Transcripts For CSPAN Former National Security Advisers Discuss The Future Of U.S. Global... 20170815

Now four former national. Ecurity advisers susan rice and Tom Donnellan and Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley talk about threats posed by russia, china, and north korea. Welcome, everybody, and this is pretty much what the essence of the Aspen Institute has been and should always be about, and what our nation should be about, a notion of very dedicated people of both parties coming together and trying to find common ground. It is under the auspices of the Aspen Strategy Group. I want to thank joe nye, who is cochair with secretary Condoleezza Rice, with her first year on the job. [applause] isaacson we also have Stephen Hadley and tom donlon, the first time four national have beendvisers together. It shows what aspen can do. You notice that susan rice is missing. She will be here in seven minutes. She is just on her way from the airport. Just like bob gates last year, always a buddy who wants to make a dramatic enters. Let me turn it over to a person everybody knows, nick burns, the executive director of the Aspen Strategy Group and an old friend of the institute. I do want to say you have been here many times, you are now cochairing this, but tell me when you first came here and why. In 1972 and ias was a student in the Aspen Music Festival school at the time. [applause] ms. Rice after experiencing all those amazing pianists in the school, i went back to gender denver and changed my major. [applause] good afternoon. Before walter goes away, given his extraordinary leadership of the Aspen Institute, over 14 years, we ought to pay tribute to him. [applause] mr. Burns thank you for being here. I am nick burns, the director of Aspen Strategy Group. We are a rare commodity in washington, d. C. We are nonpartisan, and we are resolutely nonpartisan. We are meeting here for the 34th year. Meeting 34 at that years ago, along with prince gro scowcroft. We believe that republicans and democrats and independents can come together on behalf of our country to think to the Biggest Challenges we face. We are here every august. I want they treated to joe because he is the longestserving member of this institution and a great father intellectually of what we try to do, so do, joe, thank you for what you have done. [applause] mr. Burns we have a lot of impertinent people here. I have to mention our former great secretary of state, Madeleine Albright. [applause] mentions and i have to another ambassador. And jim crown and bob steele who deskled the aspen to institute, but thanks to both of you. This year we are bringing together a lot of experts, it also bring together three elected officials who will talk to a sunday evening about the redblue divide them about a divided nation. Walter and jim had been writing this project of healing america, and so Mitch Landrieu of new orleans is here. We are really happy he is here. Speechhave not read his about a very sensitive issue, you must read that speech. A brilliant speech of leadership. He will be joined by a good to talkbout hours, about how domestic politics has an impact on our leadership position. What we are doing is taking on a americanled the liberal order of the last of the two years. Condi and i felt we would describe it. For 72 years, every american president from harry truman through barack obama has agreed on one thing we have to be forward, deplored, engage with restts engage with the of the world as a leader. That is why we have stood for free trade and trading agreements to lift global prosperity. It is why we have nurtured these big institutions they are not like thect United Nations and its agencies, the imf, the world bank because when a Natural Disaster like haiti, a place we have to respond. United states is the linchpin of all this, and we believe in Something Else every president administration, both parties, we believe in democracy and human rights in the democratic order in the world. That is under challenge right now. It is under challenge by a rising channel in the china, which does not sure those thou use. It is under challenge by a resurgent russian, which is crossed every redlined by annexing crimea, by causing trouble in the middle east, and by a cyber attack on our National Election in 2016. But it is more complicated than china and russia, because this liberal order is being the each ala lot of nongovernment, qaeda, isis, severed terrorists, have a lot of power now and theyre cut into the power of governments and diluting power. And our ability to achieve a peace and stable world and i will try to say this in a nonpartisan way a lot of people are say now that the United States is not upholding its end of the bargain. There were critics of president obama who thought that he was too reticent in protecting United States in some districts. There are many more critics of America First, of President Trump. The question i wanted to ask our and toms today, condi and steve and susan, when she arrives in a couple minutes, three questions is that liberal that is so important to our future, is it being we can count, and how can President Trump and the congress and all of us strengthen this . The second is, what we do about putin . Do we contain hidden in europe but engage him in america and the middle east . And the third that i want to get experts to talk on is china. China is not our enemy. It is our partner a time of change, Global Economic growth, but it is our competitor in the south and east china sea, and how do you balance that . Those are three questions we thought we would take a run through with each of them, and 45 or 50 minutes from now, we will turn it over to you, please feel free to ask any question that you would like to ask. It is only fair. Ondi is our new cochair we are delighted she is succeeding somebody like brent. Rice thank you for being here, because what we need more than anything is civic and civil dialogue about a number of important issues we face. Nick, i would pick up with your description of the liberal order, because we have to realize that the liberal order was born it was an idea design after world war ii, when people look out of the world that it had inherited after world war i, and said, lets not do it again. It had to important elements. One important element was the International Economy did not have to be zerosome game, it can be competitive, it could be a growing economy and a positive sum game, so my gains were not your loss. Is why they wanted to have free trade and they wanted to have comparative advantages in countries. They set up institutions to do it, the International Monetary fund which would rebuild economies and would become a source of capital for countries coming out of colonialism. In some ways the most remarkable ones, the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is not a set of trade agreements, but rules of the road to level the Playing Field so that the International Comic ago. It wasvery nature, supposed to get us away from conflict. They were also worried there she is mr. Burns. Mr. Burns susan rice. Ms. Rice. Hi. Rice i call her my little sister. Just returned to this liberal order, it is important to know what they were trying to avoid. So they hated the fact that had been competition over resources that was violent. Then the important fact, they were going to try to create the Democratic Peace where they could so they could rebuild germany into a jamal, to pan into a democracy, and was going to be protected by American Military power. That was the liberal