The Center Welcome to the center for new american security, we are pleased to have you here with us this morning. As a think tank focused on developing bolden innovative approaches to american foremost security and challenges, its hard to take a hard look at the Foreign Policy that informs american Foreign Policy, because it is pretty vital that we examine the course our country is on, and the prevailing wisdom behind it, and ask ourselves with someone from the past holder today. How it will future demands have different efforts for the years before. But do we need to do differently than what weve done in the past . So to address these questions then, and other ones as well, we are very pleased this morning to house senator josh hawley of nevada. How the emergence of great power conversations should and even must change american approaches. Senator josh hawley took office in january 2019, hes the youngest senator in the senate and serves on the Armed Services committee, the judiciary committee, and the Homeland Security committee. And this time in congress, senator hawley has emerged as a major voice in the debate over policy towards china, including on the issue of hong kong, on Technology Issues and on an array of National Security issues more broadly. So we are delighted to have him, and i ask you to join me in welcoming senator josh hawley. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me, it is great to be back, its great to be with you this morning. My theme today is, america relationship with the world. And as any student of American History knows, that relationship has always been unusual, because we are an unusual nation. We were the first colony to break from its parent country, the First Republic of the modern era, and the First Republic in history to be governed by a middle class. We were in short, a revolutionary nation, and all these years later, we live by that revolution still. This revolutionary republican heritage has shaped all our dealings with the world beyond. For our first century, weve insured not abroad in search of monsters to destroy, the fairest face john quinte adams, in fact we venture not abroad much at all. And today, the American Public as rightly skeptical of open ended commitment, and rightly tired of endless wars. And, yet, we have rarely been content as a status quo power. We have long sought to make the world to different, better, safer for our republic, and for our way of life. Now, we find ourselves at a new crossroads, to an uncertain future, the long Twilight Struggle that defined american Foreign Policy for half of a century has been over now for half as long, but the long promised end of history has not yet arrived. Almost 30 years ago, george h. W. Bush spoke eloquently of a new world order in the aftermath of a cold war, a new era of universal liberal values. Instead, at this hour, we find ourselves embroiled in the longest war in our nations history, with no discernible end in sight. Frequently at odds with our european allies, over matters small and large, divided at home, searching for purpose abroad. And all the while, the greatest threat to our nations security in a decades, rises in the form of a martial and expansiveness china. It is my argument to you today that our present a Foreign Policy concern, the cast of mind and expectations embraced by both major parties from the last 30 years its not adequate to our time, and it is not right for our future. This consensus has left us distracted from, the dangers at hand and has left us and prepared for the challenges that we face, and it has been rejected by the people of this country. Im talking about the consensus that i will call progressive universalism, consensus of a new world order. Built around american hegemony, and the goal of expanding multilateral rules based patterns of cooperation to the entire International System. This consensus anticipated the steady expansion of professional ideas, progressive institutions and progressive values worldwide. Both of our Major Political parties embraced this vision. The american left emphasize the expanse in a multilateral institutions and decisionmaking. They prioritize cooperative bodies like nato and the United Nations and stressed International Norms and International Law as the Building Block of a progressive global order. Their version of a universalist project is all the United States as indispensable, yes, but it also regarded american unilateral action as something to be avoided, even as a danger. So, left leaning universal pushed to integrate the United States more deeply into multilateral bodies, patterns of cooperation. Their aim has been to use american influence to expand a network of norms around the globe. On this approach, the International System would put to look more like america, and america will become inseparably bound to the International System. American conservatives, on the other hand look somewhat different. If the left came to believe that someone around the world of shared the same values, then the right concluded that everyone could share our values, and should. For many conservatives, this month building a world of democracy, and this ambition required, in turn, a willingness to enforce changes and hostile regimes, in an attempt to democratize whole regions and cultures, while preserving the ability of our government to act on its own. Conservatives have not fundamentally disagreed with their counterparts on the left about the ultimate goal of creating a progressive International System, its just that they doubt it could be realized for a multilateral institutions. At the end of the day, conservatives did not trust anyone to get the job done, but america, and for this reason many conservatives embraced international and defended the protection of american hard power. The differences between left and right on how precisely to achieve the universalists vision and have precisely to arrange it features have led to fights that are by now all too familiar, dinner lateral isnt versus multilateralism, the proper jurisdiction of international tribunal. But in the decades since the cold war, right and left together