Transcripts For CSPAN3 Global Democracy And Human Rights 20240713

When america turns a blind eye, we invite the evils of oppression, poverty and extremism to take root around the globe. We must Work Together to safeguard the democratic order that has provided peace, prosperity, and human achievements at home and abroad. American leadership and strong alliances with fellow democratic nations are vital to this cause. At the bush institute, we are working diligently on these issues. Today our team is releasing a set of recommendations aimed at revitalizing our support for freedom, democracy, and human rights in our Foreign Policy. Thank you for contributing to this effort. May god bless you all. [ applause ] its a little known fact, everywhere i go, he does a video before i start speaking. A cool perk of the job. We have a great panel here. We have got a provocative title for this. I think maybe we start off with the question thats posed. When we talk about democracy and human rights around the world, how bad is it . Thanks, lindsey. Thank you to fiu for having us. I think the short answer is its pretty bad. At Freedom House, you know, this is something we measure every year in our annual freedom of the world report, and for the last 13 years every year we have had more countries experiencing declines in Political Rights and Civil Liberties than those having improvements. Our scores for next year are not ready to be announced yet, but i think its a pretty grim picture. And i would just, to open the conversation, say a few just kind of data points that i think, number one, china is getting more repressive. A million uighurs in concentration camps trying to tighten the screws on hong kong, building an orwellian surveillance state. I think china is, according to our scores, the worst violator of Internet Freedom in the world. So thats one big story. And then along with russia, you know, another great power, they are not only content to crack down on human rights within their own countries, but they are kind of reaching bond their borders, going after dissidents and both countries are holding themselves out as an alternative to the alternative to, you know, liberal democracy. I think youve got if you go around the globe you see all sorts of different problems. I think a big challenge is in the Worlds Largest democracy, india, which really has had a lot of problems cracking down on muslims, violence, and now these new laws that are really raising questions about, you know, indian democracy. And thats a global phenomenon. So i think its not a great picture. I do think the one thing we have to remind ourselves is that there is a basic human thirst for freedom and democracy, and so were inspired by what happened this year in hong kong. 3 Million People out on the street insisting on their rights. I think there is an interesting story, too, in africa. Two countries, sudan and ethiopia, which have had a lot of trouble, Popular Protest Movement in sudan overthrew the long entrenched dictator. In ethiopia, a political opening and a nobel prizewinning Prime Minister who is, you know, so youve got to refriend ourselves that you have to have optimism here. I try to look at the glass as half full. But if you look around the world, its a pretty grim picture and its pretty bad, to answer the question directly. National Democratic Institute is on the front lanes along with iri. You are working around the world. What are your people seeing in terms of their efforts to promote democracy and better governance and human rights how bad is it in your view . I agree with michael. I think its very challenging right now and its probably over the last 20 years this has been one of the most challenging years. At the same time, im much more optimistic for some of the reasons that michael laid out. I had the opportunity to travel to 13 countries in 2019, the middle east, balkans, former soviet union, and asia to meet with our partners, the folks that we work with in these countries who are civic activists, Political Party leaders, candidates, women who are running for office. Theyre all still pretty optimistic about democracy. It was interesting to see the pew research this morning, earlier in the discussion. We do a lot of research. Were not pew, but we try to get citizens attitudes about how they feel about things. Everywhere we work people still want to live in a democratic society. They want to have the right to vote. They want to eat as well. Victoria and i both work with secretary albright. Shes the chairman of ndi, and she likes to say that people want to have the right to eat and vote. I think the challenge in most places is that democracies arent delivering to the expectations that citizens have, especially in new emerging democracies. Theres really this hope that people are going to have jobs. Theyre going to have better education for their children. Theyre going to have infrastructure, improved economies. And thats not happening. In addition to the authoritarian reach thats happening around the world. But i see the people power of these citizens protests around the world as a real commitment. And i think thats something that we have to be hanging on to and underscoring and supporting throughout the world. Whats your thought . How bad are things . First of all, great to be here with all of you at fiu. I would agree that obviously the numbers are terrible. The trends are terrible. And not just recent trends, but over the past decade and that the authoritarians are feeling their power, that they are not sufficiently challenged, and that we have almost worse than that, we have a growing number of states that claim to be democracies but are using the mandates of democracy to take down the structures of democracy, whether it is free press or independent judiciaries or the right of Political Parties to form, et cetera. I think though, as colleagues have said here, that what is interesting is that people on every single continent are fighting back. And we have not seen a d diminution of street protests. And one of the increasing drivers of protests now is also interesting which is its citizens fighting back against perceived corruption of their leaders and their governments. And this is a real vulnerability for autocrats and for the minikrats, if you will, the erdogans of this world. You know, citizens may be unwilling to stand up for a free press, but when they think their government is ripping them off or they think their quality of life is going