of people. That is much more savannah, there he educated. [laughing] most people have never heard about it, and actually most law professors have never heard of it. And the people who have heard of it think its among the most ridiculous things that diplomats have ever tried to do. The idea that youat get in or by signing a piece of paper strikes many people as the height of foolishness. And to tell you the truth, when my colleague and i taught International Law at yale before we wrote thed book, we also treated it that way as a laughingstock and obviously i failed experiment in idealism. However, through the course of research on related topic, though at the time we didnt know it was related, the history ofof economic sanctions, we discovered something we really didnt expect, that is, far from being ridiculous, outlawing war turned out to be transformative. It represented, if you will, a hinge in history whereep one wod order ended and another began. In short, before 1928 war was the legitimate mechanism of statecraft. It was the way in which states enforced their rights against one another. In fact, and this is what we found absolutely astonishing, before 1928, war was legal and economic sanctions werefo illeg. After 1928, this switch is and it switches incredibly quickly. War becomes illegitimate, indeed criminal, and economic sanctions are now the routine way in which International Law is enforced throughout the world. Now, we describe this tectonic shift in worlds history narratively in the book to a cast of characters that we call the internationalists. Now, most of these people we had never heard of. In fact,st one of the main heros of the book who i will talk about later did not, before the book, have a wikipedia entry, which in the modern world needs you dont exist. [laughing] but wey, were really taken by their determination, their brilliance, their vision, their doggedness and, indeed, their candidness in being able to figure out how to take their ideas and turn them into action. Turn them into action. At a time when people are thinking about resistance, their story, we found to be inspirational. One of the reasons most people think war i turned on my phone just because i realized i didnt know how long things were going and my sister texted me [laughter] yeah, okay. So i think the reason why most people think that war is ridiculous is because they dont appreciate the vital role before use today play before 1928 in an era that we use today call old world order n. The old war order, states had the right of war. Today we think, of course, war as the breakdown to have system. In the old war order war was the system. If a state had been wronged and made demands of rrch everyone opinion everyonebe now, they have the right not just in cases where we recognize of selfdefense but any kind of legal wrong whatsoever to collect debts, to recover property,bu to enforce commercil treaties, any reason you could go to court you could go to war for. Now, this may sound like an absolutely crazy thing to do but, barbaric to go to war to collect debt but from there perspective in the old war order it made perfect sense. If somebody owes you money, what do you do, you go to lawyer, sue a person, go to court, if the person pay up you the sheriff willrs execute the judgment. If youre a state, however, sovereign, theres no supreme court, theres no world police that you can appeal to and so states and the law gave them the right to use force in order to write the wrong. Now, what is critical here is not just that states have the right of war, they had ma other rights which gave the right of war value. Now the most important right that they had which supported the right of war was the right of conquest, we know conquest happened foror millenial, it waa legal write because the law needed to give states a way of actually writing the wrongs that they went to war in order to write. When the United States went to war with mexico in 1846, the official legal justification was that mexico owed the United States 2 million. The United States tried for 20 years to get that money back and decided to go to war in 1846 and as compensation they got compensation for that for those debts and the name of that compensation is california, utah, nevada, new mexico, part of oklahoma and basically 500,000 square miles of mexican territory. Now, this is not the way when the United States did this it was not acting as a rogue imperial power it was acting as what responsible states did and that is because the old war order gave state it is war of war and right of conquest. In addition to right of conquest states had another right. If they had the right to go to war, they had the right to threaten to go to war. Now, this is incredibly important because this undergrows the practice that we now call diplomacy. As many of you know, in 19th century japan was excluded excuse me secluded and excluded with the exception of the dutch twice a year from trading with japan. The United States and other western powers were very upset, they claimed that japan was violating its legal obligation to engage in Global Commerce and sent Matthew Perry and his gun boats into tokyo bay threatening to destroy the port unless the japanese signed a treaty of friendship. The japanese quickly became friends with the United States and the other western countries. These treaties were binding in the old war order and in fact, to violate them would have been cause of war. Because war was legal, another consequence followed. Immunity to prosecution. If war is illegal, waging