have steadily expanded american commitments have steadily expanded militaries footprint has steadily expanded, americas military involvement in every theater of the globe, and all manner of projects from election monitoring to punitive airstrikes, to a military and aid. And it is this consensus of left and right together that deserves pressure. More than that, it deserves replacement. The universal Progressive International order never fully arrived because it was never fully rooted in reality. The unipolar moment at the cold war and was bound to past and, it has. That moment was an aberration, a triumph at one of course but one that offered no roadmap for our Foreign Policy today. And most of the world never signed up for the universalists project to begin with. Neither russian nor china for example ever agreed to play the part assigned to them. Meanwhile, the pursuit of the universe illustrate left the United States without a clear strategic focus, but with metastasizing commitments, commitments that have been paid for in the nearly a dollar of the american working class, and in the daily pressured lives of american soldiers. Lets not forget, as we honor our veterans one day after veteran today, who these soldiers are. They are drawn overwhelmingly from middle and working class families, and for families with a history of military service. The burden of the nations war has fallen on these americans, and this country can i continue to ask them to fight on without a clear purpose, and without clear priorities. It is time for a new departure, based on americas needs in this new century, because the point of american Foreign Policy should not be to remake the world, but to keep americans safe and prosperous. And, those aims are in service to a higher one, to preserve to protect to defend our unique american way of democracy. We are a republican nation, the first of its kind in the history, and it is time we pursued a Foreign Policy in keeping with that national character, and the National Interest that character defined. So we should begin here with americas history and americas character. We were the First Republican in the world founded on the political power of a middle class. Though the right to suffrage was to narrow and our founding in the right of citizenship were unjustly constricted, still the United States was never governed by and aristocracy. Artisans and farmers are the ones that supports the revolution and sent their sons to die for us. They were the ones that ratified our constitution, and that constitution was written with him in mind. Since our founding, the citizenship has only expanded, not without great struggle, and the character of our public has only become more formerly entrenched. Our culture, our economy, our whole theory of freedom its premised on the dignity and power of the working man and woman. Ours is a middle class republic. And to preserve the american nation means to prove preserved the security and prosperity of this american middle. This imperative forms the basis of our interest in the world, we seek an International Order where we can practice our unique way of democracy. We seek an International Order that it will allow our working people to prosper, and to maintain their political and economic independence. Of, course we seek an order, where their country, are people called home is physically safe and physically secure. We are today a vast continental nation, and our middle class as large and, to enable it for asperity we manufacture and trade, not only among ourselves, but with others beyond our borders. Our middle class character makes a commercial nation, and for that reason, a trading nation as well. American interests are bound up with access to other regions of the world on open and equal terms. American security requires that this nation be free to speak out and free to negotiate with those partners to return favorable to all sides. We can only pursue those in if no region of the world, if gnocchi area vital to us is dominated or controlled by another power. As americans we have long to find the political liberty at home as freedom from domination, that is the theory of our constitution, and it should be a keystone of our Foreign Policy abroad. We seek an International System that is free from head to non micro, free from control by any one state. We seek an International State meant where they can get on a level field, where they can control their own destiny. This has long been our ambition in the world when this nation was still in its infancy, and our borders did not yet span the continent, the Monroe Doctrine announced our intention to prevent any foreign power but exercising hegemony, dominance, in our hemisphere. This hemisphere was in the region of importance to our security. In the first and second world wars, are in for similar, this nation took up arms in places far from home to stop imperial powers from seizing control of europe and asia. The same logic guided americas hands through the cold war, across administrations, this nation pursuit strategies of alliances to stop the soviet union from dominating europe and asia and ultimately the globe. And we succeeded. Amid this history, of course, america pursued its own experiment with imperialism. Thankfully, the American People rejected that policy, and this nation has rightly pronounced imperial ambitions. We should be clear that imperial domination violates our principles, and threatens our character, our aim must be to prevent imperialism, not exercise it. To stop domination, not foster it. And now we must gird ourselves for a new effort. Because new challenges wait, and new dangers rise in the worlds most critical of regions, the indopacific. It is here, in asia, that the Great Security challenges up the 21st century are now playing out. It is here that any policy centered on american interests must focus. This region, this sprawling expanse with diverse peoples and cultures and nations its critical for our trade, critical for our jobs, critical for our national welfare. And, today, this is the region where the minutes of hegemony looms largest. It is surely evident to