down while their leaders are enriching themselves, that is something that is dangerous for autocrats and can be exploited by those who want to support democracy by exposing how these folks who claim to be leading their countries are actually enriching themselves. So, i think its something that we need to e to cuss ongoing forward. The last point is simply the role of the United States. I would say that in the last administration there was already less of a full throated american strong beacon from the white house, although we continued to do all the Traditional Democratic support things that we did. But there was much more of a sense that what happens inside countries is the responsibility of those countries. But now when you have the United States itself not living up to its own Democratic Values when you have from the white house, you know, criticism of the press and criticism of the independent judicial system, et cetera, its very hard for those standing up around the world for all of those Democratic Institutions to have the champion that they used to have. So, i think its incumbent on us to get back to the role weve traditionally played if weve cared about these issues. So, you left the optimist for last. Look, a year ago, several of us were here. If you had told us that 2 million citizens in hong kong would be standing up to the worlds leading technoauthoritarian super power, we would have said no way. If you had told us a year ago that onethird of lebanons populations would be in the street of beirut across partisan sectarian religious lines demanding political change. If you would have told us that algerians would have been protesting in the streets for 40 weeks straight against their military leadership. If you had told us that a war criminal in sudan named Omar Albashir who had ruled that country with an iron fist for 30 years would have fallen in a peaceful street revolution and now subject to justice in his country, even a year ago i think we would have said no way. I will cite jackson, there is no other 12 month period when so many people have not be in the streets in so many regions across geographies, across cultures demanding better governance, demanding encountability, standing up to entrenched and corrupt political elites and craving the rights that were fighting for. Its trendy to sit around in the west and say, gosh, you know, democracy is not working so well. But there are people who are risking their lives for some of the very basic things that so many of us take for granted living in a wonderful country like this. So, the answer is not that its all okay. But gosh we have so much to work with. And guess what. The Chinese Communist party certainly since xi jinping took power has run a total mobilizational and Ideological Campaign to say that a foundational threat to the Chinese Communist party is the aspiration to democracy and human rights among chinese and more broadly. If you are a Vladimir Putin in russia, youre not afraid of the United States armed forces. Youre not afraid of maybe other security threats. Youre fundamentally afraid of your own citizens. Look at maduro in venezuela and the lengths to which he has gone. I think democrats need to work harder. We need to make democracy work. We need to grapple with new technologies which i think have turned on their head our assumptions about how technology could empower human freedom. Its empowered autocracy in many respects. But there is so much to work with out there and there are so many people all over the world who want our support and help. Weve got a panel of optimists here, and thats good. But it is a tough moment. Its a dark moment. I would like to get a little bit of sort of why democracy has been ebbing, if we can agree that it has been. Theres been set backs. You mentioned the failure of democracy to consistently deliver on expectations. We heard about an absence from u. S. Leadership, push back from authoritarians. Whats driving the difficulty for democracy . Well, there are about 200 different books about this in the last three years that have opined about this. So, what im going to say is not particularly original. But i would just focus on one issue that we at Freedom House looked at and i think sometimes doesnt get listed as the number one thing, but its certainly up there, which is the changing relationship of technology in democracy. You know, ten years ago when the internet and the social media was just gaining steam, you know, activists around the world were using it to mobilize in squares and other places. And i think what weve seen over the last couple of years is that the bad guys have kind of caught up with this and theyre able to use technology to undermine elections. Theyre able to surveil their people on a kind of unprecedented scale that i think i was imagined by orwell years ago. So, i think technology has accelerated some of the larger trends. We can talk about the economy and populism and so forth. But i think going forward, i think thats going to be an issue that were going to have to grapple with if were going to try to arrest this democratic decline. Sherry, what do you think . I like that as a top reason. I think my number two would be corruption, endemic corruption, and so much of the world that has only grown as a result of the economies that have been developing over the last 20 years of sort of democracy. And its at levels now that are just completely unacceptable. I think china has a role in that in their predatory lending and the fact that deals are made in back rooms and citizens dont have a voice or insight into the kind of lending practices that china is making. I think countries are becoming indebted to china through those lending practices. But i think corruption is uncontrolled right now in most of the world. And i think thats in large part why citizens are reacting and going to the streets because the resources that are coming into the country are not being used to deal with the basics of health, education, and welfare. So, i would put corruption as my number two. Interesting, yeah. I think, you know, weve had a perfect storm over the last three or four years of drivers of populism and drivers of autocracy. Weve talked about obviously the technology, the autocrats Getting Better at it, and the democrats not being able to defend the space and keep the internet as a force for freedom as it once began. But i think incumbent equality is another issue. And as you see those numbers and the spread growing