[applause] thank you all for coming. Thanks to cspan and its important audience as well, my new book, the rise and fall of peace on earth, revolves around a particular question. The question is, what are the prospects for peace . That is a timely question at any point and i will give my answer in the course of my remarks but it does presuppose, another question not often asked but one that is also relevant to the book. That question is, what do we mean by peace . How do you define peace . The obvious definition is, peace is the absence of war. Thats always welcome but its not very rigorous. After all, the world hasnt spent its entire existence in a continual war. War isnt continual if its episodic. So i propose a somewhat regulation or deep peace. As the absence not only of war but of the eminent threat of war. Emergent preparations for war. Its the absence of Foreign Policy conducted under the cloud of war. That is an unusual circumstance. Indeed by my reckoning as i see in the book we really only had one period of deep peace as defined in that way. That period is the 25 years following the end of the cold war. The 25 years after the opening of the berlin wall. Those 25 years were reminiscent of a no parking sign i once saw. Maybe some of you have seen it as well. It said, dont even think of parking here. In those 25 years the major countries in the world really worked thinking, or at least not taking seriously and urgently, about going to war. To be sure, there was plenty of bloodshed and death during those 25 years but most of it was the consequence in the balkans in central africa, in syria, of civil war or militia, mistreating civilians. But the conflicts that we saw, the death and dying we saw were not the result of clashes between and among powerful armies using the most advanced weaponry and its wars like that that are by far the greatest creators of death and destruction. We didnt have those and what i see in retrospect as the golden 25 years and we didnt really have any serious prospect of such a conflict. Why was that . Why were these 2. 5 decades so peaceful . In my view it was not at all accidental. We had a deep peace because of the unusually robust presence of threepiece promoting features of the International System. The first of these was the benign hegemony of the United States. America was the big kid on the block and even if those countries that were particularly happy about this didnt dare challenge us in a serious way. The second major piece promoting feature was economic interdependence. This was one of the great ages of globalization. We know that countries that trade with and invest in one another on a large scale are very reluctant to go to war for no other reason that the war cost them a lot of money. The third great piece promoting feature of the International Politics between 1989 and 2014 was democracy. This was a great age of democracy the first time in Human History when democracy was the most prominent form of government around the world. By democracy i mean two things. Democracy is i believe a hybrid form of government, it involves popular sovereignty use, free fair and regular elections. But it also necessarily involves liberty and liberty comes in three varieties. Economic liberty thats private property, religious liberty, freedom of worship. And political liberty, the rights and incorporated in the first 10 amendments to the constitution of the United States. Democracy promotes peace in a variety of ways. Democracy gives people some control over their leaders who are sometimes bellicose and then gives them at least the possibility of exercising some restraint. Moreover, democracy is, i would say, is permanently a system of government in which disputes and disputes and conflicts are inevitable in any society, are resolved peacefully. The peaceful resolution of conflict within countries when carried over to relations between and among them leads to peaceful foreign policies. It has to be said that these features individually and together do not by themselves guarantee peace. The reason is that, nothing can guarantee peace. There is no iron ball of International Politics like the laws of physics. Think of these three features of the International System as modular building blocks. One put one on top of the other they created in these 25 years a very large, we dont have to call it a wall, lets call it a barrier keeping out war. This was a golden age of peace. An age unlike any other but it is now at an end. We no longer live in a world in which war is unthinkable. The prospect of war, not the certainty of war, not the imminence of war but the possibility of war has returned in three crucial parts of the world. In europe, in east asia, and the middle east. It has returned because three important countries, one in each of the region, has embarked on policies designed to give it dominance in the region using force. In europe, russia invaded and occupied ukraine. In east asia, china has claimed virtually all the western pacific contrary to International Law has built artificial islands in the western pacific and has installed military facilities on them. And in the middle east iran has used paramilitary groups to expand its influence throughout the region and has pursued nuclear weapons. The heart of the rise and fall of peace on earth is three chapters that describe and explain how and why peace came and disappeared from each of these three regions. Its a complicated story in each case. But all three cases have all one thing in common. In each region for each of these countries that have disturbed the peace, the aggressive foreignpolicy that ended the piece at a domestic cause. Each of the three governments is a dictatorship. So each of them depends for the continuation of its rule, ultimately on coercion and repression. For a variety of reasons, each one wants as much public support as possible and each conducted these aggressive foreign policies as a way of trying to unmask increasing public support in its own country. The reason is that the most reliable source in public support suddenly look very dicey. This