war cannot be criminal and that is why before 1928 no head of state or military leader was ever prosecuted for l waging aggresse war. Napolean goes to war with every state in europe, kills 5 to 7 Million People and what is his punishment, he gets island in mediterranean called elba in which he is an emperor. Of course, it is a demotion bute punishment you would give to somebody after killing millions of people and treaty of verseille, flees to the netherlands and the netherlands will not give up on the theory he did nothing wrong, that is if it is not legal in prosecuting legal activity. Finally, because states had legal right of war, neutral states, states not in war were under strict duty ofism of impartiality. If they were to facetoface one side in order another, that would be act of war. I dont know how many here have seen hamilton or heard the sound track off hamilton, cabinet battle two is all about the duty of neutrality. There the United States did not want to favor france in its war with Great Britain on the theory that if it favored one side over another it would be act of war and would draw the United States into a war with the european powers which it did not want to get drawn into. So, the thing is that i normally, i normally give this talk with the the powerpoint and it has pictures and diagrams and cool animation. Its very helpful to see how the old war changes but they said if you want to be on tv, you couldnt have the powerpoint and so i was thinking do i want to give a good talk and not be on tv or lousy talk and be on tv. [laughter] hi, mom. What you would have seen is a slide that has in the center it says right of war and there would have been four circles emanating from it and one would have said right of conquest and the other right of diplomacy and immunity of prosecution of war and finally duties of impartiality. Now the duties of impartiality is really important because that what was prevented neutrals from imposing economic sanctions on belligerents. Thats what you would have seen the book is called the internationalist and the book is about people and one of the most important people in thee. Book, the guy who does not have his own who did not have his own wikipedia entry is this man named sam levinson. Jewish attorney from chicago and he waser a son of immigrants and he became a successful lawyer during corporate reorganizations for sears, with railroad companies, really did not think about International Relations at all until world war i happened and the stock market shut down for the first time, for the third time in its history. He also had two fightingage sons and he started thinking about the legality of war, thinking how foolish this is that we allow states to resolve their conflicts by essentially getting them to kill each other. Now i dont know how many lawyers are out there but i think itsi really significant that sam levinson was a bankruptcy attorney because they hate litigators. Litigators fight it out and they make a bad situation worse whereas bankruptcy attorney tries to make a bad situation better, lets all get in the room, lets work it out and not fight till the death and also bankruptcy attorney. Hes not an International Lawyer so he doesnt know he doesnt really appreciateot the fact tht this is the way the world has always been. I mean, he knows it but its not like baked into his dna and so he images a different world and he it turns out that through hisou wife he was Close Friends with the Great American philosopher johnri dewy and dewy helped him develop his thoughts on the outlawry of war and how to make law illegal and he and levenson start to take contacts with important politicians. A long story from 1917 to 1928 which we tell in the book and i wont i wont go into it now but through incredible dogged determination levenson was able to bootstrap an organization that pays off on august 27th, 1928 when the 15 most powerful nations, you know, United States, germany, italy, france, japan, china, they meet in they meet in paris to outlaw war and right after that, within the year of virtually every state in the world signed onto it renouncing war and it it was at the time the most subscribed to treaty in history. So it was a really an amazing acheviment that levenson didnt work alone, he worked with other characters that we describe in the book. He got the world to do something momentous. It was so momentous that it was dangerous. Why . What he what the pack did i just spent hour or so describing the legality of war. Now all of a sudden, like they had takenik out the lynchpin of that system, taken out the center, theyen had now said that all the rules that you that states followed, you no longer havegh that right. And this caused an enormous problem. First problem that arises befalls the successor to Frank Kellogg and in september of 1931 japan invades manchuria and conquers manchuria, its enormous, 1 and a half million scare kilometers. Enormous piece of the earth. Japan had just signed three years earlier, why they did that is y a whole other story which e talk about in the book, its a really interesting story, why they thought they were allowed toli do that but they did it and that caused enormous problem for the world which was what do we do about this, like, how do we enforce the prohibition against war, we just renounced war. It would be absurd to use war to enforce the prohibition on war. I feel like its a Homer Simpson moment where they go, doh. Well, what tools do we have in order to discipline states who do go the war and violate their