or. China,eing challenged by although china has one foot in and one foot out. It is being challenged by russia because russia unfortunately does not really have a foot in the economic side, and, therefore, uses its military power for its respect. But it is also being challenged by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, populism, nativism, isolation, and protectionism, and they tend to run together. Arene of the questions we to be asking is not just the challenge to the liberal order from transnational terrorism or cyber warfare or from the powers like russia or china, but how do we deal with the fact it does seem that there are those who believe they were left behind by the global order and they are fighting back. They found people who will give them an answer as to why they did not succeed. Populists always have an answer. It is the other, the chinese, the illegal immigrants. If you are from the left, the big banks. And by the way, the other this time around is not just taking your jobs. The other is dangerous. So refugees and immigrants. And so i think the challenge just one thatot we Foreign Policy people can understand, but one that has to go internally to the societies and see what is happening, and that is why i am happy for the Aspen Strategy Group that were having this wonderful session that Mitch Landrieu will help to lead, because this is a really big challenge from the inside and from the outside, and, yes, i am worried that the liberal order might not survive it. Mr. Burns we will give susan a breather. The question is, susan, is the liberal order weakening . Is American Leadership of that order weakening . I will go to tom. Tom, your views, let me put a Little English on this. America first, part of the problem of a weakening america . Donilon thank you. We have in our country deep and not a lot of conversation takes place across the political lines, and not a lot of conversation takes place in the policy world on the domestic side. It does take place in Foreign Policy and national security, and we are looking lucky for that. This institution has been an up or part of that. You have two decades straight through of service on the stage are today, and i think it is a manifestation of something. Port for us to continue in terms of our national security. Condis disruption of the u. S. Led is the most important thing, the postworld war ii world order. It is important to underscore that. This would not have happened without the United States, and it will not continue without the United States, and we cannot take it for granted that. Granted. Her description of what was put in place after world war ii has led to come up with a lot of problems and challenges and mistakes, but the overall arc of the story is enormously positive. Enormously positive for the United States in respect to prosperity and security, and honestly positive for large parts of the world. I think it is under pressure, and one of the key elements is continued u. S. Leadership of that. Think after world war ii among others was that the United States did not act like a normal seek itsrying to identity. That was not the plan. It was an entirely different approach, putting together organizations that we would participate in as real participants and would have a benefit for the rest of the world. Foreign a valuesbased posse. We were not a normal foreign country. The United States engaged in a special undertaking after world war ii. On the pressure on the order today, it has all the sources that secretary rice laid out among others. We have seen the reemergence of great power and competitions. We had an extraordinary time after the fall of the berlin wall where it was a quite high degree of constructive relationships between great powers, and that had insignificant part come to an end, particularly with respect russia, which after the return of Vladimir Putin in 2012 decided to go in a different direction, and the present a real challenge to the real world order. My view is that russia has become actively hostile across the board to the United States. Were seeing the emergence of an ideological challenge frenzy to world order and the guys the values the United States pursues successfully, and that challenge comes from the liberalism and other artillery frankly, he said we have reached the end of history, history is back with a vengeance, i think. Third we have seen the breakdown of state systems in the arab an and that has had vacuums alike isis but at the end of the day, i will finish up are questions about whether or not the United States will continue to lead this. During the course of the campaign and the First Six Months of the administration there were real questions raised inut the u. S. Commitment terms of alliances and trades. I think the United States is incumbent on us, given the questions that have been raised to engage in a serious set ofs reps of steps. Thank you very much. When we thought about this meeting what we didnt want to do was have this be a verdict on the Trump Administration or presume that the liberal world order is perfect. The question over the next couple days, is what needs to be fixed and how should it involve . For this weekend, there was a paragraph saying here is the problems with, America First. Jump is also bringing new ideas. Americans are concerned that free trade is undercut them personally and intercut undercut their industries. Aggressive policy against the Islamic State in syria and iraq. You might be best placed as a student in this to give us a sense of how you view America First. Is it a continuum of every president since truman or is it a diversions . I would like to blow it up bigger than that. What do we do about all this . I will give you one bi vignette, to talk about this rulesbased International Order. The whole tenant was we have to defend it. And ite election occurs was interesting to see the change of mood and dialogue within that group. What we saw with the trump election was a group of people, as connie said, who felt that they were the mise by globalization, threatened by immigration, ignored and excluded from the politics and betrayed by the elites. Suddenly what this group began to say was, maybe we have to amend and revitalize that liberal International Order. One to reflect the fact that many people feel left out by it. Two to reflect the fact that the world has china changed, we have india and china and other new players. We have a new ideological struggle that tom talked about. Interestingly enough the question is, can this administration be convinced that to lead ats interest process to revitalize the International Order. I was in warsaw to hear trumps speech and he talked about western civilization in the defense of western civilization. I talked to his people afterwards and they said, someone needs to explain to him that this rulesbased International Order has been a framework for defending all the values of western civilization that he was talking about. He wants other countries to do more. Not the United States being taken advantage of. So lets try a recast and revitalized International Order that lets other countries like china and the like have a hand in trying to amend that order. So that they in some sense are taking more responsibility and are more bought into it. At that point you may be able to say to President Trump, the world is stepping up the way you asked them to but they cannot do it alone. The United States remains an indispensable party to the future. That is our challenge. Mr. Burns susan, you have heard all this what do you think