Transcripts For CSPAN3 Atlantic Council Discussion On National Security 20240712

Domestic threats, they share their thoughts on the evolution of the position. Coronavirus and the next administrations priorities. Such an honor to be here and of course with this very, very impressive panel, im really honored to lead this conversation today. These gentlemen do not need an introduction but for good measure ill just run through the very, very top lines of their bios. General james jones is executive chairman emeritus, who served under barack obama as the nations 22nd National Security adviser in january 2009, previously he served as supreme allied Commander Europe and as the 32nd commandant of the marine corps. Nuclear technology company, he served as the 13th National Security adviser under president Ronald Reagan and is a retired marine corps officer. Its great to have you here too. And of course ambassador john bolton chairs the foundation for American Security and freedom, serving most recently as the 27th National Security adviser under President Donald Trump and ambassador bolton previously served as u. S. Ambassador to the United Nations under president george w. Bush and other government posts as well. Gentlemen, its so great to have the three of you here today. A few bits of housekeeping notes. Folks, it is not ideal that were doing this on zoom. We wish we could be together but in the meantime we do want to keep this as sprainteractive as possible. Youll see the q a tab at the bottom of your screen for zoom. Click on it, send your questions. We definitely want to hear from you. Dont forget to put your name and affiliation so we know who were talking to. We want to make this a conversation. So definitely get your questions in early. Also, we encourage our audience to join the discussion on twitter using hashtags acelections 20 and forward defense. Okay, so lets get cracking. Theres lots to talk about with these gentlemen. And since were being hosted by the center for strategy and security i thought, you know, we would talk about the model that was kind of developed by the late great general brett skoe croft. He inspired a model for staffing, and process efficiency at the National Security council, one in which many of his successors have referred to as the ultimate goal for running the nsc. From each of you it would be great to hear your thoughts about the current National Security councils structure and or the role of the National Security council. I already see ambassador bolton laughing a little bit with the question and how can processes and preeocedures improve policymakers approach to National Security issues. Maybe general jones we can start with you. General, i believe youre on mute, sir. Okay. There we go. I hear you. Okay. Go for it. Thank you very much. I probably should start out by saying by quoting Daniel Webster who president eisenhower used to like to quote. And one of these one of his favorite quotes was, americas great because it is good. If america ever ceases to be good, america will cease to be great. And i think that that is something that we should keep in mind as we lurch back and forth in this 21st century, which is incredibly complex and very, very different from the 20th century. The very concept of National Security and everything that it entails is much broader. Its all happening at a much more rapid pace than ever before. I think since i left the white house in 2010, and im sure john would agree with this, that the pace of things, every single day, is almost doubled, if not tripled. And so were living in a very difficult time where our ability to deal with the 24hour news cycle, the advances in technology, and the never ending demand for rapid answers to complex questions never seems to go away. So i think that that characteristic has a great deal to do with the effectiveness of the National Security council, which in my view is should be more should be as strategic as possible and should serve as a coordinating mechanism across the inner agency to highlight for the president those things that he or she absolutely has to know in realtime. So this is a complex time, demands just an awful lot of work, great people at every station. And an ability to deal with the ever increasing speed of things happening around the world. The world was a different place when brett scocroft had this vision. Why do you think he kind of saw the nsc as needing to fit under the certain model, and do you think it was the right model . Well, i spent a lot of time with general scocroft before i accepted the job. And even during the job i consulted with him on a regular basis. One of the big differences between the Bush Administration with steve hadley and the Obama Administration was that we decided immediately to combine both the Homeland Security council and the National Security council into one organization. It became a little heavy in terms of people. But at least for the way president obama liked to make decisions it worked better for him. Im not saying its the only way. But one of the things that general scocroft impressed on me at theout set is that every president gets to shape the National Security council in the way he wants to shape it. Its probably the one institution in our government that has to be ready to go as soon as the inauguration ceremony is over with. Right. And so that combination of Homeland Security and National Security goes back and forth depending on the administration. I think john and i were in agreement that combining both is a good idea. But as ive said its not the only way. It has to be shaped for how the president likes to make decisions and how he wants to see the National Security council in the overall context of the government. Ambassador bolton you had a strong