Transcripts For CSPAN2 Richard Haass The World 20240712

Council or Foreign Relations since 2003. Today were here convenes to listen to Richard Haass the prolific author and academic who just came out with yet another book entitled not very ambushesly as he said, slightly ambushesly the world, a brief history in 300 pages. He calls it a little bit of a departure from his previous books. I want to start because it was only after you turned in the manuscript that the world was confront by the covid19 pandemic, and in the roughly two months since that happened, this crisis has highlighted so many of the themes and concepts you tackle in the book. So i wanted to just ask you outright, what does the pandemic tell us about the world right now . Well, thank you, juju, thank you for doing this. Thanks always to everybody on the call. Hope everybody is well and safe as we all get through this one day at a time or as ive said, one groundhog day at a time. What i think the pandemic tells us first and for most is that the world matters. Thats perhaps an obvious thing for a member of the council on Foreign Relations but i dont think its an obvious thing for everybody. The world matters, what happens around the world doesnt stay there. In this case it was small city in china in would you haun wuhan a virus broke out,ed the to china and the United States and elsewhere around the world. On 9 11 it was terrorists train in afghanistan. Other various times it was what we have seen with Climate Change coming from everywhere, financial contagion, from this or that country. So what this should tell us is that these two oceans on the atlantic and the pacific are not moats. Theres no draw bridge to pull up. Sovereignty, whatever else it is, is not the same thing as security. We are affected by what happens in the world. Foreign policy in turn is how what we do affects the world and theres a loop, but the most Important Message to take here is the world matters and isolationism, denial, sticking our head in the sand, whatever you want to call it issue is not a serious or viable strategy. You talk at length about the interconnected this of the globe and enter dependence, how that the american response to this Global Crisis reflected some of the things you bring up think notable absence, for example of the u. S. In the european convening to tackle the vaccine for covid19 . This has not been a good experience, shall we say, or demonstration of u. S. Connectedness to world. Begins with the fact were connected like it or not. Globalization is not a choice. How we respond is a choice but globalization is a reality and we chose not to participate in the european led effort to pool resources, intellectual and familiar to work toward a vaccine. Seems that probably reduces the chance that after itself will succeed or succeed quickly it also means. I it were to succeed, we would about very hard pressed to make the argue. We ought to be towards the front of the queue. Europeaned will say you werent there when we needed you and now you need this. Why should we favor you over others . That has hurt us. I think even more what probably hurt us has been the example we have set. Such an important part of Foreign Policy, not what diplomats say or do or what soldiers say or do as important as those are. Its the example we set. The functioning and describe bran si of our democracy when vibrancy, when our economy grows at a healthy clip or how we respond to a foreign challenge, and no one around the world gets up in the morning and says i want to do this just like america. Really respect how they are doing it. Inconceivable that sentiment is being expressed. What bow, again, another chapter in your back, the role of multinational organizations like the world Health Organization. President trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw funding at a time when people like bill and Melinda Gates have doubled down and increased funsing. Thoughts. A lot of thoughts. One reality of this world is this enormous gap between global challenges, Climate Change, pandemics, terrorism, the digital cyberdomain and global arrangements. An enormous gap. We use this phrase in our business, International Community and there isnt one. World Health Organization like most International Organizations, struggles to try to narrow that gap ten the challenge and the response but no stronger than the major powers will let it be. The United States now has pulled out funding. China has essentially ignored its requests. So, what this tells us, we see this time and time again, is whether its the u. N. , security council, the world Health Organization, global governance, global arrangements are only as strong as, again, the United States, china and others will allow it. So we have to improve it after the crisis or i would say we need to find ways to supplement, to work around, to come up with other wives pooling our efforts. The other lesson thereof he world, isolationism is a dead end. The other i think fundamental lesson of the pandemic and a Foreign Policy is that unilateralism is also not a viable approach to the world. You mentioned china and its role in this pandemic. Theres been a lot of criticism of intelligence and lack of transparency. But also what is the role that china has played in this crisis, say, about its role in the glen right now . The first thing it reminds people, is a if we needed reminding what an author tearon chine is and no mistakes war pointed out and those pointing them out were silenced. China now continues to push off requests for any sort of investigation. So the first thing is its a reminder of what the nature of china is. It has not met it International Obligations to cooperate fully with the world Health Organization. And cooperating fully with our response to it. That to me is the basic message. Alves while this is going on, china has been doing some pretty nasty things including repressing democrats in hong kong, just to mention. One other thing. At the same time this isnt necessarily a rationale. Probably have this. The United States take it up and say we need to place hostility to china at the center of our Foreign Policy. Yes, we need to push back and criticize china where need be and we can talk about that but also wouldnt it be a much different and better 21st 