commitments . Henry went to yale college and so happens he was a classmate of levenson and levenson wrote an article which he sent to simpson and in that article which was titled sanctions of peace, he proposed that now that war was illegal states should no longer have the right of conquest. Right, if the whole idea of conquest in order it was to further the states right away, if states no longer have right ofha war they shouldnt have rit of conquest and people would engage in conquest levinson recognized but what other states should not do is recognize the conquest, it should not trade withqu them and accord any sovereign rights to the conqueror as levinson said, somebody might take a city but that city would no longer be his. Stimson takes this idea and writes the famous stimson note which becomes the stimson doctrine, it was nowow the poliy that they would not recognize conquest or treaties that were coerced and the league of nations all the members of the league of nations also adopt this. This is an unbelievable revolution in the way the world works. Within four years of signing this piece of paper, virtually the entire world renounces what had been one of the most ancient rights of sovereignty, that is conquest. Just to read you the stimson note. The u. S. Does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which maybe brought about by means contrary to the covenant and pact of paris in august 27 and league of nations agrees that they cannot conquer one another. If you ever wonder why like nobody recognizes russias invasion of crimea is this, is this. It begins in 1932 right after 1928 and the reason that it is given is because of the outlawry of war. It not only get rids of outlawry because you cant get the agreement you want. The next order of business is neutrality that i talked about, the duties of impartiality. In the runup to world war ii and when world war ii begins before the United States is in the war, a big problem faces the United States which is how do we aid Great Britain and not germany and not commit an act of war . Because remember to help one belligerent over another would be illegal and that would be committing an act of war and manyny isolationists in the unid states did not want america drawn into the war. Itit was then in the beginning f 1941, six months before pearl harbor that the United States position that the pact to paris, kellogg pact changed neutrality meaning that because states dont have to right of war, neutral states are interfering with their rights by siding with their opponents over them because theyre not trampling on the right of war because they dont have the right of war. No one has the t right of war anymore except in cases of selfdefense. Now, this is incredible, i think, because first of all, its the beginning of this practice of economic sanctions that we just take for granted and happens now because of the kelloggbriand pact but happens six months before pearl harbor. The reason that japan that the japanese attacked the United States in pearl harbor was because we imposed economic sanctions on them which by the old rules would have been a reason to attack the United States, now, the United States only changed its mind about what neutral states were allowed to do six months before the attack. Really what you have here, what world war ii becomes is a clash over world war orders. Its a war over war. Now, after after the allies win the war is what do we do about it, what do we do with nazis and Imperial Japan who waged aggressive war, can we prosecute them . The claim became and long story in the book, nuremberg, the trial in which the main charge is the charge of violating the kelloggbriand pact, we think of nuremberg in trials in which nazi leaders were convicted, prosecuted and then convicted of perpetrating the holocaust. That was not the reason why these trials were put, were i dont want to say staged but were established, okay. They were established to try the nazis for waging aggressive war and the american officials were able to shoe horn the charges of the holocaust into neremberg simply by saying that the holocaust was related to aggressive war. So the crimes against humanity, the real legal reason for that is the kelloggbriand pact. If youll google it you will see its in the indictment, its talked about extensively in the trial transcripts. What what we see and if i had the powerpoint like the animation would have been would have blown you away. [laughter] youll just have to believe me on this one. So remember i had said that there was this slide we have in the middle of the right of war tand conquest, diplomacy, immunity prosecution and no economic sanctions and then the animation would have gone you would have seen this new slide which we call the new world order where you have the problemition on war, no conquest, no gunboat diplomacy, crime of aggression and then finally the possibility of economic sanctions. What you do is you see an entire International System flip on its ear in a very, very short time because of this piece of paper signed in 1928. Again, it doesnt happen all at once. It in 1928,gned they dont know what theyre doing. Itswh like to give the obamacae analogy, what if congress had repealed obamacare but not replaced it, right . It would have been chaos and taken a long time to put this thing together. Now this is not just the Health Care System of the United States, this is the International System involving all the states of the world. A really complex, messy process by whichch its precipitated on that day, august 