was especially true for russia and china. Both of these dictatorships gained such support as they have enjoyed due economic progress through presiding over Economic Growth. In the second decade of this century the prospects for Economic Growth in each of these countries suddenly gives. In russia prosperity depends almost entirely on the export of energy. When Vladimir Putin was first president of russia, the price of oil skyrocketed to 125 a barrel. Money poured in, he distributed some of it to the russian people while keeping a lot for himself and his cronies and he earned considerable popularity. But when he came back to the presidency, the price had fallen by half and showed no signs of increasing substantially. That meant that he had a political problem and he turned to an aggressive foreignpolicy to try to solve it. In the chinese case the Chinese Communist party presided over a remarkable unprecedented period of Economic Growth. Three full decades of annual doubledigit growth in the party was able to do so by relying on a threepart formula. That formula included the Massive Movement of Chinese People from the countryside to the city enormous investment in infrastructure and everincreasing exports. But again in the chinese case but the second century that for looking threadbare and indeed over the last couple years and so far as we can tell from chinese statistics, the chinese growth rate has been cut in half. China has been growing only about five or six percent per year. Thats a very good performance for your trip virtually any country. But its not what the Chinese People have become accustomed to. The chinese regime has a problem comparable to the one Vladimir Putin faces. The third disturber of the piece, iran is a somewhat different case because the clerics that seized power in 1979 and governed ever since for the last four decades never presided over a good economic performance. It never produced Economic Growth. But that has made them all the more unpopular and given them an even greater need for some other source of popularity. The dictatorships conducted their aggressive foreign policies toward your neighbors with an eye toward generating popularity but they justified these policies to their target audience of people that they governed on the grounds that such policies were actually defensive. As mechanisms were restoring their countries to the rightful positions as a dominant power in the respective region. That is to say, each dictatorship, and did piece, has a strategy of preserving its own role. That is where we are today. Well, this analysis or this narrative raises an obvious question, how if it all can we restore peace. In the rise and fall of peace on earth does answer, although i fear is not entirely satisfactory. Of the three piece promoting features of International Politics it created what i see in retrospect of the golden quarter century of peace, by far the most potent in my judgment is democracy. There are many studies by political scientist that find that democracies in the modern era have a powerful tendency not to go to work at least not with one another. And therefore the way to restore peace is for russia, china and iran to become fullfledged democracies. Incorporating both the protection of liberty. But, as you will recognize, that is far more easily said than done. Indeed, one of the lessons that weve learned over the last several decades, while countries to become democracies all the time, they really cannot be made to be democracies from the outside. Democracy which requires customs and experience and values and institutions, cannot be imported and cannot be delivered like a pizza. It takes time to develop and has to be ultimately the creation of the people of the country themselves. So democracy in russia, china and iran depends ultimately on the people of russia, china and iran. So the central message of the rise and fall of peace on earth is both optimistic and pessimistic. There is good news and bad news. The good news is, we have a formula for peace. The da bad news is, we dont hoo implement. And that leads to one final question. Given that we cannot make the disturbance of the peace, democracies and thereby restore democracy, can we, the United States and other government democracies do at least the increase of chances that these desirable outcomes will come to pass. What can we do to nudge these countries in the desirable direction. In my view, there are three initiatives, three policies if you like, that the United States and other democracies can and should undertake to try to push the world in desirable directions. First, we can and should adopt a refurbished version of the cold war policy of containment. During the cold war, the United States and the democratic allies opposed the political designs and resisted the military initiatives of the soviet union. In the 21st century, there is a very powerful case for the United States or its friends and allies in these regions to carry out a similar policy toward russia, china and iran. Two points are worth noting about 21st century containment. First it is certainly not going to be a carbon copy of 20th century containment because the world has changed in important ways. Second, at the heart of any policy of containment must be the establishment and maintenance of coalitions of likeminded countries in all three regions. That is to say, in this era, alleys remain very important for american Foreign Policy. So that is the first thing that we can do to push the world back toward peace. Second, the United States and its friends and allies can and should, take whatever modest steps that are feasible to weaken the dictatorship of russia, china and iran. We cannot topple them but as during the cold war, we can take steps to make them less powerful than they would otherwise have been. Third, and not least important, we americans and citizens of other democracies need to do whatever is necessary to ensure that United States and other countries remain powerful examples of the benefits of democracy in a book that i wrote a few use ago, called democracies