response when i asked the question. Why dont you share your thoughts . Well, i agree with a lot of what jim has said. You know, i have in my book i quote a paragraph from john sununus memoir in his days as chief of staff in the bush 41 white house where he said when the president was in town at 8 00 a. M. Every morning there would be the intelligence briefing followed by for about 15 minutes followed by a half an hour of present scocroft talking about National Security, sometimes that went on for a while and then brent would say on when the governor discussed with president bush the domestic political issues. If that were the way things went in the Trump White House i would have felt like i died and gone to heaven. It is absolutely correct that every National Security Council Structure has to adopt to the president whos leading the country. Thats the councils purpose. The reasoning behind its creation and functioning is to advise the president. It has no independent purpose other than that. But in a time when many, many issues come before the president that involve National Security when the inner Agency Process has become cumbersome and bureaucratic, the effectiveness of the nsc to advise the president , i think, is critical and there are many different theories as to how it can work. But i think if you abandon it, it would be a huge mistake and i think part of the problem, i know were not supposed to be too topical here, but part of the problem that we face today is that it just doesnt suit the current incumbent. And well see what happens in the next administration, whoever it might be. What was the vision originally . When you served now were getting, you know, 35 years ago or so, was the world kind of demanding this certain model or do you think that it was something that, you know, brett scocroft felt it was something that would enhance our ability to tackle National Security threats in the future . Well, vivian, i think jim jones is right that each president will design, manage, oversee the council the way he or she wants it. The model really stems back to hen Henry Kisinger in the mid70s. As his deputy brett adopted it. I was working for brett at the time, kind of the chief of staff. But i think i would only add to what john and jim have said, that the council is to enable formation of policies designed to accomplish the goal the president has set. So if were looking to build u. S. Foreign policy toward the middle east the National Security adviser publishes a directive saying the president wants to know, how does he establish the following goal in the middle east, give me political, economic and military dimensions of how he or she ought to do that. And about six weeks later a paper comes back and since kisinger, scocroft and the three of us that has broadly speaking been the way it has run. And the point i stress in that approach is this, that today it has become the fashion to publish one paper, which is the national strategy, and in the old days there was probably a dozen papers to start with on a more differentiated set of policy issues, u. S. Policy toward allies, u. S. Policy toward the middle east, toward china, toward russia. In that way, by speeches, targeted on each one of these, you got a public elaboration from the president or the security adviser or secretary of state about the nittygritty of what our policy is in each of these domains. Well, i thought that led a certain order to the Relationship Building around the world in writing and in oral discourse. The staff flow has been too wig. It was mid50s under kisinger and scocroft. I had at tops 58. You dont need 400. I think john would agree. And the beginning of wisdom is to have a staff that doesnt portray itself in numbers or that it is running things, it is to manage a system that can enable the president to make sensible decisions and a staff of 400 is far too many to do that. I agree with what you just said. But one of the things that ive found upon my arrival as National Security adviser was that the National Security council was severely underfunded. And severely overpopulated. But one of the problems that manifested itself was that twothirds to threefourths of the staff on the National Security council were from the inner agency, from the Defense Department, from the state department, from all over the government. On loan to the National Security council. And therefore paid for by their parent organizations. And what happened was that this loan was temporary. It was either one or two years. Not much more than that. And what we found is after one year about half the National Security council staff, professional staff rotated. And new people came in. And i thought that was wholly unsatisfactory and argued for more funding. And basically an ability to make the National Security council sort of a mini agency with the budgets for the type of work that the National Security council needed to do, which we did not have. So yes, i think 400 is way too many. But i think more importantly it would be great to have a National Security council that would have a smaller staff, but a dedicated professional staff who would be there for the long haul instead of losing 50 every year. Let me throw out another question, im going to start with you, ambassador bolton, as i think you probably have strong thoughts on this. In covering the nsc closely, ive discovered that different National Security advisers have different views on sort of where the role is for Foreign International versus domestic, what the portfolio should be for the National Security adviser and in particular, ive even spoken with President Trumps current National Security adviser Robert Obrien about this very issue where it says, you know, in cases like the pandemic that were currently dealing