on almost every continent, it provides fodder for a populous who want to go turn back the clock to some wishedfor previous period of peace, security, and stability with hhen the strong took care of you, that people yearn for. The migration crisis as well caused all kind of fears. Bizarrely, its countries with the least migration in europe that are most reacting to the fear. Again, rich fodder for populists and autocrats to exploit that somehow you are losing your native culture and your nativist had history to the other that has gone unchecked and unexplained. And then the last piece which plays into this is the lack of leadership pushing back on the other side. We havent had the great champions of democracy reminding those in democratic societies how we got as strong and rich and prosperous and had as much opportunity as weve had over the last 70 years and that thooes institutions and its tolerance and its independent judiciaries and free press and all those things that hold governments accountable that allow us to live the way we do. So, the autocratic voices have been louder. The drivers of populism have been stronger. And the democrats havent been fighting back properly. So, i think part of where you sit in this equation depends on what you are benchmarking against. Toria is on the board for the Nation National development for democracy. The ned was founded in 1983. I would like to explain what the state of democracy was in 1983. It was quite grim. Most of latin america were military or personalistic dictatorships. Big countries in asia like south korea and taiwan and indonesia were dictatorships. These are some of the most vibrant democracies in the world. The world was messy. Half of europe was occupied by the soviet army. Germany was divided. I looked at the Freedom House state of the world report im sorry. This is state of world. Your report is called freedom in the world. But theres a great map in there of africa showing that there were two democracys in africa in 1983, one of them being nigeria which is generous of your editors. Africa say transformed landscape today in terms of what young people want, what they aspire to in leaders in terms of the old colonial era strongman. Its not perfect. But part of our perspective on democracy i think needs to be anchored in the reality, the 1990s, the soviet union collapsed. Half the world suddenly reemerged from totalitarian occupation. And there was a huge surge in democratic advancement. That was not a normal situation. That was like a once in a century end of a war situation. The reality across all of Human History is that theres always been a struggle between freedom and autocracy, and guess what . Its back. Well, that period, the late 80s and early 90s, we did see this explosion of Democratic Forces around the world. Weve also seen setbacks since then. We take a country like egypt that looked like it was on the verge of becoming more democratic and then all of a sudden it goes back. We see this tied. It isnt always one way. What is kind of new i think is seeing setbacks in established democracies, in the United States and europe and elsewhere. Can you comment on that . You reported on it in freedom of the world last year. Right. Just in response, i love dans optimism and share your optimism so i dont want to be the but i also do think that in the big picture were far away from where we were at the end of world war ii. At the end of world war ii, there were only a couple dozen democracies in the world. Now we have more than 120, 130, depending how you account for them. So, definitely the recession, if you will of the last 12 or 13 years has been, has set us back. But the question really is, you know, are the worlds democracies, are the worlds Democratic Leaders going to, you know, push back against these trends . Because theyre gotting not goi away unless we forcefully fight them, forcefully fight the authoritarian tactics of places all over the world. And just going to the question you asked, lindsey, i do think one of the interesting themes of the Freedom House reports over the last couple of years is that there has been a weakening in established democracies, our own included. But in western europe, really i think the figure is about of the 40 strongest democracies in the world, i think at least half of them in the last five years have experienced setbacks and Political Rights and Civil Liberties. And i think thats not good for the global cause of democracy. I would never compare, you know, this country to, you know, whats happening in turkey or russia or china. Im a former journalist. Its still a very robust journalistic situation here. Theyre not throwing journalists in jail. Theyre not being murdered. But people do look to the United States for their queues and i think right now were not sending out the right queues about where we want to stand for democracy. Theres a sense in terms of the queues, theres our own behavior, if you will. And then theres also what policies are we advocating. What policies are we supporting, right . Right. But i think its also something as being willing to call out willing to recognize the dictators for what they are. I mean, its unfortunate when people like erdogan or orban get, you know, a warm welcome, you know, in washington. That sends a strong i recognize you have to do business with these people, but its a messaging people. And i think it em boldens people like that. Sherry, what are you seeing in terms of that . Does the embrace of autocrats by this administration how does that trouble you . How does that affect your work . I think its a big problem. You know, but at the same time i think the democrats that we work with around the world see and understand the difference between the Trump Administration and his actions and the values and commitment to democracy of the United States. And they still very much believe that the United States is supporting Democratic Values around the world. Theyre frustrated that the president and his administration send very different signals. You know, i think as long as we have a Trump Administration, its going to get harder and harder to underscore those values. I think its going to get harder for us as democracy organizations to say, you know, this is just an anomaly, its not going to last. Were still here supporting human rights and democracy around the world. Right now i think we have an opportunity to still use our past history and credibility, the resources that we have contributed