our role in the world is . Ms. Rice indispensable. Suffering is a view of the world and a view of our domestic politics and our leadership in the post world it has benefited from the concept that we can maximize benefits through strong principled American Leadership. Now to the extent that were gone through a phase of us versus them domestically and connies characterization of that was very apt the other. It is becoming the same in our relationships with many parts of the rest of the world. Even our closest allies are looking at the United States and questioning whether we are leading a team of principled, likeminded valuesbased entities or whether or not we will stand in opposition to them. Much less our own adversaries. Need to reform that vision of the United States leadership through a combination of reasserting and embracing the fact that americas readership can be beneficial leadership can be beneficial for others and us. That we have a system of alliances and of trade that has served as well. It is not in our interest to see those eroded or jettisoned. Newthat requires a whole approach of renewal of our relationships. That we have suffered from frankly. Over time, over the last six months. I agree completely that we need to revitalize and reassure but we need help from allies. Who are we kidding . How many are we how many of us on this stage, we kept saying , cant you carry more of the burden, nato . We all did. We basically got nowhere. Ms. Rice in the larger scheme of things we got nowhere. The United States has carried most of the board the burden. I believe great powers have to be willing to do this. Ive been saying to our allies, we could use some help here. Step up and it will be appreciated if we start to see greater engagement. I felt a little bit sometimes as secretary of state that, madalyn would know this, is the 911 for the world. If there is a problem, why dont you solve that problem . The one exception was the australians who would call up and say we have this one. We will call you. Sharingnk, some broader , of the burden, would be a good thing. One of the thing to the chinese, i would say, the chinese have really benefited from the liberal economic order. They would not have lifted 500 Million People out of poverty without it. They were admitted to the World Trade Organization probably prematurely and if you look at chinese practices, they are not in line with world trade order organizations, standards. Intellectual Property Protection is a problem. If you have a joint venture partner with china you are likely to see your intellectual property taken and the joint suspended. Venture Chinese Companies are advantaged. Hese of the western companies but they have not opened their Financial Services sector to investment as they were supposed to do under the World Trade Organization. I am all for reasserting americas willingness to work with people in all of those things. I think others have an Important Role to play here to and that will be reassuring to the American People as well. Mr. Burns thank you connie. Susan . I fully agree. I think all our allies and partners need to play a commence or role. But the reason why they call the state department on 911, is because there is not a country that matches our military, economic, and moral might. Whether the challenge is gathering a coalition to oppose sanctions on russia after they invade crimea and ukraine, whether it is rallying the world to deal with the ebola academic, ebola epidemic, or going after isis, it requires the u. S. To be front and center. It doesnt mean that others dont contribute or shouldnt pull their weight they can and they must and they do not always do so. Back, nothingep nothing seems to work. That has been our collective experience. I just have one part of this thinking about how to revise and revitalize the International Order. I think we do need, we want others to do more. That means also we will have to give them more of a role and more of a state. Ke. That also means we will have to change how we lead. We will have to be of a mind of facilitating and not dictating and be responsive to others views a little more enabling and a little less imposing. Mary robinson and i were having this conversation i think we need an adjustment in how we lead. I think the world has changed. I think to be effective and to get others to take more of the dirt and of the burden, we will have to have a different leadership style. At the brooklyn institution, there is a saying, we do not get to retire from this role. We retire from this role at a very high cost to ourselves and the world. Determining the way forward and reasserting and reassuring allies, having a conversation with them about what it means to be an ally. This conversation is gotten off track and has become too transactional. These are fundamental obligations that we had to each other. Getting back into the conversation with the United States in the lead, steve, i think you are right, doing it in a style in a manner and with a vision is the right way to go. The United States doesnt get to retire from this role. It is not their interest to do so. I think that is right. One last word and i want to ask you about russia, connie, you spent a lot of your life thinking about russia. Investigator of nato for bush when we were , the allies9 11 came to us and said we want to invoke article five of the nato , we have never invoked in the history of nato. He came through for us big time. They came through for us big time. I called connie, she had had no were, said that the allies with us and they wanted to go to war with us against al qaeda. I felt at that moment, the power of having allies in the world. The chinese will not always be there, the russians are never there but what you said to me, it is good to have friends in the world. Recently gave a talk for the National War College they brought their students and they were foreign students. There were 49 students represented in the room. No great power in Human History is has 49 has had 49 represented. I couldnt agree more. Leading differently obviously means finding a role for others that is important. Know, weeans, and i cannot retire from this role. Wariness among the American People. We cannot ignore it. As Foreign Policy people, we have to lead. We have to lead because it is in our interest and it is our values and our allies have to appreciate it. And they have to be a part of it. That is my point. I think we really havent gotten from the allies what we mostly get is criticism for not leading. The only thing that the world hates more than unilateral American Leadership is no American Leadership. But we need allies to step up. Some of them have. On minsk, the germans stepped up. Underestimate outside of foreign pol Foreign Policy leads, the degree to which the American People are asking questions about how much we can do. Let me frame it this way since putins invasion and annexation of crimea, 28 of the allies have raise defenses. They feel the threat. Merkels leading nato on this. With the russians and the soviets, we have a dilemma here. Putin attacked our election and tried to discredit our democracy. Crimea, he still has troops in Eastern Ukraine dividing the country. He has been a Malevolent Force in syria. What is the strategy for President Trump here . How does he respond to this . We saw this extraordinary situation where the president was repudiated in congress to sanction russia. If you were to give him advice what would it be . [laughter] not to put you on the spot. Ms. Rice thanks. Devices, make sure you know who