with, where do the responsibilities of the National Security adviser ideally fall when you have a very large domestic component in addition to the international . Ambassador bolton . Well, i think in part it depends on how effective the coordination mechanisms are on the domestic policy side. And again, each president has his or her own vision of that. My own view is that not enough decisionmaking on the domestic side takes into account the international aspects. And there are some questions that obviously affect both, like trade for example, or like the handling of the pandemic. But i think just as its evolved historically, as bud said, going back to Henry Kisinger, the current one, but really i think we owe the original effort to Dwight Eisenhower who is one of the worlds great planners and who understood the benefit of planning even if youre not following the plan too long after you get it done because theres a lot to learn and planning helps you do it. Those mechanisms simply dont exist on the domestic side. But its ultimately up to the president whether he wants to work through the nsc structure, whether he wants to work through the Coronavirus Task force, which was under way for a time earlier this year, or whether he doesnt want to work through anything at all. I think there are clear benefits to inner Agency Coordination regardless. Some president s, including the current one, dont necessarily agree with that. General jones or mr. Mcfarlane, where is fine line between Homeland Security and what the National Security adviser does and what role does the National Security adviser play in the Homeland Security . Well, in the Obama Administration we had tom donelin was my deputy and john brennan was the Homeland Security adviser and were all located in the white house, obviously. And at the president s Daily Briefing all of those interests were present. And everybody had a set role to play. It was my job to kind of coordinate how that meeting went. So to, you know, make the best use of the president s time. But that seemed to, as the structure, that seemed to be a valid way and in consonance with how president obama liked to make decisions, which was very much from the bottom up instead of from the top down. But it was part of the National Security Council Structure, was it not, until the Trump Administration came around . And i believe you, ambassador bolton, kind of modified that structure. Well, ill just say a quick word there. The National Security and Homeland Security are fundamentally the same thing. I mean, i think were talking about the same homeland. So the notion of these being separate functions, i understand and was part of the bush 43 administration when the separate Homeland Security department was set up and so on. But i think ultimately you need to bring it back into a more coherent approach, which is what i tried to do. I would make other structural changes in the government beyond the nsc in that regard, but thats beyond the scope of our discussion here, i think. Okay, well i want to switch to sort of a broader topic and get into some of the larger threats that are facing the United States right now, kind of away from the structure of the nsc, lets talk about asymmetric threats and mr. Mcfarlane im going to start with you on this one, were talking about a number of threats these days, cyber, disinformation, biological weapons redefining National Security and defense, particularly in the wake of covid and with elections past and present. If the homeland is no longer a sanctuary, how do u. S. National Security Professionals explore Security Issues at the nexus of forward defense and Homeland Security . Mr. Mcfarlane ill start with you if you can talk about the asymmetric threats and how we confront them. Vivian, today it has become apparent, i think, to all of us that the foremost family of threats in the United States stem from china and the challenges it is offering in every domain, from cyber, to conventional military, to kind of a novel approach to expanding chinas influence through penetrating country after country by apparently benign offers to build things for the host country, whether its congo or the United Kingdom. That is, we will come, china, and we will build in london or congo a power plant or a highway or a port. In short, the appearance of innocent offerings. Before how long, however, it quickly turns into an issue of indebtedness by the host country where they borrow from china the money to build the port, lets say, in sri lanka, and before long if they cannot service the debt china generously offers to turn it into equity, or ownership. You can see how it doesnt take very long before gradually china becomes the owner of the port or the highway or the power plant or, or, or. And pretty soon you have penetrated the government, china has, and begins to have enormous influence over that governments policies. Well, that has happened in more than 60 countries. Chinas goal in all this is to, of course, expand its influence and presence, indeed virtually to call out the sovereignty of country after country, for three reasons. To gain resources, like cobalt in congo or lithium in chile. Secondly, kiley locations such suez canal, the straits, milaca, gibralter, allowing them to function in conflict and to project their forces with confidence on sea, on land throughout the world as a crisis may require. Well, thats a gradual but very effective way to establish your presence and your ability to operate in peace and war very effectively. And of course the last goal of those three is to penetrate markets to assure that in chinas case the belt and Road Initiative enables them to get into the huge market of western europe and to handle with competence and control over the institutions as