around the world, the values that we still hold dear to help most people understand that were there for them. But i think it is very difficult with this president. Youve served in a number of senior policy issues. You had to on one hand deal with russia on a variety of issues but on the other hand we had a country repressing people and seeing setbacks. Whats the balance for a policy maker when youre dealing with a friendly country or a notsofriendly country in terms of balancing the human rights situation with the need to do business, to Work Together on certain things . I think the strongest american president s, the strongest american leaders of both parties including senator mccain were able to walk and chew gum at the same time. They were able to make very clear that and be critical as necessary when the foreign country you were dealing with was oppressing its citizens and was not living up to the standards that we thought those citizens deserve to, stand with those citizens, particularly those who are working to make change within their countries at the same time as we would try to find common interests and common action on issues that could benefit everybody and particularly our two countries. So, you know, the reagan legacy and the soviet time of doing arms control but being absolutely clear about the human rights situation inside the soviet union and its satellite states was the one that was formative for me as a young diplomat and was carried through by most of the administrations that i served. But i think, you know, its difficult. I spent 32 years as a diplomat proud to talk to other countries around the world about the strength that it gives you as a leader, as a government, when you submit to press criticism, when you allow a free judiciary, when you are not afraid to have your opponents stand for office and to debate them openly. And, you know, when you show your tax returns, when you divest your own assets before you govern. All of those kinds of things that america would always preach to others and to countries that were trying to be more democratic or those inside countries pushing for more democracy. But when we dont live up to those values ourselves, it would be hard to be wearing americas tshirt out there in the world today without that strong moral backing from the top. Dan, what do you think . Do you feel pushback . Do you feel sometimes you have to, i dont know, be a little bit shy about promoting these issues given todays Political Climate in the u. S. Or to the contrary . Actually, democracy budgets are going up thanks to the u. S. Congress. So, no bepretty bullshi about it. Supermajorities of americans, between 60 and 80 i think in your surveys understand or believe that america should support democracy in the world and understand directly why that makes america safer. So, its not as if the American Public has suddenly walked away from these issues. I would also add that pew and other polling shows that in the last three years American Public support for free and open trade has gone up, american and public support for alliances has gone up and leadership in the world including nato has gone up. I would say in a democracy, politicians are going to follow the public. Of course they should also lead. But there is a strong base of support in the United States for americas traditional commitmentment. And look, there are lots of students of history here. The founding act of the United States in 1776 was to break away from a monarchical autocracy and build a democratic republic. So, american support for american democracy and human rights in the world didnt start with reagan or the origins of the cold war. It started in 1776. When you mentioned young people and students of history and so forth, were also seeing a little bit of a gap between, among young people in terms of enthusiasm and belief in haw man rights versus democracy. When we did the polling project you were talking about, in focus groups talking to young people one of the things we heard is a strong strain of noninterference, live and let live, everyone should have religious freedom or press freedom and so forth, but its not our job to impose it. Its not our job to go out and preach this to them. How would you counter that . Why should we be advocating for these things . I think this was a compelling argument maybe in the 1990s although actual lit turns out in the 90s when we had no great powers, a lot of people in europe were asking for our help in building democracies. The fundamental question is other nefarious actors are intervening whether the u. S. Is or not. Venezuela is not that far from where we are right now. Maduro would not be in power if it were not for the active military and political and covert and overt intervention of russia and cuba, right . In the balkans, my first trip i took this trip two and a half years ago i went to sarajevo and all i heard about was what the russians were up to in the balkans, what the iranians were up to in the balkans. I said what about europe, what about america . It turns out there are all these actors in the world. I would say america is a force for good as european allies. There are other actors who are not forces for good intervening every day. Look at libya, last example where turkey and russia are potentially starting to fight each other in libya as war lords squirmish and the government looks shaky. The u. S. Is not intervening in libya, but other actors are and not for the best purposes. I would just add to that that it is urban legend that the u. S. Has ever imposed democracy with the possible exception of germany and japan after world war ii as defeated powers. And i dont think that the populations there would be unhappy about that today. What we do is support Democratic Forces in countries or democratic transformations when citizens choose them or win them. And that is an important distinction because as dan just said, the autocrats are definitely seeking to impose their system and their rules of the road. And that is different than saying we think the way we live is better for individual humans and its better for the stability of the planet, come join us, and heres how you do it, and living up to those values and supporting activists who want to get there themselves. I agree with you. We did hear this stream in focus groups about democracy, thats roc and afghanistan, thats all it is. So i think we need to do a better job solve talking about these issues and making people understand