good name, i argued that democracy spreads largely by force of example. And we do the best that and thereby restore peace to the world. That is up to the people of russia, china and iran. But these three things are what i believe, the United States and other democracies can and should do to create the circumstances in which peace, having risen and fallen can rise again. Thank you. [applause] the floor is open for questions. Please, when you raise your hand and i recognize you, wait until someone brings you the microphone so not only the people in the room but the cspan audience can hear as well. The floor is open. Professor, i wonder, obviously during this time of peace, america was the flag bearer of capitalism. I wonder how socialism factors into your equation in this new era in the world . Of course, it all depends on what you mean by socialism. I dont think we are going to see a return to fullfledged communism who call itself socialism. Which involved the government control, all the memes of production and distribution, running the economy to Central Planning. That simply is not coming back. Its too difficult and flopped too badly in the soviet union and including china which opted for more free market style of economy. What we will have instead, what we do half is social democracy, we have basically a market economy but we also have a social safety net. It provides old age, preventions, medical care, sometimes childcare, and the central debate in the democracy certainly since 1945, if not since 1919, has been around the question of how generous a social safety net we ought to have. The europeans have for various reasons as you are european expert know well, opted for a relatively more generalist social safety net than we have. But there is always a debate about how generous it should be, that debate has always taken place in the United States for variety of reasons, coming to the floor, when people in odd corners of the american political system claim themselves socialists, they dont mean that they want the soviet style command economy, what they mean, they want a more generous social safety net which gives people more and more generously the memes that they need to have the kind of life that we believe they ought to have. That debate will probably get more intense in the years ahead but it never ended and it never will end. It seems that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between china and iran and russia that ran in russia economically are somewhat run at the core, much more heavily dependent on natural resortresources to sustain thems although they could create a headache in the media region that they are located, their ability to become a global threat or trigger will broader conflict certainly iran and even in the case of russia is much less than china because its not rotten at the core and while it has its issues, it strikes me their ability to close a true global threat, starting in east asia and the china sea but extending for bond not, a different nature than russian, i wonder if you can comment on that . It is certainly true that china is qualitatively different from russia and iran in very important ways in qualitatively different from every other country in the world except for the United States. It is different in the sense that only china has the prospect of becoming a global power. And i think its also the case that as one can judge, the chinese regime has greater legitimacy and popularity then mr. Prudence wicked russian regime or Islamic Republic government or the clergy. But, at the moment china is not showing signs of trying to become a global power, at least on security terms. Its economic tentacles do wheat far and wide in the bolton Road Initiative is a very ambitious economic ambition. But in security terms, china is refocused on east asia and western pacific. At this point in that particular way, it is i believe comparable to russia and iran. It certainly is much more powerful, going to be more powerful, far more important in the Global Economy than russia or iran can hope to be. But in the security challenge that it poses at this point, i think it is fair to compare it to russia and iran. You talked about containment as one of the ways to go about having peace in the containment argument was, you need a good allies, i wonder if you can assess the state of the United States allies in each of the three areas . That is a very important question, i should say that i have an article in the march april Foreign Affairs on a new container which goes in to precisely the point you race in some depth. But let me give you a brief overview of the three regions. First of all has to be said that an alliance is in some way a contradiction term because their interest in common and also different interest in leading an alliance of the United States have to do in the three regions and no one else can do it, it really is an exercise in herding cats. It is frustrating and circumstances. In europe there is a solid framework for an alliance in the north atlantic treaty organization. The problem there, the familiar problem of free riding, the fact that europeans dont pay their fair share. The husband a problem since the beginning of nato. Every president since harry truman has complained that the europeans are not paying enough. None of them have done it quite President Trump house but the sentiment is not original within because it goes back to the beginning of nato. That comes with the territory. You can get somewhere with europeans by nagging and its worth nagging them, in the end, the United States will have to pay more than its fair share in europe of the cost of the Nato Alliance and containing russia. I dont think those costs need be prohibited because russia is not the soviet union, but there is always going to be a grievance on the american side and a justified one as long as the alliance continues. East asia is a little different, the countries are really frightened of china and they are spending more on defense unlike the europeans. Although there has never been a paneuropean Security Organization in the east