27th, 1928. Now the last part of the book, we map out the new world order and i will talk about it very brieflyld but one of the things ythat ona and i want to do is to see whether the change in the rules matter, like on the ground. And so we we theres a lot of statistical evidence in the book, a lot of quantitative evidence, what we did is we went through all the territorial acquisitions data from the war data set which is the largest and most comprehensive data set involving war and we tracked basically the practice of conquest from 1816 to 2014. And this is what we found. Much to w i mean, luckily it turned out this way but we were kind of shocked at the magnitude out of the effect both in terms of size and in terms of for frequency and size. 1816 is where the data starts. Thats why we81 started there. From 1816 to 1928 the average state could expect to suffer a conquest once in 40 years. Afterwards a state could expect, the average state could expect to suffer a qon quest conquest once or twice in a thousand years. The odds that you lived in a state that would be conquered would be once in your lifetime and now its once or twice a millennium. In terms of the extent its really striking. The average before 1928 was preyear of territory conquest, roughly 11 crimeas, like if you take crimea and you multiply it by 11, youll get the average, the average amount conquered per year. Now, after 1945 you get roughly one crimea every four years. You go from 11 crimeas to one crimea every four years and the last crimea was crimea. And this is thats why crimea matters a great deal because its if you will, the exception that proves the rule, its such a p rarity now speciay conquest is falling off in terms of extent, 96 and it needs to stay that way. It needs to stay that way and the way in which it stays that way is the way acquisition of russia of crimea cannot be recognized. The sanctions cannot be dropped. It is it is horrible for the people of crimea but it is really important for the health of the International System. Because states cannot be conquered, weca see a proliferation of states. So after 1945 you have about 65 60 states, now roughly 183 states and the reason is that states can be small and weak. South sudan broke away from sudan even though it makes it more vulnerable in one sense but nott vulnerable in another way. It doesnt really have to worry about being conquered and have its oil deposits taken because nobody will recognize that conquest. Now, this is wonderful on one hand, weak states can survive but it has its downside and theres a downside to the new world order which we talk about in the book which is if weak states can survive, so can failed states. And failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and insurgencies that dont respect national borders. So on the one hand, the outlawry of war between states has virtually, not completely virtually eliminated interstate war but if anything it has created pressures towards intrastate wars and the war that is we are seeing nowadays are largely civil wars brought about by the fact that states dont need to be strong in order to survive. Now, im going to conclude just by saying theres a lot of data in the book and a lot of ideas in the book, a lot of philosophical data in the book but in the end its about people, its about people that most of us never heard of, who were courageous, they were ordinary people with extraordinary ideas and they were able to change the world and that i hope is an inspiration for all of us that its possible for for us to have agency in the world as well, thank you. [applause]us hi, that was wonderful. Thank you. The timing of this obviously is striking between world war i and world war ii but im also curious whether technology, how much it had to do with it. So we went from handtohand combat, soldiers stab each other and we are now acquiring the ability to wipe out thousands of people at a go, we have airplanes, we have bombs, we are moving toward the ato atomic bomb, did. That factor into thinking and urgency in which they wanted to doh this . Thats a great question. Let me say, so sometimes, you know, you think, well, the outlawry of war was the result of world war i which if there was ever i mean, many most wars are stupid, to tell you the truth. World war i was a particularly stupid war, a terrible, terrible waste of life. But the it wasnt merely the fact that so many people died. Its how they died. You know, the invention of poison gas, early your the gatling gun which enabled automatic fire and increase in tonnage of armament made war even more ghastly than it had been before and here is what i find amazing, the response of world war i in the leagueor of nations was not to outlaw war. The covenant in the league of nations allows states to go to war. Yourete going to go to w, come to us first and if you come to us t first, let us adjudicate your dispute but you dont have to listen to us, you have to wait 60 days and then go to war even if youai lose. So it is actually amazing to me that after the cataclysm of world war i, the response was lets just have war but wait 60 days which is enormous failure of imagination but also shows how deeply ingrained the idea of the right to wage war was among diplomats. Now, for sure, the with the failure of the league of nations this gives energy to antiwar activists to try Something Else precisely because they with the change in Technology War is getting worse. But it wasnt obvious and one of the things that the book tells and its a paradox way to put the