this is a long standing bipartisan tradition and there are things we can do to help. We cant impose, but we can help. Dan, you mentioned funding was up which may surprise people because weve got an administration who is not wholeheartedly committed to this. Can somebody talk about what is happening with funding in washington . Yeah, its really surprising. But its also a tremendous testament to, i think, our congress and both republicans and democrats. I would say theres always been a bipartisan consensus on foreign assistance for large part. This is a situation where you have an administration whos actually opposing foreign assistance and foreign aid and democracy and human rights support. And congress has said and the Republican House when it was held by the republicans was saying no to this administration. So, i think in large part its a credit to the consensus that exists on the hill. Its also a result of a tremendous amount of effort by the democracy community to educate and inform members of congress about whats really going on around the world. The two Million People that are protesting in hong kong are not doing it because United States has been involved at all. These are people who need our support and continued spotlight being put on them. And Congress Needs to understand that. So, i think its a combination of maybe some of the new members in congress who have a Foreign Policy background or military background, coupled with some traditional republicans and democrats who have been committed to this for years despite the fact that omb, that people in the white house and other branches of government are wholeheartedly opposed to this funding. Even in todays hyperpartisan washington youre still seeing that kind of Cross Party Cooperation on this . Yes. The budget for the National Endowment for democracy has been almost doubled. Additional resources have been provided to the bureau for democracy human rights and labor at state department. And thats all been within the last three to six months. Are we seeing different in terms of how the Trump Administration does approach these issues, one of the issues weve heard a great deal about is the importance of religious freedom internationally and that being a priority for this Administration Due in part to some of their constituencies. Has that displaced the broader human rights agenda at the state department, do you think, mike. Or is it well, i think going back to a point that toria made at the beginning of the conversation about obama transition to trump and human rights, i think probably the transition was not as abrupt as some people would say. I think one area of continuity is in i was looking at the act passed on a bipartisan basis at the end of obama administration. And as best as i can tell, its largely been fairly robustly enforced. There are a couple of kind of glaring examples of the saudis that are responsible for the murder of khashoggi, the chinese officials involved with shin jong abuses. But i think that act has been enforced. Thats an important human rights tool, by the way, that allows the Treasury Department to sanction gross abusers of human rights and corrupt officials. I think the funding has stayed relatively the same, and i think there are certain issues where the administration has continued in venezuela iran, fairly strong human rights focus. I think there are others where they are less positive from a human rights perspective. In some ways, im not sure that the change has been so radical. I would also say, you know, i think the administration is doing a lot of talking about religious freedom but not acting on that speech. Situation for muslims around the world has never been worse, particularly when you start with shin jong and a million incarcerated but looking across the broader middle east as well. We have a great tradition of using sanctions appropriately. We have the first students not born at that period that penalized the soviet union in trade terms but also sanctions on middle Eastern Countries for treatment of christian minorities, et cetera. But i dont see any Foreign Policy tools being used against any countries currently for abuse of religious freedom. Okay. Theres been a theres a new commission on inalienable rights thats been formed at the state department, dan. Can you give us a little insight into what that is. Actually mike testified before them, so i dont want to miss my turn. He can give you a firstperson answer that i cant. Well, i guess one point that i probably neglected to say is that up until a couple of months ago, the administration was without political confirmed. Thats like three years. And so i dont think weve really heard too much from the state department on these issues. And i think secretary pompeo, when he came into office, he asked his former law professor from harvard, ambassador glendon, to chair a commission to look at human rights policy. Candidly im not quite sure what the agenda of that commission is and theres some concerns that it might be a pretext to elevate certain human rights like religious freedom over other human rights. I will say they invited me to testify. I will say we at Freedom House thought of the issues. The questions were good. Theyve invited a pretty crosssection of human rights advocates from both right, left, and middle. So, i would like to see what they come up with. We have some concerns, but hopefully they will ratify a strong human rights tradition as part of u. S. Foreign policy. Were going to go to questions in just a minute here. So, if you have questions, be thinking about them and prepare to go to the mics. Maybe well kind of wrap up this part of the talking. There may be two questions. As you look at the globe, youre thinking about 2020 what worries you, where do you see trouble brewing, and what gives you some sense of hope, some optimism . We heard a few upbeat cases at the beginning, but dan, well start that way and work here. So, i want to come back to this point about interference. America provides democracy assistance to empower people in their countries to decide their own future. One new feature of the landscape that certainly has not existed for at least 30 years is that in different ways russia and china are exporting authoritarianism. They are actually trying to disrupt and divert Democratic Practice in countries like ukraine in the case of russia, in countries like moldova, in countries like georgia. In the case of china, were using corrupt investments. Theyre