Vladimir Putin is. He is someone who likes to humiliate, someone who likes to dominate, someone who essentially understands power. So dont go into a room with Vladimir Putin unless you are in a pretty powerful position and that means when you go to talk to Vladimir Putin, first, continue the policy that the Obama Administration began. Maybe even accelerate the policy at least on aces rotating basis but possibly on a permanent basis in places like poland and the Baltic States. You say to him, this far, no further. Secondly, i like raising the Defense Budget as a signal to the russians. Third, i think you have to say to the russians, we know you did it on the electoral process. Time of our choosing and by means of our choosing we will deal with it but we have confidence in our electoral system so do not think that you are undermining american confidence by what you are doing. Sense that heis is succeeding in undermining our confidence. The final thing, stop lying your planes so close to our ships and aircraft, someone is going to get shot down. Stop flying your planes so close. Then you can talk about possible areas of cooperation. I would also arm the ukrainians. Costave got to raise the to the russians about what they are doing in ukraine. It is not in the front pages anymore but in Eastern Ukraine people are dying every day because of those little russian green men, the russian separatists who with russian training and intelligence and Russian Military capabilities are making a mess of Eastern Ukraine and making it impossible for kiev to govern the country. I think it is time to arm them. I think you have to show him that you are tough and then maybe you can find areas of cooperation. President obama put in place a lot of what she is saying. Is there bipartisan agreement on this top policy . Certainly bike bipartisan natoments, where we got with our leadership to put in those four countries continuous rotating augmented presence. Deployed personnel and equipment. Trend, theersed the downsizing of our presence in europe. That is vitally important. Beyond that, white frankly, if we are going to tackle the very real challenge that russia poses, we have to ignore the problem. We have to name it. As some people like to say on other topics, year the ,eality is, with the president that has not expressed with clarity his understanding of what the russians did to meddle in our election. And has been even unwilling to the a statement after expulsion of our personnel from and offered no indication that we might respond ourselves in kind because we are the aggrieved party in this instance. We are muddying the water and sending to put in and the russians the signal two Vladimir Putin in the russians that we do not understand that we face a serious threat from them. We need to be clear and forceful and unified in our characterization of the russia problem. Veryve seen from congress, useful and credible bipartisan leadership on this topic. Thank believe the legislation has been passed and signed. This should not be the end. The penalty should continue and they should be increased if nothing improves. Mr. Burns tom, to build on that, you very nicely framed this liberal order by recalling the origins of it. Re back to containment of russian power in Eastern Europe . Not so much in other parts of the world but is that the strategy you pursued, you and susan and president obama . As i said earlier, it is important to recognize fundamentals. Hostile activity towards russia. Afghanistan, syria, it will be in the european elections as well. It will probably be in our elections in 2018 and 2020 unless we act to prevent it. We are at an actively hostile posture with the russians coming from their side. Inet with Vladimir Putin 2005 and it was clear at that point that he would take russia in a different direction. The concept of balances of power , zerosum outcomes, were not anachronistic ideas to Vladimir Putin. A were very real. Also had domestic pression pressure on him that forced him in the direction he has gone. , a veryt sense that different place, we had russian generals planning with us, at nato headquarters. A very big change your. It is important for us to recognize that. I think what secretary rice describes, i think there would be bipartisan agreement on strengthening our position in europe. I think before you enter into a serious conversation with Vladimir Putin about what the rules of the road are, you have to approach from a position of strength. The steps she laid out our right. The last thing is, is the election. Be a important that there recognition from the top. I believe everyone else in the Administration Short of the president has said this, including people last week at the security forum, it is important we move forward with a set of steps to prevent this in the future. We had a set of events. We know what the playbook was. We know what its dimensions were from cyber aspects and propaganda and penetration of election systems. In three dozen states. We need to take steps now to prevent it from happening in the future. We have been put on notice with respect to this. Steve, you are the transitional figure on the panel. I want you to say what you have on russia but then i want to ask you about china. I may provoke controversy on the panel. I agree with everything that has been said and all the measures that connie talked about. I am no softy on russia. Ive been arguing on that for the last three years. Calling out what russia did in terms of our election. Making sure as tom said, it can never happen again by anyone. On him, for meme twice, shame on me. We should never let this happen again. I am a little worried. I think we are in a dangerous. With russia. Vladimir putin has decided that americans as his ambassador says, there is no constituency for u. S. Russia relations in the United States. He is saying, if you think i am an enemy, i will show you what it is like to have an enemy in russia. We are vulnerable. As much as i applaud the steps of what we have done i do not think they are enough Vladimir Putin decides to process. Nato, putting battalions, and the three Baltic States in poland and bucharest. The italians are 1200 people, 1500 people. Russia will have an exercise in belarus that newspaper reports suggest it up to 100,000 people and 8000 tanks. I think i have that number right. Germany, france, u. K. Have combined. We have to be careful that we do ,ot get in this confrontational rhetorical position with russia and not have the resources to back it up. I think we are not doing enough in europe or it or syria. Putin is doubling down and we appalled the plug on things in we have pulled the plug on things in syria. We have to be tough and stand on principles, stand on allies, make it clear that we will deter Vladimir Putin. At the same time be willing to try to improve the relationship and cooperation. What is the formula america has used for five decades about adversaries from the soviet union to our most troublesome adversaries . Cooperate where you can, where you have common interest, stand on your principles, stand with your friends, and be tough. That itisagreements so does not and up and confrontation. We have to get back to that formula and we are not there right now. I think it means it is a risky time. That, if i were advising the president , i would get in the same advice. It would be easier to get to a place where we can engage in a conversation with the russians we would not have the kinds of restrictions placed on the president out of the sanctions packet. ,f we had been tough from