message in the book which is outlawing war is an opportunity but a problem, how do we live without war, how do we solve problems if states dont have the right too use force against one another and weve gotten really, really good at that, the Iran Nuclear Deal is a perfect example of avoiding war though im sad to say that the Current Administration seems to be forgetting this lesson and is backsliding in some sense the messaging to have book is not to backslide. Within the context of the pact, what was the u. S. justification for the gulf war and war against iraq and subsequently afghanistan . Yeah, soo good, those are great questions. So the pact is just one i mean, its two paragraphs but its really one operative paragraph and really doesnt say much, it actually fits on the back of a postcard and i actually have one ofar those postcards, you can get them off ebay and it basically just high contracting parties renounce or as a solution to international controversies. It doesnt say anything about selfdefense, it doesnt say anything about anything. Its very vague. The person who wrote the kelloggbriand, immediate historian wrote the charters, one of the things we found in archive and the un charter begins, the first draft begins with the kelloggbriand pact, the kelloggbriand pact survives in the form of un charter and the un charter lays down basically two im sorry, three exceptions to to war, one is the prohibition on war, so the three reasons youre allowed to go to war, one is selfdefense due to armed attack which i will get to in a second. The second thing is the consent the state allows you to go to go to war with it. In the case of afghanistan and the first war, there was security authorization and in thehe case of the first gulf war that was a conquest which the Security Council was was urgingly trying to reverse and successful in reversing. Afghanistan, the taliban supported alqaeda and that was a selfdefense justification and ratified by the Security Council. The iraq war in my own view was a rank illegal war, there was justification given by the United States which was in my own vieww kind of laughable. It was and illegal war and when you think one of the worst things that have happened since world war ii its the iraq war. So theres an irony here and the sadness that the that the United States which was so pivotal in constructing, a, the kelloggbriand and the United Nations and post Car Organization that is have helped keep the peace has in the 21st century 20th century, excuse me, well, im we are in the 21st century . [laughter] you may ignore Everything Else i have said. Shame that the 21st century, its the United States which is undermining the thing that it helped to build. So what changes do you see or predict will happen in the world order moving forward . Wow. [laughter] in the 21st century. In the 21st century. I could give you an unbelievable good answer about the 20th century. [laughter] okay. Okay, so none of us knows. So i feel like we are at this Inflection Point that is we dont know what is happening with the international order. It could go one of two ways, certainly the rhetoric of the trump administrationn has been very disheartening, take the oil, secretary tillerson has said that we will now, the United States military not only fight in syria but we will stay in syria. I dont know even what to say about that. What would beta the legal justificationn for that. We fired cruise missiles last april after chemical weapons attack which was blatantly illegal and, in fact, the government is not even train to justify it. It has withdrawn from tpp, its trying to withdraw from nafta, it had threatened to withdraw from nato, all these things are extremely worrying on the and then we have the rise of nationalism in europe, we have brexit, theve rise of rightwing populism, and then china is growing by leaps and bounds and its not clear what kind of rules it wants. We are not doing anything to stop its expansion in the south chinaa sea. Since we withdrew from tpp, the rest of the world moved on and created its own tpp without the United States and therefore any typepe of laborer environmental regulation that we wanted to put in is we had no influence over. I dont know. Really things depend on the midterm elections, depends on robert mueller, they depend on the Immigration Crisis in europe. I dont i wish i knew. One thing i do know is that if youresh complaisant about it, i would like to have what youre having. [laughter] because im very worried. As a followup to that, its apparent to all of us the scope of what youre writing about can be huge, tremendous, as an author, how did you come to a Decision Point or realization that you would limit your book to less than 5,000 pages . Yeah. [laughter] we used like an ageold theoretical metric which was the publisher said no more than 150,000 words. [laughter] so that was the principal decision that we made. There was so much that was left on the cutting room floor and, in fact, too bad my colleague here hathaway is not here because shes much more articulate than i am. We had such a Good Relationship that we would write something and give it to the other person and they would just edit it ruthlessly and sheso had a chapr and i put the cursor at the beginning and i went 10,000 words and put it at the end and hit delete just because we had to eliminate 50,000 words. So the thing is, its a paradox in writing, less is more. And you have to make hard choices andnd its great when a when we have a great editor and the editor said, 150,000 words and the