21st century if on occasion we could persuade china to work with us. For example, against future pandemics. For example, against Climate Change, for example to reign in north koreas missile ambition. The real Foreign Policy challenge, one way to think about it, how to we push back against china where necessary and also how to deprotect pockets of cooperation where it serves or interest and theres. That will be a major challenge to the next generation of dip plots in beth countries. You talked but how the pandemic is has similarities to other global crises, for example, Climate Change or cyber terror. What way does those challenge the order or disorder of the globe. The similarity is it doesnt matter where the things start. They spread everywhere and dont respect borders. You can deny them but you cant insulate yourselves from the consequences. Climate change, one of the interesting reactions is how in this country, the rejection of science and experts, we see it on the pandemic, see it on the Public Health front, also see itingly on chining anding one thing Climate Change, one thing im hoping comes out of this greater respect for facts, greater respect for scientists and experts, the wide respect for dr. Fauci is a welcome development. The basic lessons are the same where we began. Global challenges. Cant ignore them. And you cant solve them by yourself. So again, i keep circling back to the rejection of isolationism and the rejection of unilateralism and one other thing. The first part of the book is about history. What is so interesting is how much of the last few hundred years of history were about great power jobbing and it get out out world and had world war i and world war ii and the cold war. Well have competition with china, obvious differences with russia. What i think really defines this era were living in define this 21 until center and makes it different is i predict the major challenge this year are not so much greet power competition, the familiar challenge. What i continue to exists but the bigger challenge could well be how you contend with these global challenges. Just 30 more seconds. Imagine were successful at pushing back against china. That still doesnt provide an answer to Climate Change or future pandemics. Youve know and i know theres going to be covid19 25 or discoach 25 or covid 30. Doesnt deal with terrorism. One lesson of this is thats its not sufficient. I just want to highlight my very dogeared and highly highlighted copy of your book. Its called the oworld a brief introduction its now on amazons best seller, ranked 53 among books. Know you took great satisfaction in edging out Good Night Moon for a moment. Although that bright shining moment passed. Its number two in world history, number one in international and World Politics and yet you said dish must say one of the most fun aspects of it for me is just seeing you pop up, him cook style in d hitch cook hitchcook style. You have written 15 others. What is is 14 but who is counting. Host i tend to exaggerate. What made me write this more than anything else was a concern that, the world so fundamentally important. I if youre a young person in high school or college, that means you for born around the turn of the century and if you have the kind of long life span we hope for, that means your life will be a 21st century life. What is so striking to me is how many young people dont have even a rudimentary knowledge of this world. That in maybe ways could make or break their lives, whether its professionally, personally, physically. This book came out of a day where rarely enough for me i was out fishing of all things. Not something im known to do and i met a young man going from this junior to senior year at stanford and what a Computer Science major. I said with what do you study when you dont study computer. Said how many history cores you have had and she said i havent had any. I said how many economics cord,. Thousand officees eand we went through the liberal arts click him and this is a really intelligent young man who will graduate with a very narrow intellectual foundation and when i came back to council i noticed was that this was not an exception. You can graduate from virtually any college or university in the country and avoid these courses. They offered virtually everywhere and thats different. Theyre not required. So what made my want to write the book is so many americans, young and also not so young, its seems to me lack the foundation, lack the knowledge, in order to among other things hold elected representatives and officials to account. How can people walk into a voting booth in november if they havent read up on the position of the candidates, and if they havent said that doesnt make sense or why is nat my interest . I want people to get empowered so they can become better informed and as a result more active . Citizens. Youre fight thing illiteracy, in the Foreign Policy illiteracy. I take exception to the fact you had to mention my alma mater of standford. When is would there ising i took few history classes and part of the joy of reading this and why i highlight it, were in an era of specialists, where you can take nothing but asia history or african history and mills out on what the early chapters of the book does which is highlight the global perspective on it. Im a great believer that history is extraordinaryily valuable, mark twain says history doesnt repeat itself but it rhymes and it does inform our decisionmaking, inform our analysis. Ive been lucky enough to work for four president s and in every one of those of educations history was brought into the conversation. Not like anything else. History can be used or abused but just as a background, its really helpful in order to make since of the flood of stuff coming at us. When you think about it, between the internet, television, radio, newspapers, what have you, theres just such ad in of information and what i thought people needed was a filter to make better sense of it. Im a big my son is going through ap history testing and i was age able to help him. Put i would recommend it highly, clearly. Give us a sense of your writing process . Because you are we know you have day job and there are few crises your handling. How do you write, when do you write, whats the process like . This book was different in the sense that i had to think really hard what went into it, because if you want to write a brief introduction to the world, by definition you have to rule a lot of stuff out and also the whole idea was not to write a book that assumed anything, not to assume anyone had taken these courses, not to use any jargon. I take a lot of long walks around central park and thinking about it and then when i sit down at the keyboard im ready to write. Write most morning pretty early for a few hours and i my only advice to wouldbe actors is never to accept working breakfasted. Theyre the killer. Spend few hours, the days the telephone standards ringing and emails later. If inning get a few hours in the morning and then a few hours on weekend, im lucky. I can write quickly. Thats pretty much the approach, and are you rite writing before or after the morning joe. I do it after. The other advice for recall writer, dont think of writing as a sequential process. First you do allor your research and then all your writing. Start writing. My wifes an editor and she always tells aspiring writer what you want to do is think not not justure conclude but the review you would like to have written of your become, start there dont start at the top and then build the book from the bottom. But think a lot where you why youre doing it, your readership, what reaction you want to have and what youre trying to accomplish and then do it before you get buried never details. I read a number of reviews of to the. , the New York Times there was a quip that was long elines of, haass takes departure from his usually cautious didactic style and weighs in on the isolationism or interventionist position. You did make a calculated choice to do that. Why tiptoe into it and why so fundamental to you . I wanted to write this book in a way that wasnt an argument. Wanted people whether they were up in end zone or the other plate clay issue wanted those be a book that was foundational. The purpose of the book is not to tell people what to think. Whether to sport this policy or that, but rather to give them the background and the tools to come to those conclusions by themselves. Also i read what i had written i realized that certain themes were so intrinsic or fundamental to the book, criticism of isolationism, criticism of unilateralism so i thought i would come out and basically say, we can argue all the details we want about, say, what our goal should be and what tools we should use. Thosees legitimate policy argue. But i didnt think there was an argument about ignoring the world or think he being the Foreign Policy was a game of sal tear. I thought those two points a game of solitaire. I had to come out of the closet on them. If you were i envision you coming out of the which is it. I if you were in the state Department Today what overreaching advice would you over arching advice would you geoff on covid. On Foreign Policy in general i would make a big push for diplomacy, make a big push for working with allies, allies are force multipliers. I would make a bigger push for explaining american Foreign Policy to the american people. For covid, more the other thing i would do is put a great emphasis an recreating the foreign service. One of the real historic strengths of the country. People are essential, whether theyre soldiers or people in the Intelligence Community but we need diplomats and people who are trained to represent this country around the world and also to advise the president sitting in on in washington but on covid, its ateband beyond the purview of state department argue what the governors or mayors or president should be doing domestically but noton their purview to participate in check see if science ticks, dealing with antivirals and vaccines, noton the purview of the state department to be designing the economic help that the United States would coordinate with others in order to help other countries, both get through this and then recover afterwards. Its obviously not beyond the purview of the it is the purview of the state department to focus on the other problem. Were focused on covid. Get it. Its understandable. Theres no giant pause button out there in the world. History has not stopped. North korea is still developing Nuclear Weapons and missiles. Iran is gradually moving to getting close her to he ems of the 2015 agreement. Its reduced the warning time. We would have if in fact it did choose to make a dash for Nuclear Weapons. Venezuela is still hemorrhaging people. Russia is still occupying crimea and eastern ukraine, china is expanding its friend in the south china sea. My points we need the Statement Department to stay focused on the rest of american Foreign Policy and National Security, indeed one thing i tell you but the crisis is we have al the old problemmed in world and new a new set of problems and all of this comes at a time when the United States will focused inward and spending trillions of dollars on not on the world but of us. Its a dangerous combination and its important the state department keeped it eye on the ball, in this case the rest of the world. You aned my next question, chills you have said not just in the book but on your Numerous Television Appearances that this is a very precarious time. That the order or the lack thereof or declining order in this globe is keeps you up at night and you mentioned the he hot spots but i want you to dig into what you think is being ignored most while were preoccupied with covid and what is front of mind. I think sort of recent force the point that it realist a critical moment. For a lot of my career when i was younger did things like analyze arms control agreements and all of that took place as intricate also it was and to some extent as important it was was, all took place within a pretty defined framework. When we got up in morning during the cold war we knew what would we wake up to. What is so interesting but this moment in history there are far fewer givens, far fewer assumptions about what the United States will do, the old order is increasingly unraveling, either because the institutions couldnt keep up with change. Youve had risings powers. And most of all the United States is not prepared to play its traditional role. So what worries me is were at a moment