well as the infrastructure. General jones and ambassador bolton, certainly china has raised concern, now especially, but in the past. But theyre not the only ones. Other countries as well, as well as even lone wolf actors and things like that, can you elaborate a little bit . John, to you. Thank you, i think buds description of china was wonderful. Im not even going to try and add to it. But id say at the strategic level we have two basic threats. One is russia. The other is china. I think the russian threat represents the putin regime playing a bad hand very well. Especially in the past several years. And its a good example of how even a declining economic power like russia can use asymmetric warfare techniques like in cyberspace in particular. And to press its advantage with the resource it does have, oil and natural gas, in the space of the former soviet union, western europe in the middle east and respecting us. And i think these two broad strategic threats are going to be critical for the next administration. I think china is the existential threat of the 21st century. But even though those are important and significant at the strategic level i dont think you can dismiss the more immediate threats, the threats of Nuclear Proliferation from north korea and iran which continue to grow worse and the continuing threat of terrorism. I think the problem the u. S. Faces is that we are seeing threats across a Broad Spectrum which requires a Broad Spectrum of capabilities and response and i just say one thing i just think is going to be critical over the next four years, whomever is president , this is not a time to be reducing t Defense Department budget. We need to expand our capabilities in light of this broad range of threats that were facing. Ambassador bolton general jones i was going to elaborate based on what ambassador bolton said for you, Antonio Gutierrez recently said the world is living in the shadow of Nuclear Catastrophe and he pointed to deep concerns, escalations with Trump Administration and china, he pointed to rocky relationship between u. S. And russia. Nuclear armed india and pakistan are feuding over kashmir. The Iran Nuclear Deal is on the rocks. What do you make of all this and what can the United States do to diffuse these increasing tensions, especially among these competing Nuclear Powers . Well, i think, vivian, the one thing that the u. S. Has to do is send a very strong message that we are committed to remaining a nation of great influence and we are going to do those things that are required in order to maintain that greatness, akin to our role in the 20th century. I think theres still doubt about our commitment. If you look at the middle east, for example, and going back to the Obama Administration, you know, we towards the end of that administration, the arab world was seriously doubting our commitment. And as a result players like russia and others, you know, filled the gap. We hear talk about pulling forces back to the continental United States from overseas, in europe in particular. Thats worrisome to our friends and allies. So i think that one of the first things that we have to do is come out with a very clear policy statement that is backed up by clear action that we are committed, we do want to maintain our position as the global leader. We know that china is a real threat. We know that russia is a nuisance, but nonetheless a clever one at that. We know that iran is not going to live up to its agreements and we know when north korea is, and we know that the war on terror finds its way through the african continent and so on and so forth. So theres an awful lot to do. But i think the first step is to reassure our friends and allies, particularly organizations, International Organizations like the north atlantic treaty organization, where we have redefined the fact that the defense of europe is a valid concept after years of thinking that somehow russia was going to choose to be inside the euroatlantic arc with the resurgence to mr. Putin as president. We know that thats not true. And so as a result we need to make sure that as we move our forward defense of europe closer to the black sea and the baltic states, that we do those things that are absolutely essential to reassure our friends and allies and build those relationships. We need we need friends and we need allies. China doesnt really have a friend or an ally. Theyre doing it kind of on their own and every now and then they reach out to the russians and so on and so forth. But we do have friends and allies built upon almost a centurys worth of relationships, going back to world war i. So this is this is important, i think. And we need to build those relationships up again and show by our actions that were committed to maintaining the traditional role of the United States and the global Playing Field and to restate our commitment to those values that we hold dear. Mr. Mcfarlane you served as National Security adviser during the soviet era when the cold war was still sort of on its last leg but still very much happening. You know, given what general jones is saying right now. We talk about multilateral organizations the Trump Administration has frowned upon a lot of them, not because they dont want alliances but because they dont like the sort of lack of give and take between allies and so theyve criticized ambassador bolton included in some in certain organizations, like the United Nations and things like that, where there have been faults and this administration has called them out. As someone who served during the soviet era, id love you to reflect on where we are with some of those alliances now, and especially an organization like nato, which was initially sort of envisioned as a way to confront russian in europe. Vivian, you