manuscript is 150,310 words. We are also lawyers so we thats what they said, we have to give it to them which im sure he picked the number out of a hat. That was what happened. Basically we started in 1603 with hugo and him defending cousin who is a pirate and through the course of defending his cousin the pirate, developed the classical laws of the old war order and we ended up with isis, so there was a lot of stuff that we covered but a lot of stuff we didnt and so we yeah. Sort of two parts but what about vietnam, have we ever been sanctioned for anything and if you want to be an activist now which i do, if you have any suggestions about how to do that . Oh, dear, yeah, so lets just first of all point out that we lost vietnam. That was a big a big sanction in and of itself. Vietnam and korea, we talk about this in the book are really tricky cases. They are really tricky cases oubecause both in vietnam and korea what had happened was there was a vacuum created after world war ii when the japanese withdrew from these regions and left no sovereign in its place. It created, if you will, a black hole and the korean and vietnamese war, vietnam war was a war over who was the new sovereign because there was no way to establishsh who the new sovereign was because the sovereign, the japanese just left and and it was like an abandoned house where nobody had title. Now, from a Strategic Point of view it was a foolish thing, from a humanitarian point of view was a foolish thing that the unitednt states engaged in this activity. Asas activist the state of antir movement in the w state is not healthy, there are Many Organizations and i weve worked with them, i love them, they are courageous but they are they are underpopulated, underfunded and there are lots of reasons for that. One of the organizations that we write about in the book, Womens International peace and freedom, they still exist today, we have spoken to them, theyre an amazing organization, there are all these organizations to work with but if i want to be really if we want to be really honest here, you know, the midterms, like as a shortterm goal and as a longerterm goal to care you know, both parties, both parties, the democrats and the republicans are addicted to war and thats the sad truth. The book is a nonpartisan book. It doesnt its not a pox on the republicans house because the democrats are i dont know as bad but are pretty bad in this respect and, you know, as activists we ought to be out there pointing out the the real damage that the forever wars are creating to the world, to our domestic politics, to to humanity. Last one. Is there any academic, Legal Research going on now toward a new kelloggbriand pact . Oh, yeah. So one of the one of the organizations which i greatly admire World Without war run by the great david swanson, hes been trying to get other countries to adopt the kelloggbriand pact. There have been attempts to get states to adopt the kelloggbriand pact, my own thought is that we dont need something new. We just need to Pay Attention to what we already have because what is happening now is we are overturning the apple card which millions of people died to create and which has made the world more prosperous and safer as a result and the goal for the future, i think, is, of course, we want to build on what we have but we really want to preserve what is the the gift of the greatest generation. There are people do talk about the kelloggbriand pact for cyber war and thats something im im working on, but in terms of other things, no [applause] thank you. Dont forget the yellow buckets as you go out if you have any extra jewelry, car keys, extra pocket change you want to throw in there, that would be great. Thank you. Very good. We well done. [inaudible conversations] and that was a look at peace talk. In a few minutes the next author public radio journalist celeste hedley is scheduled to talk. Book tv live from savannah continues in just a a few minut. Often in our lives the illusion of information is actually far more dangerous than ignorance. So the way theorist will put this, a gentleman called diego gambeda, the first is bad character, the second is poor information. So the question i start today ask in my research, is technology making usas smarter about who we trust or is it encouraging us to place the trust in wrong people and the wrong places. So areng we, in fact, giving trt away and is technology playing a role in that. Why do i think this is such an important question . All right, so lets do a very quick exercise, you can kind of see where this is going. So im going to give you a boo, itll sound nice a loud in the church and you can use the boo for the person that you think is least trust worthy. When you say the name you boo, you only get one boo. So if you think Harvey Weinstein is the least trust worthy person on this say boo now. One boo. [laughter] okay. If you think President Trump is the least trust worthy on the slide say boo. Okay. Le now, i dont know if you know who this is, sofia the robot and she is the first robot that has citizenship, shes been made a zin citizen of saudi arabia. If you think sofia is the most untrustor worthy person say boo now. The robot is most trust worthy than the president of the United States. Lets do this in reverse. You can clap. So i would like you to clap for the company you think is the most trust worthy. You think google is the most trust worthy clap now. [applause] i t describe that but facebo, who think facebook is the most trust Worthy Company . No one. Amazon. [applause] so