of history where you have all this dynamism and the overlay of this pandemic, and economic and human costs, and to me the real question is whether we in sos are going to have the bandwidth to deal not wist jut thank you problem of the pandemic and other problems out there festering. In my macro sense thats my biggest concern. Otherwise i say two problems in particular. One is the u. S. China relationships. As this relationship goes so will good a lot over the century and i worry about this relationship which is deteriorating before the crisis and now the deter youration is excel ridding. The other one is climbings. Its form of Global Crisis but as a slow motion crisis and its hard to galvanize either a national or international response. But we saw the fires in australia, or in california. The floods. The warmer weather. Its going to have all sorts of of agricultural and human and other impacts on us, and that worries me is that we are our response is not even close to being adequate, and before this century is over, its quite possible that Climate Change will be, if a if not the defining challenge and what were doing is were losing the moment. Were squandering the moment to head it off or to deal with it while its still in some ways manageable. Im going to ask my last question and then ill open it up to members who are online and hope any will be able to present those questions. That is, to borrow a phraseom your previous become, the world in difference array, what disarray, what are the forces causing additional disorder, disarray in the world . Somebody just mentioned the United States thats pulling back from its hispanic positions, thes like a rising china, russia that doesnt buy into any of the principles of restraint, were seeing a growth in authoritarianism. Were seeing it some ways the biggest challenge to the whole european project that stablized europe in ways that have been fantastic for the last 70 years but the ruling fan of court in germany the other day which questioned the authority of europes institutions and the recent independent Northern Europe to economically help southern europe. I could go around let me stop you on one. How too you lasso russia . We have seen all sorts of examples of their projecting force, whether its in crimea or influencing american elections. How do you lasso them . How do you sort of confront that power . Well, last we anyway mott be able to in the sense of lasso. We have to act with restraint. Russia has conventional mail tear power and has Nuclear Might that could destroy the entire planet. One would be we want to get nuclear arms whoever wins the election one over to first decisions he has to make it what to do but the then soon to expire strategic arms control agreement and i would say we want to at a minimum extend immigrant little. Dont need toed a number cheer competition. In terms of make ourselves less vulnerable to russian political mishe could, and besides sanctions i would look at ways to retaliate. Mr. Put pit is quite vulnerable. They have been an enormous price of the mishandling to the pandemic and the plummets of oil prices has hurt the russian economy. The russian economy is one dimensional. So i would on one hand show russia respect, talk to. The never thought in my life that diplomacy is a favor we bestow on others. Its the tool of National Security. But i would be tough with russia. Think this administration dish often disagree with it. One error they were right is one era i that right to is to provide support to government of ukraine so i would shore up ukraine and push back against mr. Putin and look for ways to say if you interfere in our politics well look for some ways to interfere in yours. You have a chapter on cyber terror, what the strategy, the best way to from a counterterrorism perspective deal with misinformation and the cyber terror coming out of rogue nations. Its really hard because its a totally unregulated space. This i like to analogize the american wild west. People with guns and very few laws and sheriffs and thats where we and are we cant agree on the rules of the road ought to be in cyber. Its not even close to arms control. Dont have the equivalent for cyber or where we set rules, the United States and china agree there wouldnt be theft of economic secrets. China went ahead and violated that agreement. I think its tough. I think its particularly tough with nonstate actor. The other reason this moment is hard to imagine is country states are not the only players or the chess board and we have to deal with others. I would Work Together initially with the companies but also with europe. Think if the United States, europe, japan, australia, essentially the modern developed democracies, came up with rules of the road, thats already 60, 70 of the global economy. Lets start there. The democracies, theyre market oriented. Lets set the rules there. Then we can tell the chinas and the others and the russia you want to have an economic relationship with us, were 70 of the world, heres what its going to take. Okay. Its 5 30. I want to be nothing if not prompt. And so im going to introduce the question answer session. Well unmute, just know that there are north of 500 people participating members, so, well try to get as many questions as possible. Well urge richard to be brief so we can hear from many people. But lets unmule the first question. Ladies and gentlemen, ask your question, please click on the raised hand icon on your zoom window. Please accept the unmute button. Positive trends theyre having that we should Pay Attention to, maybe double down on . Thats a good question. I do have a default option which at times is through, toward the negative. Look, one thing is just to take a step back and say one thing that isnt present in this world is great power conflict. And its worth pointing out simply because the first half of the 20th century we had two world wars, then we had a cold war. Expect fact that that is not and the fact that that is not defining is a good thing. It may seem bizarre to talk about positive areas of health, lets put aside covid19. Life spans are far longer today than they were just a generation or two generations ago. All sorts of diseases have been largely rad candidated. I think thats really important. And, again, put aside the recession we find ourselves in, but economic standards of living in the United States and around the world is much, much higher than it was decades ago. Even though in recent years theres been some setbacks for democracy, youve only got to look at 1950 versus 2000, the world is far more open than it was. The internet, technology have brought us extraordinary advances. Hopscotch around the world and find some countries that are doing really quite well. Colombia, for example. 