this i would be giving that advice. We can get to a place to be tougher, we would have a better opportunity to have a conversation with Domestic Support if we ignore these problems. My sense is that you have articulated a bipartisan sense that exists in washington. Final question, a quick run through and then questions from the audience. Harvard,colleague at steve bosworth, here is how he framed our relationship with china in one of my classes at the Kennedy School two years ago. He said china is not our enemy. In fact china will likely end up being one of our most important Global Partners in the 21st century on Climate Change, stabilizing the global economy, transnational threats, the role of women, cyber in the future. Here is the problem. China is a competitor with us for Strategic Power in east asia. The South China Sea, military superiority. Steve asked the question of my students that i want to ask of you. He said this will be the toughest american challenge on Foreign Policy in the 21st century, to balance these two. Do let them get out of balance and not and in a conflict with china. Dominated by china. In my view, if i can say this in a nonpartisan way, president obama achieved the Climate Change partnership with xi jinping. A good example of the engagement. Now President Trump faces a very assertive chided china in the South China Sea. What is your advice for President Trump on dealing with the chinese . He seems disappointed if you read the recent tweets about chinas behavior with north korea. [laughter] try to frame this but a lot have a lot to say. It is a competitor. One of the problems the soviet union was a competitor but they did not have the resources that was required to compete. In china we have a competitor that has resources like crazy. This is a different kind of competitive threat then we have ever faced. We need to start on that. It requires balance. Revitalized International Order. We need to find a way to see if we can bring china as part of that process to revising that order. Them a seat at the table they will take the lead and try to create a competitor. That is not in our interests. On issues with the South China Sea, the framework for handling it is clear. Allieshave to stand with in terms of the South China Sea, we have to be present militarily and economically and every other way but i think we can manage that because chinas integration in the International Community and the fact that it is dependent on Economic Prosperity of the legitimacy of the regime means that china really doesnt want to have a trade war with the United States, its neighbors, and europe are in we have leverage there. I think we can negotiate. The promise he but not if we provoke a trade war. Two issues im worried about. One, i think solution is easy. This enormous chinese Infrastructure Project that is reaching out westward. It is a good thing the Central Asian area needs infrastructure but we need to not fight it, we ought to join it. We should get our friends to join it. We all get around china and we hug them on one belt, one road. If you have 50 people hugging you it is hard to move. [laughter] what am i worried about . We used to say that the taiwan thing could destroy chineseu. S. Relations. I think the taiwan thing is fine. Im worried about north korea and a confrontation between china, the United States, and north korea. The last two administrations have tried to have a discreet conversation with china about the peninsula. China may be ready for that conversation. But we have to have it. If we do not manage that issue correctly we could have a confrontation with china. Obviously the relationship with china is not only the most complex but i would argue the most consequential bilateral relationship we have in the world. To do as steves said, when he was talking of russia. To maximize cooperation, manage competition, and avoid confrontation. Here in the last several years we have managed to strike that balance well. , werely on Climate Change we able to find new areas of cooperation but on peacekeeping, on global health, on non liberation nuclear security, there were a whole range of areas with painstaking and frustrating diplomacy and tom and i both spent a lot of our time directly engaging our chinese counterparts. We were able to expand the area thatoperation into realms were previously unthinkable. At the same time, we managed to whittle down some of the areas of greatest difference. One was a source of extraordinary friction it is not gone but it is certainly mitigated the cyber realm. Negotiate anto understanding with the chinese that they largely adhered to. Where they would cease the theft of our intellectual property through cyber means for commercial gain. We agreed to a series of cybernorms that took down the temperature and reduced the level of nefarious activity from chinese sides. We need to continue to watch and manage that. I agree with steve, there are areas of concern. Im still concerned about the South China Sea and potentially the east china sea. Yeti think we have not particularly in recent months figured out how front and center we will put that issue in a bilateral relationship. North korea, as important as that is, cannot overshadow our attention to that issue. Would beea steve i interested to see how you would play out the scenario of ending up in conflict with direct results i do think that what verysk is our understandable frustration with the failure to address the problem sufficiently leading to miscalculations on our side or the part of the North Koreans or our allies such that we end up on a slippery slope. We can spend more time on north korea but, those of the two issues, north korea and the South China Sea where the inpetition could end up worst case, resulting in confrontation. Thank you. I imagine someone will ask about north korea. Last words on the china and north korea relationship . The china relationship has to be nested in overall u. S. Policy. Connie said it right earlier. Few nations on the face of the are to have benefited more from the u. S. Led economic order over the last 75 years. The chinese over the last 40 years have been extraordinarily benefited. On the been ill to security platform, the engagement platform of the United States on which it has been built. It is a very Strategic Point that continued presence by the United States, that commitment an importants power, the premier power in the pacific, is essential. If you did a thought experiment and you thought about what happened absent that, you have a place full of conflict. And real challenges. Is, we are second cooperating quite well with the chinese on global issues but we have regional issues which are significant. I would list three. I would add that the economic have and iell we agree steve, we do not want a trade war with the chinese but we have serious economic problems with them right now. There is lack of reciprocity, lack of access, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the United States and foreign firms to do business in china. There are Real Technology transfer issues. These have to be confronted. Inna has a big investment the Global Economic environment and in us, frankly. They have to be pushed much harder to play by the rules. The other is, as susan said, the South China Sea, we need to maintain our presence and sit on the right rules of the road in the South China Sea. Most korea is probably the perilous security issue facing us over the next year. Slowmotionbed as a cuban missile crisis. There are a number of steps we it talk about and take but is