asia has always bilateral relations between the United States and other important east asian countries, notably japan and south korea, now we see the beginnings of greater cooperation across the region including india and with australia at the center. So there is more cooperation. The problem in east asia, all of the east asian countries, on the one hand are frightened of china, on the other hand depending on access to the chinese market. So they dont want to say anything that would offend the chinese, they want the United States to undertake the burden, especially the rhetorical burden of containing the chinese while they in effect hold our coat. We will get some help from them in contributing to a joint military effort but we will not get the help in the protocol sphere. They want to maintain good relations with china even as we do the hard work of containing a part in the middle east, there are two problems, one that the internal difference within the American Coalition or potential coalition is very sharp. No other middle eastern country, i should say few other middle Eastern Countries want a run to be the dominant power and certainly none of the sony majority want that. They are also very wary of each other, for example for the egyptians, they dont like around particularly but they govern for a while and then for the army. The turkish leader is a great champion of the muslim brothers. So the internal contradictions and conflicts are very sharp, moreover intimately, many of americas partners and friends are pretty feeble momentarily in the turks have a serious military part of nato, the israelis have a very good military on our reliable friend of the United States and just as opposed to around but they are not going to use their military to defend their own country. The other countries to defend them may be willing to pay, generally in the form of buying more and more American Military equipment. But they dont have the social basis for putting up substantial military to confront around ira. The lady here and then the lady in the back. The 25 years of peace has a very definitive starting point at the end of the cold war. Is there why is it 25 years essentially, is there something we can point to as this is where it ended, this is how it ended or is it just sort of faded out . That is a very good question, ill give you three reasons why ended the rise and fall in the summer of 2014. That was the year that russia invaded ukraine. It was the first instance of textbook International Law, aggression of a Country Crossing the border of its wilsons in 1930s. A pretty dramatic episode. It was also the moment when xi jinping of china who had taken power a couple years earlier and began to demonstrate a more aggressive Foreign Policy that any of the preassessors. That is one reason. Second, i discovered for a couple of references, i thought dry want this in my life among other things and they said you could take them out and put in and leave out the index anything you want. So i toyed with that. So those other reasons. In the back. That segues to my question, which may be nitpicky but you described the invasion of georgia in 2008 at the dress rehearsal in ukraine, i was wondering why a dress rehearsal was different between the invasion of georgia and the ukraine that made georgia more infinitive. Good question. It was a dress rehearsal in the sense that russia sent its troops across the border of the sovereign country which used to be a republic of the soviet union. But it differed from the invasion of ukraine and a number of ways. First the russians pulled back. They did not invade georgia properly, they did not invade and did not remain in the part of georgia that is not under dispute. Its under International Law part of georgia which is in dispute and georgia did not control. It was not quite the same in that sense of the invasion of ukraine. Second, ukraine is a more important country, more squarely in europe, it borders on the nato country and it was a much more serious breach of the peace. In the Russian Forces have remained in ukraine and not only crimea but also eastern ukraine. Those are the differences that led me too put the invasion of ukraine in a different category from the assault on georgia. Gentlemen here. Something that is speaking at the moment, with the exception of the middle east which is different with a case of around from china and russia, it strikes me that in both sides of the ledger whether that be u. S. Allies or potential u. S. Allies as well as the potential adversarial countries, these are very different demographic situation than existed in previous times in which there was not peace or potential for war. Where they were aging demographics rapidly in some cases. Young men between 18 and 25 years old. Does the dynamic impact how you think about this and how it should play out over time . Very good point. Over the mediumterm, demography and does fair on the prospects for war and peace especially in regards to china. China is in the midst of a very rapid demographic transition. Because the one china policy, china is entering a period in which the number of people outside the workforce retired will increase in the people in the workforce will decrease. And that has profound economic consequences. The book a few years ago, and had the title will china get rich before gets old. But it also has Foreign Policy implications because as you know, wars are fought by young men and they will not be as young many youn young men in chr most parts of the world as a used to be. And that is a pacifying element although it has to be said that the wars of the future may not necessarily be the wars of mass armies that need lots of young men to fill out their ranks. Indeed, the confrontation between china on the one hand in the United States and other countries of east asia is almost exclusively enable one and that is less affected by the demographic shift. I should mention, one other different between the world of the cold war and the world of today which does bear on the chance of war and peace. During the cold war, the western