20, 25 the years ago, had a terrible civil war. Now its a poster child of a successful country in many ways in the americas. Theres countries in africa that have come out of some very difficult times. They look good. Asia still a very successful region of the world, and its the area where you have the greatest concentration of wealth. So i think theres still lots of things to be positive about. What im worried about in many cases are some of the trends. If one were to take a snapshot again, put ais side the pandemic in many ways from a Historical Perspective id say, not bad. But its truly worrisome compared to where we were ten years ago and where we might be heading. Okay, next question. Well take the next question from jim byron. How are you, richard . This i just unmuted myself, so i hope you can hear me. Well, we could hear you even if you didnt unmute [laughter] i think you and juju might be able to hear me all the way in new york. In any event, do you see anything in the policies or programs of either president ial candidate that address at all the problems you describe in your book . Well, look, in terms of this president , the policies are there to see. Hes an incumbent, hes got a record of three and a half years. He is, in many ways, someone who, when he took the job, made it clear he did not buy into the value of a lot of his inheritance. And in many ways he was going out of his way to dismantle that inheritance. Im quite critical of that, in large part because i dont think he had anything better to put in its place. Selectively i think hes done some good things. I think he was right to call out china, quoteunquote, about some of its behaviors. I mentioned yugoslavia. And despite and ukraine i mentioned. And despite some of his policies on trade which give me heartburn, the opposition to the wto, there still has been some progress whether its nafta 2. 0, the usmca or some other bilateral or agreements. The question what he would do with a second term, he hasnt articulated. I think Vice President biden would be more in keeping with the traditional forms of american Foreign Policy. What i would say is that every president from harry truman through barack obama essentially operated within the 35 or 40 yardline maybe on one side of the field or the other, republican and democrat alike. As i just suggested, President Trump does not. I think a President Biden very much would. The problem for a President Biden or a President Trump if he were to be reelected is the inbox. And because of some dynamics in the world, structural change, because of covid19, because of many of the things this administration has done, i think the inbox will be extraordinarily demanding, daunting, challenging for whos ever sitting in the oval office. And it will come at a time again when the u. S. chinese relationship is in worse shape and where u. S. Resources will be stretched because of all were having to do at home. So i actually think it will be a very difficult Foreign Policy challenge for whos ever sitting in the oval office next time around. Excellent question. Next. Well take the next question from fred hochberg. Mr. Hochberg, please accept the [inaudible] button. Im not hearing anything, so we may want to go on to the next question. Agreed. [inaudible] fred hochberg. Youre on,. Oh, thank you. Richard, that was speck tack hard. I guess two questions, theyre somewhat related. You said today and often times very compelling in terms of americas goal, how do we ever get the American Public to follow in because one of the challenges weve had in the last whether its on trade, whether its on americas role in the world is getting the American Public to sort of see this as in their interest, you know . I believe americans have benefited enormously by our role in the world and global currency, but if you ask many voters, they think this is an elite idea. Its very interesting, but it isnt they dont see how its [inaudible] one way because exporting, as you know i feel passionate about. Its a way that it creates a lot of jobs. But it seems very hard to make the case to the American Public, so how can we do that . Well, look, its a great question, and i think its essential that we do that. Because, again, i would argue that we have been stunningly well served in Broad Strokes by americas involvement in the world since world war ii. Im not going to say we didnt make errors. We obviously did. Various wars of choice in vietnam and iraq and all that were clearly strategic errors. But by and large, you know, were safer, were much more prosperous, the world has aside voided avoided nature power conflicts. Trade has been a great driver of American Economic improvement, American Innovation and so forth. How do you make the argument . Well, one is i think president s and other senior officials need to explain things. You know, fireside chats are quite a powerful tool. And prime president s, the oval e can be a powerful platform if a president wants to use it. The other thing though is what i try to do in this book, which is to make the argument that the world matters. There are things we have done or can do that would make a positive difference in all of our lives. I would say that parents should push those who decide what a High School Curriculum is, why isnt there mandatory civics is so people understand our domestic political dna, why isnt there the International Civics equivalent. Same thing on college campuses. What would be wrong with requiring every graduate to at least take one course in the basic of how the world works and how it matters and some of the basic or fundamental choices that come with Foreign Policy. I think that would be, that would be, to me, really doable and important. Let me say one other point, i apologize for going on so long, but freds question made me think about