and jim have made a point that is salient right now, and that is the importance of allies. We have truly taken about a 30year holiday since the end of the cold war where we deluded ourselves into blooefelieving t the rest of the world would adopt freedom and the rule of law and so forth. And it hasnt happened. And awakening only in the last five years or so to the reality that there are such things as ambition, the lust or power and empire that currently reposes in both russia and china, as jim and john have described, and trying to compete now as alone america is no longer plausible or feasible. We must have allies. Weve seen it quite vividly in recent examples such as chinas interest in expanding its control over the telecommunications of europe. With 5g. And the United Kingdom has had the courage to stand up here, about five months ago, and to say, no, were not going to have you penetrating our communications. And immediately the next day said, well, ill call and raise you, were going to pull out of building a power plant for you. How do you like these apples . Well, fortunately pompeo had the gumpings to stand up and say we are with you, we will be with you tomorrow to help you replace whatever china had promised to do for you. Well, that was the right thing to say. But then when you look around at our ability to build the power plant that china refused to build we find out that we havent built one in 30 years, at least a Nuclear Power plant. So we need our allies to fill in the blanks of where the United States no longer has the capability to provide the assistance, be it military or domestic and industrial. So bringing the south koreans, japanese, United Kingdom, france, canada, the quad in east asia from australia, new zealand, japan and india, a partner that we have not forged a longterm historic relationship, that really must be brought in to rally against this complex threat being posed by china and russia. Ambassador bolton, you have always stressed the need and importance for alliances but youve been critical of certain multilateral organizations, in terms of some of the burden sharing and other issues. Can you elaborate on that and given the global context were talking about, the threats that exist today . Not all International Organizations are created equal. Nato is not the same as the United Nations. Nato is a common Defense Alliance and serves all of the interests of the members. I do think that its important for nato members to live up to the obligations that they freely undertook about what percentage of their gdp theyre going to spend on defense. And i think its a widely held view in the United States that everybody should bear their fair share of the burden. I dont think that goes to undercutting nato. I think there are some people in high places today who see it as an excuse to break the alliance. Thats not, i think, what most people think. And i think that the looking at what the structures that weve built over a sustained period of time, they need to be strengthened because we are in a time of challenge and adversity. And this is hardly the time to say we should be withdrawing significant American Forces from around the world and expecting that the oceans are going to protect us. That was a great idea in the 18th century. Thats not where we are today. Right. Very important and i want to kind of now touch upon, speaking of the United Nations, i want to touch upon, too, security counl acknowledged that it is trying to get Nuclear Talks with russia off the ground. And possibly doing so in a swift way that they would be able to reach some sort of an agreement that might ultimately extend the new start agreement, which expires in february. Initially the Trump Administration had insisted that it would prefer trilateral Nuclear Talks, with china being included in those talks, china and russia have never really been very enthusiastic about that idea and now it seems the administration is proceeding rapidly on talks with russia alone, potentially on concessions of warheads and other issues. So if you can any of you, just jump in and talk to me about sort of the state of play with those two Nuclear Powers in particular, and this vision that the Trump Administration, President Trump in particular, having a tri lateral nuclear deal, especially given the atmosphere were in today with tensions rising with both countries. John has the most recent experience in this but i will say the last star treaty signed during the Obama Administration was really the highlight, probably, of the u. S. Russian relations and everything seemed to go downhill after that. But john, i defer to you, i think, on more contemporary analysis of this issue. Well, i would just say, look, i opposed new start at the time in 2010 as twothirds of the republicans in the senate did. It didnt cover Tactical Nuclear weapons, that issues remains open today. New technological developments, like hypersonic cruise missiles, clearly really not covered adequately. No criticism of new start in 2010, but were in 2020 now. And this issue of china, which did not really come up then, either for the advocates of new start or its opponents, i think is critical. The chinese have basically said well, but our forces are so small, come back when its more appropriate. Meaning after we build up to your levels, then well talk about arms control. I dont think we ought to buy that. I think this is a critical strategic question for the United States. It was clearly right to tell the russians that were not in a bipolar Nuclear World anymore and the chinese are going to have to face up to this. I dont think we ought to let them off easily. There are models where there are vastly disproportionate powers in play at Different Levels of weapons capabilities. We