i think amazon and google were, i dontt know, maybe amazn was slightly ahead but its a rubbish exercise because i think i think i find hard when i open the newspapers and media and the way that we talk about trust is in very general terms and its very dangerous. You know, we can trust that President Trump would tweet something ridiculous at 3 00 a. M. , but we dont trust him to negotiate with north korea. We can trust even Harvey Weinstein could make great movies but dont trust behavior around women and amazon is really interesting, when people say they trust amazon, they say, they have confidence that p when they make an order online the parcels will show up. They dontha necessarily trust them to pay taxes or treat employers well. This is the first thing that i would like yous to think abouts when we are talking about trust is keep in mind that in our own lives but also institutions and leaders and individuals that trust is highly contextual. You can trust me, hopefully, to write an article or to teach students, do not get in the car with me because im a terrible driver. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Here is a look at upcoming book fairs and festivals. March tenth and 11th live from tucson festival of books with author talks and callins. This years facebook msmbc katie and charles. Military historian max, investigative journal it kate and many other authors. Later in march, the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville and the National Black writers conference in brooklyn new york. In april we aren headed to texs the san antonio book festival and will be live once again at the Los Angeles Times festival of books. For more information about upcoming book fairs and festivals and to watch previous festival coverage click the book anfairs tab on our website, booktv. Org. So now we understand how it is that you were able to get waived in to the white house to basically become a potted plant in the westwing lobby. So most of your your your meetings at the white house were with steve bannon or at least you were scheduled to meet with steve bannon and then what would happen . No, i was scheduled to meet ive had a lot of president s with steve and steve was one of the pillars of this book, but i basically met with everybody and everybody was under the impression that they were supposed to meet with me. [laughter] where did they get the impression from . Did the impression come from the president or did it because you were talking to steve bannon they figured, well, we should probably talk to him too . It came from i mean, i was introduced around by by various people, by hope hicks who was the president s kind of personal pr person, you know, kellyanne conway, sean spicer. I mean, this was not a it was not ars mystery here. Now, i think on one level nobody quite knew how this came about and everybody looked a little puzzled by things but it was there was no friction here. There was no friction. Nobody was saying what are you doing here. Everybody was saying, okay. They would see you sitting in the westwing lobby and who are you wait to go see wait to go see and you would say bannon and chuckle, that will not happen, why dont you comey back and tk to me . I became a familiar presence around the white house and i think also a very nonthreatening presence. I was not you know, the press corp was over there. I was careful not to come in as a member of the press and not to not to act like a member the press is sort of, they want something, i didnt want anything. I literally was just i didnt have [laughter] come on, michael. I didnt want anything, im just sitting in the westwing lobby hope to go talk these folks, really . I just wanted someone to talk to me. [laughter]us and this is actually an important thing because you go in there and so you would get a 10 00 oclock appointment, you would go in and and then you would sit there and you would sit there sometimes for hours and sometimes hours and hours and it was kind of humiliating actually and you had the feeling that people took, you know, guarded me as a kind of a creature, im not important enough for anyone to keep their appointment with me. Everybody else is there and theyre having appointments and people come out and im still just waiting there in the hours are passing. And ii did feel humiliating. But then itt became this kind of thing that people it began to work, people would stop and they would try to take care of me. [laughter] one of the neediest cases, come on. Come back, talk to me. And the other thing, this is an important thing, i basically didnt ask questions. So all reporters, what do we do, we ask questions, ask questions, i dont ask questions. I go in and i sit there and people just prefer to talk. [laughter] okay, so one of the reasons that perhaps people start to talklk from what youre saying d the key in that is what you said in terms of the initial part of your answerf where you said, yu mentioned hope hicks who is the president s personal pr person. Now, when you read fire and fury you find out that everybody in this book has his or her own pr person, jared and ivanka have their own pr person, bannon ends up building his own pr team. Is one of thehe reasons why and the president. The president who has a press secretary and the a whole communication shop. Of 40 people but hes conducting his own freelance operation. So maybe one of the reasons nsy people felt pity on you as you sat there as you say humiliated in the lobby, they knew that you were talking to bannon. Is it, oh, my god, i need to