using influence operations, various sophisticated forms of propaganda. This is a landscape that is quite new for the United States. So, were all in the business because we care about democracy and individual rights and the ability of people to decide their own futures. But there are now great power authoritarian competitors who are actively working to subvert democracy so that they can build out liberal spheres of influence and leverage that as a weapon against the United States. And thats new. And this link to the National Security community, you were asking about support and how were doing, we find actually theres a lot of bandwidth when we talk to our friends in the administration who may not wake up every day thinking about democracy and human rights. Theres a lot of bandwidth for the argument that hostile autocracies are using soft power instruments to project authoritarianism. The United States, to sustain the free and open world that so Many Americans invested so much lives and treasure and blood in needs to reinvest in our own soft power instruments to help citizens around the world decide their own fate because guess what, when people are free to choose, they choose to be part of a free world. That doesnt mean they agree with americaen every issue. But they choose to live in democratic partner countries. They do not choose to be part of a new empire. But this is the big thing unfolding in our current era. I mean, i would just build on that. I completely agree to say that we dont have our own act together. We dont have our act together as the United States. We dont have our act together as the leader of a coalition of free states, whether its using our Alliance Structures or whether its simply using our friends and partnerships to maximize our ability to expose nefarious use of the internet and protect free and open governance, to protect journalists and investigative efforts, to expose corruption, to bring cases and suits and get out there information about how autocratic leaders are abusing their own citizens and their use of soft power to abuse Citizens Rights beyond their borders, all of these kinds of things. It would not be very difficult to organize ourselves to defend democracy more efficiency first at home but then in the purported democratic space where backsliding is as much about everything else. But then to get on offense visavis this authoritarian way which is using soft and hard instruments wechlt understand the hard instruments. We can intellectualize and articulate the problem with the soft instruments, but we are not organized as a community of democracies to beat them. And we ought to get our act together. Well, one of the things that really keeps us up at night is the fact that young people all over the world have really lost confidence in traditional politics. I think thats true of the United States but its really true around the world. And weve been talking about all the reasons why theyve lost confidence. But theyre choosing not to join the main stream political movements or Political Parties. And in many places theyre choosing to go to the streets to protest and thats having an impact. The problem is theyre not really going to achieve significant change unless they find a more traditional vehicle to do it. Its one thing to go to the streets to get hundreds of thousands of people out to oust even a dictator. But where they go from here. And i think its also just a tragic comment on the world today that young people have lost confidence in us. Theyve lost confidence in the establishment because of corruption, because of the widening gap between the rich and poor, because governments arent able to provide basic health, education, and welfare. Thats our responsibility. Do something about. But its also the same time looking around to the students here sort of a call to action for all of you. And i think its exciting that there are so many students here who are interested in being involved in World Affairs and Foreign Policy and model United Nations which im a big fan of. But we need to find a way to get young people interested and committed to not only go to the streets but also to find ways to organize for real political change. So, you asked about an issue that gives the pessimistic and then one the more optimistic. So on the pessimism side i say one country thats interesting to watch over the next year is india. Thats been a country that has been declining slightly in the scores and taken a fairly illliberal turn and perhaps the Prime Minister is emboldened because of his reelection. But i think this needs to be seen as a global problem of how both democracies and dmon democracies accommodate minority views, minority religions, ethnic groups and so forth. To us at Freedom House, if you look around the world this is one of the major problems that democracy. Its not just about winning an election. Its also about pluralism and respecting the rights of minority groups and making sure that they have a voice. I think if you look around the world thats a big issue and i think india is an interesting case study right now. I come back to a country that i also said at the beginning, sudan. Ive been following sudan for quite some time. Its amazing. This is a country where the leadership arguably commits genocide in darfur, hundreds of thousands of people displaced and killed. And popular revolution with really not a lot of support from outside generated protests that up ended the dictator and now the dictator could be on his way to the icc. Its really vital i think its not clear what the outside world can do to help, but it seems to me thats a very hopeful situation and one that im going to be were going to be rooting for going forward. Okay. I think well open up to questions now. Weve got the mics set up. If you can keep your questions concise well follow the model we used earlier and take one from each side and go on. Thank you all for the work you do. Thank you all for coming here. My question, you guys touched on this a lot that the bright hope right now is popular movements, people out on the streets, things like that. So, my question is how can we get that to translate . And i think you brought this up, translate to actual formal political change and what is the role of that in making that happen. Hi, my name is jack mcguire. Little closer. Sorry. Im a phd student here at the university. Its not really a question but more of a statement i would like the panelists to respond to which is that we