bloc, the democratic block in the communist bloc were almost entirely separate economically, very little economic interaction. Because those countries were govern by an economy according to the Central Planning and it really was not a fit between the two kinds of economies. Now all three disturbers of the piece are fully paid up numbers of the Global Economy. All of them depend on the Global Economy. Economic interdependence includes them as well and that is particularly the case with china. Russia and iran are nearly energy exporters, they dont have anything else to offer the world, they dont move very large and Global Economy. China looms very largely indeed. There will not be any separation between china and the rest of the world. That coupled policy of containment in china. China is not only a geopolitical adversary, its also an economic partner. So other countries of the world, notably the United States have to pursue a two track policy. But because of economic independence, there is an increasing of going to war in the part of china and the Economic Partners, what was not there during the cold war. I said, at the end of the book, the Foreign Affairs article, that the collapse of the Chinese Military will be in an warmest benefit to the rest of the world. The collapse of the chinese economy would be a disaster for the rest of the world. So the existence of economic interdependence especially between china and the rest of the world, complicates the task of containment but also serves as one of the module blocks preventing more. Gentlemen here. I wonder where you put in the 25 year defined era of peace that middle eastern source violent or conflict starting in 1991 with iraq and kuwait and then the arab spring which was a regional issue and finally the rise of international terrorism. By all accounts, this is nonpeaceful event but how did you see it fitting in your definition . Let me begin by saying in the rise of fall on peace on earth, i distinguish the peace between the three regions. Europe was the most peaceful because at least for a while, it was home to all three piece promoting features of International Politics, Nine American agenda may, in economis somewhat less peaceful because it had two of the piece promoting features but not all three. It had the germany instantly had economic dependence but not democracy. China was never a democracy and never has been a democracy. The middle east was the least peaceful of all because of the three piece promoting features, it had only one, the nonamerican hegemony. It weakened in the middle east because of the second iraq war. United states was not driven out of the region but the disappointment had ensued from the conduct of that war, made the United States visibly less willing to carry out a function in the region. Now, there was plenty of disorder in the middle east and the golden 25 years, that is why say, they were less golden for the middle east than for the other two regions. Still, the middle east did not witness a large scale war. The wars that came close, the two american wars in iraq terminated relatively quickly and did not cause largescale casualties. Nor in fact do the arab spring with the exception of syria where a quarter million Million People were estimated to have died in several million refugees. So the middle east was the least orderly part of the world and the least orderly of the three regions i explored and, it has seen a considerable amount of violence and death but not on the scale caused by major war. And that is what is built into my definition of peace. I want to ask a little bit more about your inclusion of a run and what were the factors that led you to include it in your analysis just based on the model you describe of the stronger economy and the invasion of local neighbors and a larger scale war. It sounds like saudi arabia is more an apt example of that and turns over ron and economy slowing down based on oil prices. I just want to hear about that. Saudi arabia is not a model citizen but not seeking to dominate the region and iran is. Iran is actually made considerable progress, not because its particularly powerful but the surrounding countries are weak. The arab spring had served as a golden opportunity for a run to expand its influence using proxies that adhere to islam. In fact what is going on in the middle east is a sectarian conflict between sony and she at his own and iran is the largest she at country and it is uses resources to empower she around the age region and to expand the influence which expands iranian influence. So, iran is attempting the same thing in the middle east that russia is attempting in europe and china is attempting in east asia and although iran is not a joke or not, has many Serious Problems because of the nature of the region and the weakness of the surrounding countries which makes real progress. We had an ideological conflict between western democracy and communism and authoritarianism in singular events, invasion of south korea, how could an how should american policymakers justify what is called containment 2. 0. I think you asked two different questions, i thought youre going to ask what events Going Forward would be similar to those crises but then you asked how can the United States justify which is an important question of Foreign Policy, so let me answer that one, if you want to come back to the other one we can do that. I dont think that it goes without saying that the United States will conduct a policy of 21st century containment. It is not terribly expensive, the problem is not the impact on the budget per se, for example i dont think the United States needs anything like the size of the army that it deployed in germany during the cold war to contain post communist russia and i dont think ground crews were needed in east asia or the middle east. Their airpower is what is required. Any american Foreign Policy to be sustained over the longterm which provides the support of the American Public, the American Public supported a Foreign Policy of global leaks like the policy of containment that im recommending beginning