the principal security conversation with the chinese. Ms. Rice i would just add one thing and that is there is a wildcard in chinas internal development. We cant control that. They are going to a massive transformation and it is not all going well. Heavyw cost of labor, exports, heavy government investment, the strategy they pursue to lift 5 Million People as poverty prosperity legitimacy, that model has run out of steam. They are great reforms planned. They will close down state enterprises, introduce more Market Forces but there is a problem. When you start to introduce Market Forces you introduce more voices. That is not set easily with a topdown political system that if anything is getting more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few if not one. Internal developments of china is something we do not control and how that will play out in the externalization of their policies in the South China Sea or in trade policy, it is hard to say. Is also goingment to have to be constantly attuned to what is transpiring there. Thanks to this great panel. You have seen these four outstanding people, all had the toughest job in washington. National security adviser, two for president bush, two for president obama. We owe you a lot read thank you. We owe you a lot. Thank you. [applause] now it is your turn. If you motioned to me if you want to ask a question, my only request would be and up and there will be a microphone that comes to you. We will start here. If you could give us your name and make sure the question is a question. We will get as many as we can. I am a mom and a local here. You, whoquestion for is intellectually on your level in this administration [laughter] i am not being sarcastic. Have you studied steve bannon and his philosophy . What are your thoughts on that. Have you looked at the dark side of some of the supporters . Everyone is talking about the worker that has been left behind but to me a lot of my brown friends and people in a disadvantaged position, it is not so soft and fuzzy. There is another element in the rallies. Speak to that please. [applause] who would like to comment . There are very good and excellent people in this administration. Rex tillerson is a very smart guy and let me tell you something, oilmen deal with the rld in a way some people dont. James mattis is one of the great intellects of the past century and so is h. R. Mcmaster. There are very good and smart people around the president. I know Steve Bannons work. Not particularly fond of it. I think that we have to recognize as i said, when there is a populist message, other things tend to go with it. What we are seeing on the Foreign Policy side so far, is that the Foreign Policy looks more traditional in a sense then many of us would have thought early on. If you look at the fact that we finally got around to affirming article five, it took a while, we finally got around to it. We agreed that we believed in a one china policy. We got there. When you look at discussions about what will happen to nafta during the campaign, candidate truck trump said this was the worst ever created. Areyou look at what they talking about in renegotiations of nafta, it is modest. They learned a reality. The one that steve and i learned a few days after september 11. We closed the border with canada a few days after, three days could make a car because the supply chain was in canada. Fact, not a policy. If you look at a whole host of issues, issue by issue, i do not know that the syria policy is that different than what one might expect or the north korea policy. Of, arethe bigger issue we going to reaffirm the broad context of all of those orderons the liberal and america leadership, what does America First really mean . Are we not going to care whether states are democratic . Democracy promotion and support is not just the morally right thing to do. But actually democracies dont fight each other. They dont send their 10yearolds as child soldiers. They dont traffic their women into the sex trade or attack their neighbors. They dont harbor terrorists. Democracies are good for the world. When you talk about american interests and say you are not sure that we ought to promote democracy i am not sure you have a clear concept or grasp of what constitutes american interests. I am more worried about the large piece of this. I think on the individual policies we are seeing, not that much the virgins. Ence. Diverg there has been a good book on this that has been recently published i understand. [applause] . Here. Thank you. For a want to thank you wonderfully constructive and forthright panel. I wanted to ask the panel to reflect on the issue this changing nature of American Leadership. There are areas where other countries might be willing to do the u. S. Was willing to let them. Finance, and those institutions, like world banks, the ims, there have been indications that other countries might want to step up to the plate and do more. This frustration that they were not able to do so, that led to the creation of the Asian Infrastructure investment backed chinas d by other by other countries. , what might itct look like if the u. S. Were willing to let others do more in leadership . What would be the elements . Thank you very much for that question. For those who are not i are specialists, this is a very pointed question, that for 75 years there has always been a european leading the International Monetary fund and the world bank. Countries like nigeria, indonesia, turkey, egypt, they say how about us . Is it a mistake not to open them up . That is what i heard you say. This was asked by a woman who knows of what she speaks. Who we all admired for your services. And a candidate for World Bank President. I think this is a conundrum because for the United States we want to see the renewal and refreshing of the institutions that came out of the post war era that we were the birth mother of. We dont have alternatives to the United Nations. They need to remain relevant for the 20 tree. You are pointing 21st century. Youre pointing to a significant challenge. Context, it is even harder in my estimation for the United States to truthfully embrace the kind of reform that many countries think is necessary. To look to the United Nations for example. Does the United States really want to give up our veto on the Security Council which many Member States would love to see . Do we want to expand permanent membership and with it the veto . In theory we confess openness to this issue but in practice if we are honest, these are difficult and consequential choices, and would lead to a diminution of our international power. Institutions is a somewhat different question. One that i think we need to come to terms with. If you are sitting in our seats mostwe were in those jobs, of us had a turn at who would be the next World Bank President , it was our job not to lose the leadership. But it is going to be lost at some stage. The question is, do we do it gracefully and in a way that preserves our ability to be a preeminent force in these ands petitions that are so important to us . It is very hard this is a groupplace for a strategy or a Bipartisan Group to come up with solutions. The sitting administration will always find it difficult to be the one to abdicate the seat. Steve, to say we need to have a redefinition of americas role does not mean that it has to be redefined on every issue. Susan and i would agree that nick would have a different view and maybe connie on the un Security Council. The financial area is interesting. There was a conference here