seem to support human rights in countries very selectively and lots of times we support, for instance, dictators that serve our interests and that ends up fuelling cycles that bring about more repressive regimes. So, for instance in iran we overthrew their government and imposed a dictator that ruled there. We overthrew the democratically elected government in guatemala. That helped spark a 36year civil war where we helped train, fund, provide weapons to an army that committed genocide against its own people, killed 300,000 primarily indigenous quat ma lan pe distants. Today we support the government in guatemala. Theres another government that i forget his name but his brother just got arrested in miami for Drug Trafficking a month ago. And that Drug Trafficking has been reportedly going to his brothers president ial campaign after he ran again, ran again for president which was constitutionally not allowed. Yet we seem to support people as long as they serve our interests even if they dont support those human rights. But when we when its someone else who, say russia or china supports or yeah, who doesnt necessarily hold our ideological views, we then call them a dictator, call them all that, impose all these sanctions. Thank you. Thank you. Who wants to take on sebastians question about moving from pro Test Movement in politics. We just heard about this in the tail end. I think thats one of the challenges we see is that especially with young people, theyll do the protest but then they really dont want to get involved in politics. And the fact of the matter is the only way right now that were changing is really to get involved with politics either as a candidate or join a party. Doesnt matter where you live. And so this disconnect is a challenge. Weve got to figure out how to do that. I think weve got to help young people and help the people on the street understand that it is worth taking the risk to get engaged politically and try to reform the process from within. But the protests in algeria have been going on for almost a year and part of the reason they havent actualized into something more is because theyre not forming policies. Theyre not trying to influence elections. Theyre not trying to organize a new party. Theyre just going to the streets every day. So, i dont have the answer. But maybe i would just say that we spoke about the National Endowment for democracy getting almost doubling its budget thanks to the Congress Bipartisan support this year. One of the main focuses of the endowment as a whole but also of both of the institutes iri and ndi is exactly this issue. How do you prepare those who are willing to protest to actually govern if they get the opportunity because we were relatively successful at supporting the development of Political Parties in central and Eastern Europe at the end of the cold war but less successful in the middle east, egypt being a prime example where you had great energy which didnt translate into Political Parties that could be effective or the Muslim Brotherhood quickly lost its ability to compromise as you have to have in a democracy. And now how are you going to get from street to action in hong kong, sudan, algeria, other places. So, this is something thats very important that activists have to be thinking about. If you actually did win, who are your allies. How are you going to govern . Whats your platform . Whats most important . How do you convert that energy to actually being able to being steward of the trust people have put in you. Ill take the kind of cold war question yeah. The kind of flashback question. Selective support. I cant see the questioner. We got out of that business. We made a lot of mistakes during the cold war. We should not selfflagellate ourselves. Look at what life was like under the soviet empire, right . But more fundamentally this also comes to the point about should the u. S. Work with countries that are not democracies. Victor shaw is going to be here tomorrow. He has a great book about the origins of the u. S. Alliance structure in asia. After the u. S. Built an Alliance Structure in asia, other than japan our allies were not democracies. But guess what happened over the course of half a century of being an american ally. Taiwan, south korea, one by one countries democratized. The philippines the u. S. Intervened decisively in the philippines at a critical point. American partnership actually can incubate more open politics. The problem in latin America Today is not u. S. Military interventionism. In iran, people were in the streets of hundred cities in iran last fall. They were not protesting against the United States. They were not saying death to the United States. They were saying down with the mulas. Why is our money going to Fund Terrorists organizations . We need that money at home. In hong kong, people were flying american flags in the streets of hong kong, not because of anything america is doing. Were not part of that. But i think we should not its easy to be in the america and be very cynical. But in fact when you go out in the world, people still look to us. Yes, sir . Hello. My name is alex. Im an student here at fiu. I want to know why didnt we see a stronger response about the crack down in kashmir and the new citizenship law in india. Thank you. And over here. Hi, im an intelligence fellow. So, my question is as we tie neoliberal monetary institutions to not only the economy but human rights development, how do we expect to compete with chinas one belt Road Initiative that doesnt prioritize human rights. Okay. Great. India, kashmir. Well, a couple points. The one thing i would say, i cant really speak to why we didnt do more there. But i do think this issue of shutting down the internet as a way of kind of is really thats a trend thats gaining currency around the world that dictators or liberal governments, you know, theyre not putting up with, you know, criticism. Theyre just shutting down the platforms by which that people can so, thats a really serious concern going back to the technology issue. You know, just if i just say one thing on the issue of the United States just to add to what dan said because i want to make a point, i think the u. S. Can be criticized for a variety of things. But i do think when the United States does not stand up for these values and rights, then there are very few other people in the world going to stand up for them. So, i think theres a vacuum thats created. Chinas not going to stand up for