it. Theres virtually nothing in history thats inevitable. Theres nothing about the future thats so big baked into the cake that we cant do something about it. All the things ive talked about from Climate Change to pandemics, to the u. S. chinese relationship, theres tremendous possibility. And what i want people to do is get interested in and potentially excited about the prospects and how they could rhee the country leave the country better off and the world better off which is not simply an act of philanthropy but, again, would be to our advantage. Again, it sounds like a cliche, but i do think from the top down of leadership, that can make a difference. I think also the news media could make more of a commitment to cover these things. You got what happens in high schools and colleges, and one last thing id mention, the council on Foreign Relations. Over the last ten years, we have added a whole new dimension to what it is we do, is and we basically said were going to continue to live up to our traditional disposition of being a resource for those who are inside the Foreign Policy conversation a around the country in washington and elsewhere with, but also were going to get into churches and synagogues and mosques, were going to be a resource for mayors and governors, were going to get into classrooms at virtually every level, were going to help journalists around the country. Essentially, were going to be a resource to help americans better understand the world and Foreign Policy choices. This book is essentially consistent with what i think now a much larger mission. Excellent. Well worth the extra time. All right, next . Thank you, fred. Well take the next question from sewall chan. Thank you so much, richard. I wanted to actually can you hear me . Hear you perfectly. Congratulations on the book, and thank you for your insightful remarks. Wanted to ask you about kind of threats to freedom and also threats to kind of media ecosystem that including those that come from, you know, rapid technological change. I work for an organization, the los angeles times, that is very much committed to, you know, expanding international understanding, but its certainly true that there are probably fewer correspondents for American News organizations working overseas than there were, you know, 10 or 15 years ago. And i wanted to ask if you could address that, because i think it is part of the education issue. No, its true. On the other hand, theres also a pace for quality journalism space. We see the New York Times, washington post, financial times, wall street journal, your newspaper are all continuing to cover our world. I wish the Major Networks covered more of it, but we see it selectively on cable on cnn, pbs, npr. You then have propublica where people contribute to it, our own magazine, foreign affairs, is doing better than ever. The numbers are way up. All this tells me that theres a demand for and a space for quality journalism, quality analysis. And, again, the optimist in me which may not always be apparent, but the optimist in me is hoping out of something as awful as this pandemic comes growing interest in the world, growing awareness that the world matters. So im up on the idea that we will support or demand greater coverage of the world s. And if and when consumers show that theyre interested in it, trust me, the supply will, the supply will be forthcoming. Thank you, sewall. Next in. Well take the next question from bailey gilbert. Hi there, dr. Haass, congratulations on your new book, and many thanks to juju as well. When you speak of the need for acknowledging and responding to issues of global interconnected and interdependence, it strikes me that one barrier to this is our institutions from nationstates themselves to International Organizations and all of the institutions that are funded by nationstates. They just seem unable to deal with issues that no one specifically owns. So i wonder if you could imagine that any new type of organization that could manage issues of the common. How could you imagine these being governed, and particularly if you have any thoughts on people, citizenled movements. Thank you. Look, i think its a really important question. And coming back to what we were saying which is unilateralism is not an answer, global challenges are real, we need collective responses. The pop with existing institutions the problem with existing institutions is all institutions in any, whether its business, a nonprofit, theres always a resistance to change. And thats obviously true where high politics come in. Look in the u. N. System. So one, you know, one path is to say how do we modernize, adapt these existing institutions, but another idea to create new ones. And the whole idea of coalitions of the willing or coalitions of the willing and able, i think, an important idea. You bring together those entities that are willing and able and relevant. So that way you dont have to worry about 100 approval, dont have to worry about vetoes. Maybe you get 10 or 15 countries who account for, say, 75 or 80 of the of Climate Change problem. Theyre the principal emitters. If they can come up with rules about their own behavior and how theyll deal with nonmembers of this group, that gets you, that gets you somewhere. In cyberspace, same sort of thing. As i mentioned before, you could get the United States, other democracy, the other big economies. Maybe we could come up with rules of the road there. And it shouldnt be, and i think youre getting how can you have a serious conversation about cyberspace without the big Silicon Valley companies there . Or now if we were going to talk about the pandemic, youd obviously want companies, youd want the gates foundation, the Bloomberg Foundation there because theyre big actors. When i was put in charge of afghanistan after 9 11, i would have these interagency meetings, but we also a had groups like Doctors Without Borders represented and the irc. They were also invited to the meetings because even though, obviously, you know, there are nongovernment organization, they were on the ground, and they were relevant. So i think we have to be really flexible and really creative. Flexible on who we include and creative about giving birth to new arrangements. Because in some ways itll be easier to give