everyone in this room that the indopacific is increasingly left. So in this critical region at this moment, the peoples republic of China Gathering strength by the day, intervening in the affairs of its neighbors, distorting and manipulating cameras on capitol to distract as much as it can, while giving us much as possible and return. And its not just about trade and investment its only about programs that seek to bend the wealth of the world with the Chinese Communist party. Its far more than that, china bracing we believe our allies and partners, aggressively militarizing rockets in the scene, and openly seeks control of the entire region. We see this in hong kong, where promises are broken and violence escalates, and basic liberties are restricted or just appraisingly ignored. We see it in taiwan, where a free people stand fast against the power but on everything there independent identity. We see it even in our own corporations like disney and the nba, throw overboard free speech as a first sign of asians commercial pressure. When it comes to commerce, it is true. It is also true that they have given us a degree of market access, but for years this relationship with china has concealed another inconvenient truth, our producers and our workers are increasingly at the mercy of the Chinese Communist party. China is building its own military and economic power on the back of our working class. This reality has been right in front of us, for those that ive care to look. Over 3 Million Manufacturing jobs left our shores in the first dozen years of the century, due to china. Devastating families and getting communities. Our workers have known for years what this city is only beginning to discover, that the beijing regime will first take from you and then replace to the second it gets the chance. Chinas drive for regional hegemony is a clear and present danger. At every juncture that china has grown and strength, those that have shown the willingness to weaponize and protect its power, to chinas before domination its the greatest Security Threat this country and this century. Our Foreign Policy around the globe must be oriented to this challenge, and focus principally on this. Our references, to curb rogue regimes and to protect valued partners like israel, these priorities are essential and they remain in americas interests. Now, we must address them in light of chinas bid for mastery in asia and beyond. This is more than a contest, its much more than a rivalry, this is a bit for mastery, by an authoritarian and imperial state that we fundamentally cannot trust, and that we fundamentally cannot support. And so, we must adapt and change to answer this new reality. That means strengthening our ties with our existing allies and partners in the region, those maritime democracies that have historically kept this region open and free. It means seeking out new numbers, like india who share our interests. It means key strategic places encountering malign chinese influence in other arenas, from africa to latin america to our carleton universitys here at home. It means evaluating our current range of commitments to ensure that this challenge has the attention and resources it needs. American might is not limitless, and nor are the lives of the American People. We must make hard choices and articulate clear priorities in order to meet the challenge before us. Lets be clear, our task is not to remake china from within, rather it is to deny beijings ability to impose its will without, whether be upon hong kong or taiwan or our allies, or upon us. We cannot make our nation in our image, but we cant react americas we, protect our way of life. We improve our friends, and we support freedom loving people everywhere. I tell you today that our Foreign Policy can change, and must change. It is time we face facts and address the world as it it is. And it is time our Foreign Policy honors those nations in new custody and reflects its character. To those who advocate for withdraw and isolation, i say that will not keep america safe and prosperous. Outlets the Foreign Policy for the people who built this country, when that honors our workers by protecting their livelihood, protecting our way of life by respecting our Service Members by asking them to sacrifice for a justified purpose and only with a reasonable plan. Our purpose in the world is informed by our character at home, and buy our enduring aspiration to be a free people. Our unique way of democracy. Two eight, and to the world we, must rise to defend it again in our day, by striving for a world free from domination and imperialism. We do our part to carry our inheritance. Our nation will be safer for it, our people will be more prosperous for it, and the world will be better because of it. Thank you for having me. Thank you for your thoughts on comprehensive, one of the most interesting aspects of this what is your connection between places like missouri, and what we are trying to do in the rest of the world, its one of the overarching questions of our time about how do you orient a Foreign Policy of that so, i want to ask you about spelling out what you are right about, specifically with china. If asia is dominated by china, we know that does to the people who dont want to think about china every day. What is that role but look like . Thats a great question. What it does is that it shows that we cannot continue the prosperity of our working class, period. China at, the end of specific its vital to us. We have to be able to trade in that region, to have access to that region on free unequal terms. We have to be able to dominate that region and we shouldnt. We do have to have access for the basic character for this country to continue. Our middleclass, are working class right now is under very significant pressure. We cannot afford a world in which we are shut out of the worlds largest, fastestgrowing regions and markets, one which we are relegated to a status in which we can add on free and equal terms of trade and i have relationships. We have to have access to this,. And that brings me to your criticism of private Companies Like disney and va, and the