in 1942 and carry all the way through to the present. But the circumstances that persuaded americans to support that kind of policy do not exist anymore and begin because United States entered world war ii because it was attacked. That policy was renewed between 1945 in 1950 because of the cold war, there was a global adversary in american policymakers were persuaded and persuaded the American Public that the alternative to the policy of containment that was carried out would be world war iii which nobody wanted to fight. The communist threat disappeared in 1989 or if you will 1990 or 1991. But the American Global presence continue as much out of a nurse as anything else, it was not that expensive and other countries wanted us in europe and east asia and the middle east. With the return of challenges of security in the return of what political scientists called security competition, with the in of the post cold war piece, this kind of policy is not going to be as easy or as inexpensive as it was during the golden 25 years, the question arises, will the American Public be willing to pay for, i hope it will become a i think theres very good arguments in favor of conducting such a policy, the most potent of which way to guarantee a certain kind of peace. A way to prevent disorder, war, Nuclear Proliferation and economic car. An insurance policy, but will the american Greater Public be persuaded, i dont know. Yes oyes, sir. Following up what you decide, with the current occupant of the white house, it is not so friendly relationship to alleys and others. Im sure you know what im talking about. Is he likely at all or is unlikely to be any Movement Toward containment or at least until the end of his term . Mr. Trump has not made the maintenance of americas alliances the centerpiece of his foreignpolicy true. But the policy does continue for a number of reasons, one is, we arty do have deployments in these three parts of the world, and they have not been pulled back because a number of the people that this president appointed do not agree with him that alliances are not important, they think theyre very important and have done whatever they can do to contain them. Even ongoing market policy, it would take a strong American Initiative to reverse those policies, to bring americans back and that does not seem to be something that hes inclined to do. On the other hand, you cannot conduct of Foreign Policy by inertia forever, some point whoever is president will have to make the case to the American Public that this foreignpolicy is in american interest. It may not be mr. Trump but if it is not him itll probably have to be his successor. We dont know who his successor will be or when they will take office, but at some point, the case does have to be made. Yes, sir. If it is the case that the incentive for these three specific countries, foreignpolicy was economic crisis at home. And i should say ive not been to any of these countries, ive never worked in a developing country where economic crisis, he could appease people by nationalism or firm policy. I am wondering, is there evidence and given its only been five years since 2014, is it possible that this idea of appeasing the citizens among the economic crisis does not work and eventually the people come around to see this is not working and democracy can be promoted . One would hope that the tactic of creating external enemies is a way of reinforcing internal rule would not work. Im afraid is a pretty long history of that being a successful tactic and in russia, it is happened ever since the 19th century and russian rulers were quite explicit about it. I cite a number of cases and the rise and fall of peace on earth. The fact is, for most of history, successful wars redound into the political credit of the person waging the wars. William the 14 depended on the successful military to maintain the prestige of the crown. One might wish that it would not work with evidences, at least some of the time it does work which is why unpopular leaders tend to rely on. One more question. The lady here. I would just like to follow up on a couple of the questions of iran. You noted that the violence that previously was not of the same kind and would result from a large scale war. So the implication is that iran hegemony could lead to a largescale war but china and russia have actually taken territory that belongs to other countries. Iran seems to be functioning differently. So what are the dangers that around pose look like. Around injuriran the danger e danger russian china. They have an instrument of domination that the other two do not. Russia has no allies in europe, china has a lot of willing Economic Partners but does not have alleys or countries that would like to see it become dominant power in the region. But tehran does have alleys in the person of the shieh population spread around the region. It has sponsored and trained shieh Power Military forces such as hezbollah and lebanon which is taken over the country. So iran exercises a proxy control and lebanon and exercises considerable control from shieh militia in iraq, and exercises considerable control through the sponsorship of asad who is become an honorary shieh even though he is in our light, and exercises a certain amount of leverage in yemen to the sponsorship of the who do you movement. Although the mechanism is somewhat different, the aim is the same, the goal is the same and as i said, iran has achieved some success in the middle east extending its influence. That brings us to the end of the formal session. Thank you to all of you for coming and thinks to cspan for joining us. [applause] good evening. Is new for book tv and all the cspan product. Good morning everyone, and welcome. My name is douglas and im in the ford editor at the washington post. I am so pleased to introduce anna the bureau treat. Who is the author of the brandnew book the quiet successor, the timely behind the scenes look at one of the most elusive dictators, kim jongun and extraordinary reporting, his ascension and roots through three generation of family role in north k t