birth to new approaches rather than trying to change existing ones. This, by the way, is what happened with aids when the world Health Organization proved unable to adapt and meet the challenge, essentially you had new organizations come into being that proved to be extraordinarily effective. So i think we should be open to that sort of thing Going Forward in all sorts of realms, not Just International Public Health. Thanks very much. Okay, next question. Well take the next question from jeffrey rosen. Richard, good book, good presentation, as always. I am tempted to ask you what the next book is, but ill let you preserve that as secret. [laughter] assume a biden administration. How do you what would your advice be to the president about how to, in the first instance, reposition the relationship with china so that it is more consistent with what you think the right set of objectives should be without necessarily conceding whatever strong position the u. S. Has today in that relationship . And the second more broadly is how do you rebuild trust with world organizations and with traditional allies in the reliability of americas commitments and words, again without having to concede too much to do so . Let me start with the hatter. Look, your second question, how do you rebuild reliability, trust and the rest takes time. As a first step, we would have to reenter certain agreements or processes. Or if we didnt want to reenter in their existing form, we would say we would be prepared to reenter them under these conditions. So essentially, we begin a serious dialogue whether its dealing with climate, dealing with iran, dealing with migration, you name the challenges or reform of the wto. So we would, essentially, enter into, reenter them as is or, again, we would use our entry as a lever for reform. And that might work. With china i would say two things. By the way, to finish that one thought, it would take time. Again, reliability people have come to see us differently, and a new president would have to through dayin, dayout action as, words and so forth, demonstrate that the United States was reliable and had become more predictable. In terms of china, i would say two things. One is i would invest much more in a private conversation with china. When i was in government, we often used the phrase strategic dialogue. But in my experience almost no dialogue that was called strategic was. You had dozens and dozens of people in the room, every agency on gods green earth was represented, and you couldnt have a serious conversation. I actually think we need serious, highlevel conversations whether its the secretary of state, the National Security adviser, president , the Vice President. But at that level, sustained basis about what it is about, you know, goals, you name it. We would have to first decide what our priorities were, where we were going to push china domestically and regionally, globally where we were going to back off. But a serious, serious conversation about where were going in this relationship are. But secondly, we wouldnt do it in our current context. The first and probably most important thing we could do to increase the odds that conversation might bear fruit would be to shore up our relationship with our traditional allies in the region and around the world. You cant be beating up on the south koreans and japanese over burdensharing and expect them to work with you on china. Same thing on europe. If we want to have them have a common front on Technology Issues with china. I also think one of the biggest strategic mistakes the Administration Made was in its first week by not becoming a member or by leaving the Transpacific Partnership which was close to coming into force at that time. That would have provided a regional politicaleconomic basis for basically going to china and saying, hey, here are the standards, here are the rules of the road. If you want to have more developed trade and investment with us, you have to raise your game rather than lower it. These are the rules youve got to play by, or were simply not going to give you access. Those are the kinds of steps that i would take. It will all take time, its not simply a decree. You know, a lot of these changes, a lot of these trends that have been trouble many or problematic, they were reinforced and accelerated by this administration, but some of them could be discerned beforehand. So in Foreign Policy, certain elements have a super tanker policy. Itll take a little time and sustained effort to turn around, but i do think those opportunities will be there. Excellent. Next question. Well take the next question from [inaudible] thank you, richard. It was an excellent book, and i got my copy this morning. Ive gone through almost half of it, and the conversation has helped to pique the interest even more. You identify two as the defining problems, the u. S. china relations and the Climate Change. And on Climate Change you have pointed out clearly in the book that this could be conceivably the defining problem of the century. Given where we are today, particularly with the Trump Administration, if that were to come back to power, what are the chances that you put on making progress on either of the two issues . And the second given the amount of money that we have spent on pandemic, you know, the covid19, what sort of ability is there for the world to deal with Climate Change . Thank you. You know, my last job in government i was the director of policy planning, and i used to say i do policy planning, not policy predicting. I dont know what a second trump term would do, whether it would simply an extension of the first term, might there be some changes on climate because of events, its conceivable. Im not going to say its obviously likely, but some of the costs of Climate Change become pronounced. With china you have an odd combination of extremely, whats the word, generous rhetoric at one level and some behaviors which are both, some are generous, some are not or overly generous, shall we say. I dont know. I cant discern a pattern, but i worry that the overall thrust right now is negative, and the pandemic is reinforcing it. So it would take real diplomatic intervention to approve the u. S. chinese relationship not just from us, but also from china. Not sure i understood