response from corporations will be, at least some of these corporations will be, a look at these kinds of our markets. Theres a price to have access to that, self censorship, apologizing for a random tweet from the general manager the, houston rockets, whatever it is. It is kind of goes with the territory. What do you want us to do . We are corporation that is aimed at maximizing shareholder value, that is a big market, we get revenue from there. We are not politicians, were not informed policymakers. I do think that Companies Like that should deal with their starting now but they will continue, indefinitely. What weve seen with the nba and others is a preview of coming attractions. What we want them to do with that become arms of the Chinese Communist party, as a Propaganda Machine and what we are doing is we have to realize that beijing desire to dominate the region is at peace with their desire to tell American Companies what they can i cannot say. And also impeach the desire to get as much data as possible on americans, and american Foreign Policy interests. They cant with Companies Like tiktok, or to coerce our companies to share data with them. Theyve been very clear for that, what they are reaching for as regional domination, and beyond that, access influence is not controlled with the International System. The way they are treating American Companies is that. These American Companies, are going to have to draw the line. We need access to that region, but what you must not do is allow beijing to make you an arm of their government. Thats exactly what beijing has done with the corporate sector in their own country. And we cannot allow them to do that with that. Im curious what youre hearing from your constituents back home. There was some of us who were in kansas city a few months ago. We didnt even across the state line. One of the things that were stuck by when we meet with representatives of the farmers out there who could not sell their soybeans to china, and this is a few months ago. It was striking to me that they were not clambering for the trouble to go away. It was actually a sense that this was a piece of a much bigger issue and that they were going to play their part in making some short term pains. When you talk to your constituents, are people worried about china beyond economics, are they worried about neoliberalism, the geographic domination, how do they square this with their other concerns about terrorism and Everything Else . This is an issue i think a normal, everyday working americans have had a sense of this and understanding of this, as i said in my remarks of where the chattering classes have been hearing for years about the danger of china, and they did it because they realize that china has taken our jobs, china has engaged an unfair practices, ripped off our middle class just on a property, they know that, you dont have to tell the American People that, they get that, its in this town the people say, its complicated. We can liberalized them. The American People in, a least and majority, theyve never believed that they always thought china was a competitor, they believe that china is behaving unfairly and they believe that china has bad intentions. When i talk to people about my trip about hong kong, they are not surprised. Theyre horrified that they are not surprised. The people in missouri are like, yeah, we feel that this is the kind of attention theyve been exhibiting for our workers, are property, for a long time. Theyve been trying to buy up farm land for quite a long time. China has been really worried about that. Theyre worried about the intentions of beijing, and i go back to what i think is a fundamental point that we dont need to see conflict with china. We dont even need to contain china, we need to make sure that china does not become an imperial power that dominates the region. That is our aim. That is a doable and achievable goal and i think we should see it as a broader Foreign Policy that seek to prevent hegemony by any power anywhere, but it is going to be hard work for into a long struggle, in this country with china. I want to ask about your trip to hong kong in a moment, but just to connect this to a political residents, and the beginning of your speech, you critique this universalists project where you have the world a democracy everywhere. If youre a middle class american and you have been very very articulate and outspoken on whats going on in hong kong, why should we care about whats happening in hong kong . Does that really affect the average or, last person in the United States. Hong kong is a collective of what beijing is capable of. First, hong kong, then taiwan than the whole region, and then we get to what beijing has already been telegraphing, which is they want to shut us out of the region. They want a region and a system, and International System that revolves around them, that has the characteristics of their government and their regime, and what is the line, theres only one to be one sign in the sky, thats a problem. The problem for our workers for our middle class is something that is a threat to our security, and something that we cant deal with. Say a word you, are in hong kong a few weeks ago meeting with protesters and wandering around a little bit. Maybe you could just say a little bit about what your take away was from that experience, particular given the news earlier this morning, things seem to be going from bad to worse in terms of, it doesnt seem to be any resolution. Where you think all this is going . Had a chance to go to hong kong last month and speak for myself, i went out on the streets for myself to be there with the protesters, see them, see what was going on with the police, i applied the News Conference, especially some of the grave News Conference from reporters are out there in violent or dangerous situations to, say thank you for the tremendous work, i went myself i spent an evening out on the streets and then another day meeting with the protest leaders, people across section of hong kong society, which is really fascinating. The sense in hong kong, and this was one month ago, the sense was