can look to them. But nobody should think that were backing cold war, bilateral Nuclear Deals with russia where we just let china have a free pass. Johns right about that. Vivian, i think its fair to say that russia has adopted the stance of sponsoring an outdated treaty that, as john said, goes back ten years. And adopting the false metaphor that, well, whats theirs is theirs and whats ours is negotiable. Sounding like theyre wrapping theirselves in the blanket of peace. Johns right, we deserve to have a balance here but russias diffidence here is misguided, wrong headed, and weve got to some day bring china into this discussion because it is accelerating its military strength far quicker than even russia. Im going to hit upon partly because im a space junkie, but given that these countries are very much involved in the space race as well and the dominance of the, you know, great frontier. What are the challenges and opportunities presented by new domains of operation of space and how has the creation of the space force impacted our approach to Space Security and defense issues in general . Anyone. I think the jurys still out on that one. But why not . I mean, its something that were going to be competitive with the rugs and the chinese on, for sure. I think the u. S. Has signalled that its back in terms of its emphasis on space. Do you agree thats a priority given Everything Else happening in the world, do you agree that should be a priority . I think so, yes, absolutely, yeah. You know, some people some critics would argue that we already had a dedicated capability in the Defense Department to do the to Pay Attention to space. But the creation of the space force well have to wait and see what happens as we now have two departments in the pentagon that have two services, one is the Navy Department with the navy and the marine corps and now the air force with the space force as well. So it will be interesting to see what happens, very much dependent on the outcome of the election, i think. Of course, yes. Think. Of course, yes. Is no one else besides me. I think a oneliner, i am presenting vehicles alone with just an intense focus on how will we cope with that . And it was the consensus among the joint chiefs that the air force alone, and were question qu equipped to solve that problem alone. There are limits they will inevitably be at odds with the existing services. You can keep creating a new space force, an x force, and you needed it but lets not get on this treadmill forever. I just say, a quick word, i think that we have to be dominant in space. I think it is a venue that will be increasingly important and the initiative to other countries, but i dont think we should have a separate space force. Technology here, in the field of aerospace and there is a reason that world exists. I think we risk having budget competition where we dont need it. I would have kept it together not because i under estimate the contrary, but because by keeping one Aerospace Force we could have stayed more complete. I want to hit on a couple more things. We have an election in two weeks. Election security has been a major issue. It is always a major issue, but im talking now since you all served as National Security advisors from the foreign influence perspective, you know what more should we be doing to protect the integrity of the election. Lets keep it to that topic given the roles that you have served. Where are we falling short . What can we do to for election qualifiers. Maybe we start with you, ambassador bolton. Foreign interference is an act of war against the constitution. We should not tolerate it. We should help make deterrents to russia. Youre going to pay a higher cost if you interfere with our elections in is classic to disrupt an democratic society. Its not a question of one candidate over another, they want to undermine our basic institutions and our approach should be zero tolerance. If you were National Security advisor what would you be doing to combat this . I agree but i think the next illustration should concentrate on repairing fractured relationships. Personal relationships, too, with the National Leaders level that are just not in our best interest it means the rest of the 21s century will not be an entrenchment. It will be u. S. And china. They want to have it both ways. You look at china and what theyre doing, the Muslim Population it doesnt seem to spark a lot of outrage for people in ore countries that want to have economic dealings with china and pretend like it is not important. I think one of the thing thats is very important for the future is to reassess what our values are, restate our values, make sure our closest friends and allies share those values. I think the 21st century is like Cyber Security just like it was about Nuclear Power. The problem with cybersecurity is that there is no International Regulatory programwoprograframe works. People are afraid to use it as they see fit. We see in our own country the results of Big Tech Companies using their technology any way they want to. It is part of our constitution or not. So there is big issues out there that are completely unregulated. I think we will domestically have to do that. Signer security is, in fact, that closer to the door, and i will say happily the United States has developed the kinds of democracies that they will gravitate towards. Impenetrable 5g, and be available to be used on legacy systems as well. I think were in good position to reassume the mantle of leadership on this critical question. I think that jim is spot on with that. Beyond cyber space, china penetrated other institutions in our country with great advantage for themselves. Even the stock markets. We had over 160 Chinese Companies registered on american stock