your second question, but in terms of climate, if we didnt change, could the rest of the world do things . Sure. But its limited. Middle powers, the europeans, some of the asians, can, i think, set certain standards, set certain principles, but at the end of the day theyre not a substitute for great power involvement. They simply dont have the heft in terms of economic weight, military might if thats what it comes to. So its very hard to make the sort of progress were going to want to make without the major powers and, above all, the United States. I think, you know, i dont much like phrases like were the indispensable power. It sounds arrogant. But i would is say that were necessary. Were not sufficient, but we are necessary. And thats why i think its so important that the United States find a way back to i playing a leading role in the world. Let me get you to elaborate on that, thats an excellent question. The idea, in your book you go swiftly through carbon offset, carbon capture, you know, what about direct policy recommendations would you makesome. Well, two things. I would say in terms of the Regulatory Environment with cars and so forth, closing coal plants. I also think that the pandemic a potential opportunity. Just think about it, juju. The government is now paying massive amounts to various businesses. Well, why dont we condition that . Why dont we basically say one of the conditions is for automobile companies, these kinds of cafe or mileage standards or this kind of business, you use these kinds of energy sources. So i think weve got a tremendous lever in order to influence the Domestic Energy picture. I think globally the real question is how do you get others to do it, and i think there was an interesting article in foreign affairs, the other issue by professor in orderhouse where he basically said we should band together with other likeminded countries and essentially say were going to possibly introduce a tariff to the goods of those countries that dont meet certain climate standards, essentially incentivize them to do it. And i think thats an interesting thought. Im still working on it. But i think its also going back to a previous question. Youll never get that agreed to globally, i think paris has its limits, its not sufficiently ambitious. So we with may need to now think about workarounds. What is it we do with likeminded, relevant countries that would put us on a trajectory, a more ambitious trajectory towards, to deal with climate. Not one thats opposed, but one that we agree to. One other thing on climate, alice hill finish one of our fellows works on this. Weve got to accept the fact that some Climate Change, one, its already happened. And more is going to happen. Even if we got our act together on climate tomorrow, a lot more Climate Change is baked into the cake. So were going to have to look at a lot of the things we do in this country and around the world and how we do that in terms of insurance, in terms of where people are encouraged to live, what are the rules about where, say, elevator mechanic aals go and so forth. Right now were on a trajectory where we havent prepared this country for Climate Change in some ways any better than we prepared this country for a pandemic. One of the key words think we need to think about and start using a lot more is resilience. A lot of these problems are going to come at us. Were never going to be 100 successful in stopping climate or pandemics or terror, is so how is it we make American Society more robust. How do we build in resilience so we can take hits from these global challenges and still pretty much continue. That is going to be a real challenge for the 21st century. Richard, thats excellent. I know in keeping with the tradition at the council, we end on time. Its now 5 59, and since im entirely skeptical you can answer a question in less than a minute [laughter] i am not going to ask another one. But i will take a moment as moderators prerogative to echo what you said at the top and hope that everyone out there remaining safe and well during this pandemic. Richard, thank you. Your wisdom and insights are always indispensable. Even though you dont want to use that towards greater powers. Thank you, juju, and what you said about being hell and safe and healthy and safe and careful out there. Let me just also say that these are important issues, these are important times, and its great to have not just you involved, but so many people interested and participating. So thank you all. Thank you all for that. Heres a look at some Publishing Industry news. A federal judge ruled last week that former Trump Administration National Security adviser john bolton could move ahead with the publication of his memoir that is critical of the president. The book, the room where it happened, was released this week, and the white house says it will continue to pursue legal action against mr. Bolton to insure he doesnt profit from the book. Washington post associate editor bob woodward has announced he will also be publishing a book on President Trump thats scheduled to be available on september 15th. This will be a followup to his first book on the president , fear trump in the white house, that came out in 2018. And President Trump responded to the forthcoming publication of a book by his niece mary trump that he says would violate a nondisclosure agreement she signed that prevents her from writing about the president and his family. The book too much and never enough is slated to come out in late july. Also in the news, according to npd book scan, print book sale were up 5. 5 for the week ending june 13th. All book genres saw a rise in sales except for adult nonfiction, that dipped 2 for the week and remained down 7 for the year. And the Audio Publishers Association released their annual sales survey that noted audio book sales grew 16 in 2019 from the year prior. The apa reports this is the eighth year in a row that audio book sales is have exceeded double digits. Booktv continue to bring you new programs and publishing news. You can also watch all of our archived programs anytime at booktv. Org. I always say the most enlightened Congressional District in the nation. Today im hosting a discussion with New York Times bestselling author doctor Carol Anderson about her most