that it was urgent. But i said, whats really infuriated the government is that hong kong is becoming a police state. I saw with my own eyes, Police Violence that has not checked, no oversight, the inability of residents of hong kong to relieve their chief executive, since i was there, joshua one being the primary example, what we are seeing with the latest university, its really remarkable. Terrible. And it is a sign, again, it is an indication, a demonstration of what beijing intends and what they are capable of. We have delayed long enough, we have waited long enough, that actor should come to the fore, and it should be floated a plan. It is important that we send the signal to beijing and the world, including some of our, im afraid to say, to reluctant allies that want to say nothing about what is going on in hong kong. Its important we send a clear message that this is not acceptable that chinas intentions are not going to go unnoticed or. Unchecked hong kong officials have been saying privately for months now that the protests can go on forever, that students want to go back to school, or they want their weekends back, or whatever. But it sounds to me like with your experience, that brought you the opposite view. My impression was, seeing the protesters on the streets and meeting with them, they feel that this is a threat to the character of their city. What person after person told me is they believe in one country, two systems. The protesters are not the people who are the revisionists. They want to the status quo, they want what they were promised in 19 80 four and again in 19 87. They went the treaty to be followed through. What they are trying to prevent is the steady rolling back of those promises, those commitments, the violation of their basic law by beijing. I think this is why it is happening in hong kong is indicative of the region. China is the revisionist power clearly. They are trained to alter the terms in the region and ultimately the International System. We have got to do something about that. The idea of a u. S. Senator in hong kong going out into the protests at night is the control officers worst nightmare. But good on you for that. Let me turn to one thing that was you mentioned about the tradeoffs associated, and of course president obama tried to pivot to asia. Trump has tried to edit us out of the forever wars could i think today there are more american troops in the greater middle east than they were at the beginning of the trump administration. So for all of the intentions to get out of the middle east and focus on the pacific, its been a challenge part of the reason obviously is because we are worried about what the consequences of withdrawal should be. If we take the troops that remain in syria, does isis come back . If we get out of afghanistan, does al qaeda come back . How do you think about this balance between we want to stop the forever wars and get out of these things, but we dont want to let terrorists sanctuaries emerge and then it comes back to haunt the kind of people that the Foreign Policy should protect. I think part of what we have to do is focus more closely on our key priorities there and be more singleminded about pursuing them. I would say that the first of those is to counterterrorism and prevent the formation of networks and cells that could strike at the United States pose a direct threat to americans. Counterterrorism is in our National Interest. It is a key priority. Preventing anyone nation from becoming a regional hegemon. I think Foreign Policy should be geared around preventing domination by any power. That is what i think has been our historical practice, and i think we should return to that. We have an interest in making sure that the cradle greater middle east is dominated by anyone power. Those interests are different than acting as the general guarantor of regional stability. I think we have drifted in that region partly because we have not had a purpose globally for some time now could we have not had a clear sense of mission and also because i think we slipped into thinking we can do it all. We will just ask the taxpayers for more money. We cannot afford to spend a trillion or 2 trillion dollars a year on defense good, we cannot. American might and american treasure are not limitless. We cannot fund it initially an eight year military, we are not the only quote unquote superpower in the world. Part of this means we need more help from our allies, including the middle east, certainly in europe and certainly we have a lot of work to do. Do you think that the counterterrorism measure, whether our troops in iraq, could not be executed without an American Military presence in those countries . Or does it mean get out of some form of combat but keep a residual presence . I would think that our soldiers and the joint force have become i think incredibly good at first of all the joint force is amazingly good at what they do they are the best. They need more support and part of giving them that support is for political leaders to give a direction and to quit asking them to do everything all the time. The joint force i think has become very good at counterterrorism particular using special forces. We will probably need to correct continue a presence there because we cannot afford to prevent terrorists cells that have International Rich reach. We cannot permit those to reform. Does that mean that we need large numbers of Ground Troops . We have more troops now then we did just a few years ago. I think weve got to think hard about that. Weve got to think hard about the footprint and not just about troops but what kind, what kind of equipment. We have got to think about that in the context of our overall needs. One more question and then we will go to the audience to be thinking about questions. How does russia fit in the Foreign Policy you sketched out both as a direct threat to the United States whether it is military or political meddling or the violation of regional rules, and then also the connections with china. Should we worry about this russiachina access being formed . How do you think about that . Russia also has their