exchanges. That sounds innocent enough, and yet and the trillions of dollars are that have not gone through advancing china throughout the world, so theyre really having it other ways. They have opinion traiting snufgss an throughout our count country these institutions that are very precious to us, they conditioned the thinking of the next generation of Young Americans while you see where this is going. It is technology, it is stealing it from us and also penetrating institutions that advance it. So we have our hands full. We need to overcome our shortcomings. We need be a leader of allies encountering this onslaught. I have a million questions myself. Im juggling gadgets, that is the era that we live in right now preponderate first question. Im happy you asked this question. I want to dig in more, how will the threat of biothunderstorm and buy logical weapons evolve in the next temperature years. There is so much on the spread of coronavirus in this country. It is about just how vulnerable we are and how badly we fumbled this incident. The epidemiology of a biological attack. And we have not done a good job. It is the poor mans nuclear weapon. I think a lot of people will look at that. Te scores human population. I think this is, you know, this is clearly something that we need to learn and prepare for better in the future. I think it is also told as something about china and the way they behave. I think there is significant reasons to believe that we dont know, but a small part of what happened, the spread, and its effect. I think it is clear that chinas handling of it has affected the opinions of it around the world. In terms of the priority, i dont know what you need. Totally agree. Okay, were going to move on. Jeremy newman says how do we tackle security risks of climate changes. And how do we turn these risks into action over the long term. Do you want to talk about it . Just jump in gentleman. How do we stop the emissions of carbon, as well as our Power Generation and so forth. It is so fundamental. How do you get it . Most of our electricities come from cole for the past 100 years. Were finding that cole puts out a lot of carbon. Well, what else . Natural gas. Oil, renewables, wind, solar. And you find out that solar and wind are limited in their ability to provide base load power that is to be available all of the time. Large enough to care about industries, regeneration charging new electric vehicles leading us it should lead us back to a way it is well known to us, and we have not built a Nuclear Power plan in 30 years, we ought to begin starting again. It is available 24 7, and it doesnt emit anything. Wind and solar are good as far as they go. Today, houwever, the blessing i that theyre exploring a different kind of power plant called small modular Power Generation. Bill gates, new scale, others in the britain in great britain, rolls royce, for example, sent those in poland. So these new ways are coming online. They are suddenly awakening to the fact that it is the only way to get here today, the standards set for limiting growth and temperatures in the areas odd. I would just piggy back on that a little bit to saying without question one of the greats things to happen to the United States happened recently becoming an energy have instead of an energy have not particularly where oil and gas are concerned. I think that is a tremendous technical, technological achievement that has really placed the United States in aings these issues. Im old enough to remember the early days of the 70s where i would get up to line up at the gas station to get a couple gallons of gases. They tech tear of energy, the responsibility for managing the entire spectrum and up with twor particular aspects of the energy portfolio. Until recently the apa made more Energy Policy than the department of energy ever proposed. Were very proud to see that we have turned that corner in the energy department. Not just the department of Nuclear Energy alone, but the department of the total energy and it is very important. Let me just add if i could, one point, there is more rhetoric they affect climate change, but there has not been one climate agreement today including the paris accords that really do more than there is a lot of a lot of rhetoric out there from political places including our friends in europe, china, and india. And you look at the political sources and it is countries that make problems. So how the agreements will be made workable. I think we can do with less rhetoric and more change, frankly. Dmooi is the biggest emitter of carbon in the world by many multipl multiples. Let me ask with the Paris Climate Accord or the Iran Nuclear Deal, a lot of folks argue that you get the framework in place what do you say to people who say get a frame work theyre very different issues, but im trying to get to the core issue. The country that youre selling it. Put on a stronger or weeker position. It depends on particular circumstances and our experiences were so eager have a deal, so eager to say weve made progress, that you leave the target in a better position after the agreement than before. And i think that this is more rhetorical issue in many cases than it is a argue examination. Okay. Im going to jump i want a couple more questions in. A former league advisor asked the question what should the longterm strategy be to address security concerns and foreign technology, and is it shuft to simply block these or to take punitive actions. Any of you, jump in, please. I will just say quickly, i think that and i think i think they are the biggest stealers of our intellectual policy. It is things that china has stolen from us. I think there is a whole range of steps that we have not taken yet. You can prevent not just from stealing it but