on development over the last three days. One thing i learned from it was the amount of resources that china is making available through their national banks, development banks, very quickly will dwarf what everyone else is doing. You get the asia Infrastructure Investment bank and other things. Threattreat this as a and grudgingly surrender some control or weekend you it as an opportunity. One of the things that came out of the session on development, i think it was john podesta that described the developing worlds criticisms of the existing, lending institutions. Too conservative and all the rest. There are problems with the not have theey do proper standards to ensure that investments are done in a trance thatt, noncorrupt way benefits the countries who receive them. Is there a way that you could partner between the two, coinvest, so we can use our institutions to get the chinese institutions to accept a more International Standards but also those, the have to of the resources that china seems to be willing to apply to the problem. That is the opportunity. We ought to be looking to those opportunities. They may not prove out. Or be in our interest. But not to be open to them and engaging people to talk about it would be a big mistake. Thank you. Ambassador . I am a washington swamp lord. [laughter] i want to give a speech. Ive worked with all five of you in various capacities. You guys are good. I thank you for your service, you served your country and your administrations well. Committed and fulfilled its nato agreement. [laughter] for all the wrong reasons. [laughter] susan, on cyber, that is a problem. The cyberll, is attack in article five attack . Where is nato on that . The Obama Administration delved deeply into this. It would depend on the nature of the attack. The general direction years to applyhysical laws of war to cyber as well. The point youre making is important. Is a critical new domain of vulnerability for the United States in the world. It is coming from a number of sources. Engaged inionstates activity from information warfare, like russian activity, to destruction like the korean actions against sony. We have hybrid organizations which are at the beck and call of nationstates but hard to attribute. You have criminal gangs engaged in this. Vulnerabilities that your employees bring to the workplace everyday that need to be addressed. We as a country need to address it as a bigger issue. The last three or four times the dni, when they are given their world threat report the global threat report to the congress, nonclassified presentation, has said, the number one threat facing the country is in the cyber arena. When jim klapper first of this, i set down and said, are you sure . He turned out to be right. Near in terms of resources and next bridge is where we need to be in terms of confronting this. It is very uneven. We have made a lot of progress but we have a lot more ways to go. The commission on Cyber Security last year, there were a number of conclusions. We were nowhere near where we need to be. Coming real challenges just in the Technology Development area. We could have tens of billions of devices that could be hijacked by maligned actors and used to attack systems. We are not anywhere near developing defense for that. It is critical. Yes sir, right here in the third row. Five or six people in. Bruce, i am given im wondering, given our inflated view of ourselves and , whatonomy in the world role would germany and japan play Going Forward in the defense against russia and china . Could they play a constructive role in that . Certainly in terms of beenny, they have politically and diplomatically on the front lines when it comes to the issue of ukraine. Germany is a critical ally. Germany and japan have a similar problem. Have as, they still do shadow of a legacy of world war ii. The germans far less than japan but both. Asis a shadow that is not much a problem for their neighbors as it is for them and their population. Germany,ans talk about they dont like to talk about german power. I was on the delegation that did the unification of germany. When president bush would say, george h. W. Bush, a unified germany, a unified europe. Germany was not supposed to act on its own. Germany untethered from others was sent to be a problem. Even within the eu, if someone wants to Say Something really nasty they will say it is not brussels, it is berlin. The germans have always been reticent of being too far out in front and they like having American Partnership in what the role theyy can play in europe. In japan, even more so the case. There is still a lot of o unhealed wounds from world war ii. Because the United States has been a partner they have been able to play a role. Germany is going to step up or japan is going to step up it is always better in partnership with the United States just to keep the balance is right in the region. Comment . Do you have a i agree completely with what connie said. [laughter] the five of us have worked together in administrations. We tended to look toward britain partnerrimary strategic in the 1970s and 1980s. With brexit now, there is no question, germany has become our lead partner. One of the things that has been a mistake with President Trump, he describes germany as an economic competitor. Yet he doesnt talk about germany as our leading Strategic Hardware in europe. Merkel is our great ally. If i could offer one bit of you need a better relationship with Angela Merkel than you have right now. If she returns to her party, she is our key ally. We wouldnt have the anchor role they are playing. Germany is critical. Nick, i agree completely. To beher thing we need recommitting ourselves to is the idea of europe and a europe that is strong and unified and shares our values. When we see what is going on in poland and hungary and we see russia working very hard to exacerbate these divisions our challenge is magnified. Then we have to figure out, with brexit, how do we keep britain fully in the fold. How do we envision a future where they may come back . This i think is a very important point about the United States role in europe. To have thisnt conversation with the germans about the nature of alliances area and there. The Critical Role Angela Merkel has played. We havent really of late been fully embracing the european institutions and we have embraced a number of individuals and organizations and political who wouldre undermine these institutions frankly. It is important to be more involved in europe, connies ukraine, actually having a view on how the brexit negotiation should turn out. The United States has a view. We should not be shy about expressing those views. We have time for one more question and then i want to ask our panelists, what ever is asked, any final thoughts on American Leadership . This is really the core of what we are talking about this weekend. Former member of congress, jane . Thank you. Fabulous panel. Essentiallyorder is a multilateral concept. The organizations that grew out of it are multilateral. And yet President Trump sees things much more in bilateral terms. Tpp, heing overboard said he can cut better deals with each of the countries. My question is, the bilateral approach is it productive in an age like this . And is it sufficient . This is a good final question for each of you. Take it where you want to take it. If there are issues you want to cover, please do. Steve, lets start with you. Answer janes question in a roundabout way. I will start with something that Madeleine Albright says and if i get it wrong please