own aspirations towards hegemony. They are a dangerous threat. I i say that threat looms largest in the pacific, but it looms in the baltics as well and in newly aggressive russia. If china and the pacific is our pacing theater, russia has got to be close behind. We need our nato allies in this area to do more. We need them. This is in their backyard. We cannot the United States cannot lead the charge against russia and the chinese hegemony at the same time and pursue counterterrorism. We need our nato allies to step up and spend more and do more in europe and the baltics, and we need our nato allies to do more. Our alliances do matter. They will be important to us. In this new era because this is not a unipolar world anymore, but germany in particular has got to do more in europe. The truth is, if we are forced to choose between europe and asia, we will have to choose the pacific. That is much more pressing for us and for our interests paired we would not want to see russia expansion into europe, but if we are forced to choose, we would have to choose the indo pacific. We should not be put to that choice we have to work to make sure that we are partnering together so we can do what we need to do to maintain stability. One more question, you rejected the prevailing consensus on both the left and the right and sketched out this new way forward. You are the youngest senator, i think the newest senator. Does that consensus exist among your colleagues or do they think like you . I would say it still predominates everywhere that i have seen. I think part of it may be generational. I think in many ways we still live with a cold war hangover, maybe a post war hangover. I think there was such hope at the end of the cold war that maybe the world was going to change fundamentally in that great power politics would be gone forever and that we could rethink what the International System looks like. It just turns out that that is not the case. It turned out that russia and china did not get the memo, that the balance of power is back, that we are not the only powerful country in the world. Nor do we need to be. This is part of my message. We do not need to be paired the United States does not need to be the world hegemon. Pursuing that would be expensive and i think detrimental to our values could we do that. We need to make sure that no hegemon or imperial power dominates any of the region of the globe. We can do that and i think thats in accord with who we are. Lets go to the audience. Raise your hand if you have a question. Senator, under your Foreign Policy framework, i went to confirm america would not resume the role of the leader of the free world . And number two, regarding china, president reagan said communism is like a virus, and i think we only have two days to deal with that, either kill it or get away from it. I think history has proven that the market economy and American Values are kind of vulnerable, like dealing with the Chinese Communist party. It has not been immune to the communist corruption. If we engage china, the you think the history how can you make sure history will not repeat itself . I very much see the United States as the leader of the free world. I believe our mission for the world is to help make the world more free and open, but i suggest the way we do that is not by seeking unipolarity, which we ultimately cannot do. We should hope for such a world, but the focus of our policy should be a little more realistic and that is prevent domination. I think at this as a prodemocracy policy because it is built on allowing our democracy to thrive and allow other states in the system to have the same freedom that we do in terms of making their own choices, not being dominated by any regional power. As to china, i agree with you for this is part of the hope of the Foreign Policy consensus for decades, including them in the wto, in the International System, would lead to their liberalization. That has not happened. So if anything we are importing, they are exporting to us and we are importing their values on speech at least. That is the danger with companies with Companies Like disney or the nba. We have to be able to be ready to resist their attempts at regional hegemony. It does not mean that we need to shut them off from the world, but it means that we cannot allow them to dominate the world or their region. There has been a lot of talk in washington and beijing about the linking our economy from that of china. There is a vast continuing between the independence and full on decoupling. What steps the United States night take in this relationship to preserve some beneficial trade that mitigating some of the dangers that poses, so what form of independence between the two countries, what that looks like. Thats very much the question of the day. I would hoping i was hoping you would tell me. That is the outcome that we should pursue. For those who say we have got to stop the current trade complex conflicts with china, weve got to go back to full and total integration, that is just not going to happen because beijing will not let it happen. Their desire is for regional dominance. We will have to pursue some sort of separation enough that we are not held hostage by their commercial power. Their commercial power is great and it will only grow. We will have to pursue opening up other markets with closer ties with other nations. I talked about india, is a large market. We will have to, with our partnerships with india, japan, and others, we will have to expand our access there and ultimately pressure china to grant free and open terms, ones that are not coercive. Does that look like . I dont know, but i think the tools need to be on the table. For those who hope for a day when we are not in this confrontational stage with china, i dont think we are going back. The question is what sort of policy tools are we going to develop to continue to pursue our interests, to deter chinese aggression and also make sure that we have the access we need for our workers. I got a few ideas on that, so watch this space. I am a german, and i am with you on that european idea that they need to do