profiting from it. The chinese is also advancing. Yeah, but we raised this older. Through a complex Financial Complex of subsidies, they get in a position where they get involved in telecommunication systems. It is not just a political and intelligence gathering mode, but in an economic sphere as well. I think china has decided on a having china is really adapting it to the 21st century. Where it was in the earlier part of the 20th century. It is a position of it. But what they the markets, they have a very seductive way of doing that. Very appealing. Very nonthreatening. Economically viable. They obviously pay bribes to anyone that will take bribes, etc. They once they achieved that penetration, they extend on them. They bring in their labor force. They brought in algeria they brought prison ships with chinese prison herbs to do the work. They dont share their technology, they build it and they maintain it. They use the defense they built to manipulate the government of a particular country. One of our closest allies in south korea south korea is their economy is now almost 30 definite. China is lecturing the south koreans. Our closest ally, what we want them to do. The agreement with the United States, and military exercises and so on and so forth. If they dont, they threaten economic reprisals on almost 30 of their but there are Korean Company thats have no rewith the United States that are dependent on their relation with china. And the democracy. They are going soft on china and one of our closest allies. It is very ingenious. We have to be able to off set that. It is not just south korea. When you look at what china has done it now owns 60 of the cobalt economy for hightech technology and apply cases, familiarly in chile with lithium being the goal there. Separately i mentioned earlier the penetration of the stock markets and the american investors that end up funding chinas ability to expand its influence throughout the world. And more than 100 companies already. Countries. Thank you for that, there is so many Great Questions here. We have only about five minutes left. So im going to ask you about the implications of the washington times. What is the implications of a significant withdraw. The peace talks, and u. S. Presence in the region in general. I would love for you to reflect on that plan. I think it would be a huge mistake. The advantage of keeping a substantial american force, not only for Counter Terrorism purposes, but for others in afghanistan, it should be clear by now but obviously it isnt. Its not that we are eager have wars go on forever. We dont get to decide that 37 but the question should be what is in americas best National Security interest. If having forces deployed abroad provides the greater potential to protect homeland and our allies against attacks from terrorists or more conventional enemies, then it is in our interest to do it that is the calculus that we should apply. The answer will change over time. The reflexive, kneejerk assumption that if we bring forces home well be in better shape internationally i think it has just been proven wrong so many times it is frustrating to hear it again. One of my favorite sayings is virtual presence is actual absence. If youre absence you will create a vacuum. I think the i think afghanistan and iraq is in our haste to put up a government following our military victory, we were too hasty and too accepting of whoever emerged as a leader. And we didnt spend enough time paying attention to economic revival and reform. When you go into a country and you advertise that were not going to do nation building, then the whole premise of how we succeed in world war tii is a bg question. Been there and done that. And understands what we have to achieve and bottom line, putting our trust in the taliban in an agreements that doesnt enable us to take over the taliban in the months and years ahead. And they go to the allies today. There is a meeting of an alliance in eastern europe, and it is called the three cs measure initiative. They are talking about how they can cooperate in making sure the pressures build fundamental things. That is what we need to focus on in the years and the months ahead. It is a big mountain to climb and a big doe mate. 30 seconds left. Closing remarks, tell us what is keeping you up at night. Lets start with you and go kron lajically. This is is one that keeps me up at night. I go back to the fairwell address and well talk just ten seconds. The most impressive production. We realize that americas leadership and prestige, how we use our power in the interest of world peace. He added throughout americas adventure and fosturing progress. Then he warned that any failure praiseb traceable to air jar jans, lack compassion. Thank you, just what keeps you up at night, what are your final thoughts . The cooperative effort by russia and china to penetrate is a central threat that we must face. Military, economic technology, health care as were currently seeing, how we defend against the entire spectrum for signer, but these subtle offers of countries all over the world to an enormous debt that they can every serve. Both parties have an ability to say lets just focus on both issues. We cant have a strong position in the world as a whole unless we have a Strong Economy at home. But make no mistake, we will not have a Strong Economy here. Thank you all who are out there, sorry we didnt get to see you. Im glad we got to talk virtually. Thank you to the Atlanta Council for this important and timely event. Everyone have a great day, stay safe out there. Thank you vivian. Thank you. Were featuring the contenders. A series that looks at 14 candidates that had a lasting effect on u. S. Politics. Tonight we feature ross perot. Youre watching american