thesal voir dires. Russias not going to stand up to these values. Turkey is not going to stand up to these values. You see what happened in syria where we withdrew and the bad guys rush in. Same thing in venezuela. I think its a complicated issue. But theres a problem when the u. S. Withdraws from advocating for these values. And the question about how do we compete with the belt and road, with china, the chinese model. I think the interesting thing about belt road is there was much fanfare and much embracing and much inviting in the early years. And now recipient countries are beginning to get wise when they see what has happened in sri lanka, when they see what has happened in lots of african countries. And its exactly the liberalism of the belt road, the fact that the lending is not transparent and open and its predatory in many cases, the fact that local workers are not employed, let alone treated right, the fact that the Environmental Standards are zero, the fact that a lot of these deals are done in the dead of night between corrupt governments and the chinese leadership and the elected leaders are not part of that process that countries are starting to react to. So, i think our great strength now is twofold. First of all, in exposing all of the dangers of this kind of liberal predatory assistance that favors china for more than the recipient countries and setting some standards that countries that want to take the money but protect themselves ought to set for this kind of relationship. But i also think youre right, that we are not doing enough as a democratic family. And chancellor merkel has spoken to this and others to get back in the business that we work very strongly in throughout the cold war and particularly in the 90s of working together as a democratic family to target assistance including Infrastructure Spending to those count countries that could make the best use of it, things like the Millennium Challenge Corporation where we were particularly doing targeted investments in partnership with countries that were new and fragile democracies across latin eric many, asia, and the middle east. Thank you. Yes . Good evening, everybody. Im currently a firstyear graduate student for masters of Global Affairs focusing on globalization and security. As i stand here, i am from the democratic republic of congo, and ive seen first hand what not having structures and democracy can do to ones life. I have myself been treated wrongly, and ive seen the suffering around my people. I do appreciate democracy. I do appreciate the intervention of the United States in so many countries because you do save lives and remove us from the hands of this dictator. What i do have an issue with is the fact that we fail to recognize they lot of the people are not aware of what the power of democracy truly is. So, its good to tell other countries we should have democracy but theres no path and structural way of teaching people what is democracy and what kind of power they hold in their hand as a person, as a civilian, and individual as myself. It took a lot of me because im standing here before you because ive been privileged enough to get an education and understand what that is. For the normal bread seller or woman in the marketplace, they dont know what kind of power they hold. What can the United States as a Global Leader that we do look up to can do to make that process more structured and more focused in order to achieve democracy . Because right now in congo, weve he elections but we do have an imposed dictator in power even though there were elections. So, its not a true democracy. Thank you. And ill be brief. Dont you think its time that Speaker Pelosi and leader mcconnell invite the democratically elected taiwan. What kind of initiatives, what sort of programs can work there . I think the comment is very appropriate. Its a real challenge for many citizens around the world to understand the values of democracy. Were fortunate here in the United States that were educated from the time we start school until the time we go to university to have Civic Education. I think thats one thing we need to do more of is to help refocus the Education Systems and emerging democracies so they do have a Civic Education curriculum. Thats a big feat to take on. But its a big problem. We see that every day in the work we do around the world. Can i take the taiwan question . Sure. Taiwan for all of you is having a very important election the day after tomorrow. This is a genuine chinese democracy. When you hear a Chinese Communist party leader from Mainland China say Chinese Culture is incompatible with democracy or free media or rule of law, taiwan is a living example that that is not the case just as the Hong Kong Movement is another example of the fact that people in confuse yan cultures want the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. In taiwan its also an example of foreign intervention. The Chinese Party is running a disinformation campaign. They did this in taiwans local elections last year and threw the results t. Other party thats not in power did surprisingly well, significantly exceeded polling expectations partily because of this maligned foreign intervention. So, the current president of taiwan is saying vote for my party. Its a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Do you want to live in a free Chinese Society or do you want to end up looking like those people in those camps or those poor people in hong kong being tear gassed asking for their most basic rights. This is interesting in the question of the future of china because taiwan is an example of the fact there are no cultural predeterminants of how an organization should organize itself. And yes, she should come speak to congress. We are out of time. I want to thank this terrific panel for being here. You heard president bush mention the new report by the bush institute. There are copies of it out in the hallway, called choose freedom. So, join me in thanking this panel and thank you all. [ applause ] earlier today acting Homeland Security chad wolf testified on the president s 2021 budget request. If you missed his testimony before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, you can watch it tonight on cspan2 beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Next, u. S. Health officials on the coronavirus outbreak. The council on Foreign Relations hosted health and Human Services assistant secretary dr. Robert cad. We have dr. Fouchy and