more. There are those in this town who think that the e. U. Is an imperial power. Do you take this view . No. My concern is i would like the e. U. When it comes to trade disputes, and i am from a farming state, so we have some bones to pick without how the farmers are treated, so we hope for better terms. From a geopolitical perspective, i do not see them as a threat. There is a threat to the balance of power, but it is not the e. U. Its russia. We need our european allies to do more with us. We cannot come to a situation in which the United States is forced to choose. I think that would be bad. I am very much interested in the middle east. There is one piece that i would like you to have some comments on, turkey. Are they still essential in the nato, and what you make of that relationship between that administration and the president of turkey . Obviously they are still a part of nato. Richard asked earlier, but you asked about russia and china, and i worry about turkey and russia, so the russia china friendship i think would be disastrous for us. We do need to be very concerned about any potential growing alliance there. I think that would be very bad. I worry about turkey also moving towards russia, and that has got to be for us a project of trying to prevent any further gravitational pull towards moscow. The situation recently in turkey with syria shows the need to call upon this is interesting, something our generals have reported is there view as to why the security zone in Northern Syria proved to be unstable and we were not able to hold it is that it was never actually political, it was a military solution. Our military devised this area and try to get that turkish and kurdish military, but there was never actually any political buyin. We rely too much on the military power and not worked enough on the political side of things. We have to do more of that not less in the middle east as we train our military focus toward the indo pacific and then towards the baltics. Weve got a lot of work to do, but getting the priorities clear is the important step. I worry about turkey and russia a lot. I have two questions. You mentioned about the hong kong human rights and democracy act. We have seen it on the house floor, but can you give us some insight as to why it is still pending, and not being voted on the floor. The second question is, this is the anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall, and some of your colleagues call hong kong the new berlin because they see it as a potential and a turning point. Im wondering what is your take on that and do you think the western democracy has given enough support to hong kong . To take the second one, i think hong kong is the berlin of this generation in the sense that it captures and makes vivid the struggle that this generation will have, which is with an increasingly martial and expansionist china. That is what we are seeing play out. China is not willing to allow the status quo to exist in hong kong. China is trying to impose its power and its will and it is trying to use hong kong to send a signal to the region of what they will do and you better get on board with beijing because look at what beijing is capable of certainly we know thats what they want to do with taiwan and others. China does not want to have military conflict if they can avoid it. What they want is get everybody in the region afraid of them showing what they are capable of pretty think that is part of what is happening which is why it is so important and why i call it the berlin of this generation. As to your first question, i do not know why we are not voting on that act. I would like to know. I hope that we will vote this week. Ive been calling for for weeks. I introduced my own bill to impose some sanctions which i think are called for and very much in order. I hope we will vote soon. We will give the last question to this gentleman. Am very impressed your visiting hong kong to get the situation firsthand. Regarding chinas ambition towards homogeny hegemony, for example, president reagan, his way to collapse the soviet union, i think that worked well. What do you think about china . I think thats the question of the day. Our military posture, we will have to adopt a posture forward in the region. I think if you look at the various scenarios, china does not want to have to fight a conflict. You can say whatever you want about beijing, they are sophisticated and they have been pursuing this plan for quite some time. What they want to do is convince everybody that they can exert their power and that everybody should kowtow to beijing. We need to focus on taiwan, i think they are likely to become the focus of our military efforts as the strategy lays out. The focus of our Planning Efforts have to be to prevent this scenario in taiwan. China has studied our way of war, the american way for the last couple of decades. They know in the indo pacific because of the distances involved, we cannot surge troops in the theater quickly. If china is able to seize taiwan, we will have and we are not there to halt it, then it will be a fate to complete. That is the scenario that i think we have to prevent. I need to make it clear that we are able to prevent it. We will have to change our military posture in the rage and and build networks because it cannot be just us. We need our partners in the region to be a part of this. It needs to be clear to beijing if they attempt to strike at taiwan, they will be resisted i the United States and by a network of allies allies and they will be in for a very big fight that the International Community will not support them with. I think that has got to be the focus of our Planning Efforts. Much of the rest flows from that and the building out of our partnerships come and there is a lot of work there to do. It is doable. But we have a lot of work to do and theres not a second to waste. That is a good note to wrap this up on. You have covered a lot of territory, very thoughtful comments. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts on all of these matters and please join me in thanking the senator. What i am not optimistic