correct me. Matalin is wont to say that americans dont like multilateralism, it has too many syllables and annes with an ism. [laughter] this thing about the role in the world. We all grew up in the cold war era. We had the rulesbased International Order in our bones. We understood what happened in world war ii and the cold war. How important it was and the era of peace and prosperity it ushered in. We are heading off the stage. People in their 20s and 30s do not have that shared experience and we are not teaching them that history. What wenot understand feel in our bones. It spills over in terms of the issue of the rulesbased International Order and americas role in the world. They have in some sense, grownup on the fear of 9 11 they dont understand what we did after world war ii in terms of germany and japan to help remake those countries as some of our most prosperous allies. So we have a huge gap in him for and if we are going to reassert American Leadership in any form, if were going to lead the process and revitalize International Order, we have got to take the case to the American People. I think we can because i think where there is a crossover point is what condi started off on. Donald trump can reflect the American Peoples views that friends and allies need to do more. If we can say were going to lead the process of adapting the International System which has core allies its that will step up and will be allowed to step up and take more responsibility, i think we can sell that to the American People. Host on your question on bilateral versus multilateral trade negotiations, president obama led an organization to put together tpp and we pulled out. It was a terrible mistake economically and strategically because it was really part of what i talked about earlier which was the u. S. Presence which has been the work of multiple administrations on a bipartisan basis for a long time. Pulling that economic presence out, that alternative if you will to other things, is a critical mistake. It will takes years to replace it. Condoleezza rice talked about the nafta agreement. We importing a number of the economy. Of the modern it is quite a thing. On the leadership issue, i think there are two things. What is, steve is exactly right. There needs to be a full appreciation and endorsement by leaders of the International Order of the United States and have a keen explanation and presentation of what that has provided. Last point, the west and the democracies have to work, right . And, they have to work for a broader part of our population and at the end of the day, if assets and assets an and liabilities chart, there is the future of work and expanding prosperity to more people. At the end of the day, that may be the most important thing after national security. Jane, to your question whether the economics or securities sphere, i think nick was hinting with his reformulation the question was necessary but are from sufficient. If you do not like the term multilateralism, i would prefer the term collective action. We need that whether were talking about terrorism, pandemic flu, proliferation, Climate Change, all of these are challenges that only can be dealt with effectively through collective action. More often than not, it is us leading the pack, which is the whole point of how our leadership is so indispensable. I share the applied concern in i share the implied concern in your question, which is that if we look at everything through a bilateral lens, which is inherently forcing one into a transactional mode, then we are back to the mentality that i fear is undermining our leadership. The last point i would make, i think one of the threats to the liberal world order into American Leadership is our own domestic politics and the fact that we are now so internally divided that we cannot even agree on the necessity of responding to a critical pernicious external threat with russia being the most proximate example. We have got to get our act together internally, domestically, or we will be absenting ourselves from International Politics and that is not something we can face. [applause] can i just say before condi answers, one of the things walter, jim, and bob have done a canspent the be a nonpartisan place question mark can we overcome these divisions . There is a direct question the between that. It is a great point. Actually, multilateralism is really bilateral is some strong together. I think it takes both. Some of the great institutions we created our ones in which we believe that collective action would bring about a positive sum game not a zero sum game. That was the great insight after world war ii. To do that, it takes confidence. It takes confidence for the United States to enjoy 55 , 60 of the worlds gdp to say, were not going to protect that. Were going to build a free trading system in which everyone can prosper. It took confidence with the soviet union having exploded a Nuclear Weapon to say, were going to take a pledge and you bet we will trade if necessary new york for london. That took confidence. What i am concerned about is our confidence these days. It is in part that the American People are wondering how much longer does this have to go on but the American People also do not like what they see when we do withdraw. They do not like seeing syrian babies joke on gas. They dont like saying people beheaded on television as isis rises. They dont like to see the russians on the march. There is something to appeal to americans to say, yes, i know we have been added a long time but we have been at it a long time but we cannot retire. But the confidence piece of it i am concerned about because i think what we are really saying is a flip between those who are moving easily and capably in this global elite and those who are not. If i teach a course in stanford at the business school, i will have a student with roughly the following characteristics. Born in chile, went to college in oxford, first job in shanghai, now they are in anduate school at stanford their next job will be in dubai. They moved easily around the world. Most people never move more than 25 miles from where they were born. Split between a aspirations, fears, prospects of people were moving easily in this globalized environment and those being left behind. Those who do not have the skills and cannot keep up and cannot find a way to get the dignity that comes with a decent job, they are saying no. If we are continuing down a road in which were going to have third graders who cannot read and 18yearolds who cannot find a job and 50yearold who are opioid addicted, i can assure you were going to be two countries. One capable, one not. For a country held together not by ahnicity, but rather believe and aspiration. You can come from humble circumstances and do great things. Its it doesnt matter where you come from, matters where youre going. That split will be devastating and then we are not going to lead because we are not going to lead from confidence. I want to underscore what the panel said. This starts at home. Not America First. That is terminology i do not like. But it does start at home because it was a confident america that built the liberal order and it has to be a confident america that sustains it. [applause] wonderful. Thank you for being here. Walter, thank you for convening us. Thank you. [indiscernible conversation] announcer President Trump is spending his first full day here in seven months. One meeting on infrastructure. He is expected to make a statement about that this 3 45. Oon at about we will have alive when it happens