Transcripts For CSPAN2 Daniel 20240706

Good morning and welcome everyone in the studio as well as the audience in virtually im conscious of senior fellow at the csis on prosperity and development. Thank you for joining me today. Discuss a new book published by my long time and friend dan randy, a Senior Vice President and director of the project on Prosperity Development and holds the schreier chair here, csis. His work is oriented around u. S. Leadership in building a more democrat and prosperous world among his many other contributions. He was an architect of build act, helped contribute to the reauthorization of the Us Export Import Bank in 2018 and was an architect of prosper africa, a Government Initiative to deepen the uss and Development Engagement in. Hes been a leading on the role in future of the World Bank Group and u. S. Leadership in the multilateral system prior to csis held leadership roles at the u. S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank Group earlier in his career, he also worked commercial banking at citibank in argentina and Investment Banking at is now deutsche bank. Dans book, the american imperative reclaiming Global Leadership through soft power is the first decade. Its book in decades to look at americas nonmilitary free power through the lens of great competition, it calls for broad based economic growth, supporting Good Governance and anti corruption, long term training, differentiating our approaches in middle countries and fragile states, and stronger u. S. Leadership in the multilateral. Dan, i want to congratulate you on a great book. Its been a its been a long process and im very proud to host you today. So welcome and why dont we dive right in . Thanks, connor. Thanks for having me. Im really pleased to be doing this. This has been a long time coming, been in washington for 20 years. Ive been at access for 12. Ive watched rise of china over the last 12 years. But ive also watched the rise and the progress many developing countries. And so its not our grandparents developing world and at the same time, were in a period of Great Power Competition with. China and their sidekick, russia. And so i think that we have to offer an alternative enable an alternative because china in partnership, russia can fill voids that we leave behind. They can fill voids in vaccines. We saw this with covid. They can close the Digital Divide through weiwei and zte. They can build bridges build ports and airports. So the extent we dont want to do that, china will do that to the extent that we dont want to provide and support the development. Reliable energy such as gas. China will do that for them to the extent that we fill trade voids china will fill that as well. So at the same time, russia which is doesnt have the same kind of heft as china is a is a major disrupter, to put it mildly. Their illegal invasion of ukraine has has Global Implications and. Its in our interest to make sure that ukraine wins war. But also ukraine also is financially successful as a stable democracy and a full member of the European Union and nato. I want to come back to ukraine a little bit, but maybe lets start out with i think one of the things that strikes me about the book is there is this sort of cold war parallel. You talk a lot about how the Kennedy Administration saw a real challenge to our ability to engage in countries in the early 1960s that led to the peace corps, that led to. Using the cold war. You know, how do you kind of see this as a as a competition right now is . It analogous is it a little bit different how do you kind of where do you see the similarities and differences sort of dodged this . B and so i think the book i sort of edge up to the idea of saying this is potentially a cold war. I did an integrative interview last week where said they disagreed with me in the book because i sort of hem and haw on issue of whether its a second cold war or not. And i finished i submitted the manuscript for the book, march of 2010, february march of 2020 to the world is also since evolved. I think unfortunately in a not great way in the last 12 plus months. So i think we need to see this certainly revisiting our soft in an age of Great Power Competition. Perhaps thats a safer place. I think what i worry is if i say its a second cold war, some folks of bristle at that and sort dont want us to kind of and i think the framing of that as perhaps creates a problem but i do think that if you look at in history if you look at the emergence of the marshall that was a result of the coup in in 1948 which was sort of the dawn the cold war and was a direct response to sort of National Security concerns and Foreign Policy concerns at. The time, if you look at the reorganization of aid in the early 1961 that the foreign assistance act of 1961 it was a reaction to perceived shortcomings during sort of the the First Quarter or so of the of the cold war where. This book called the ugly america in which was published in 1958, which i think of a book thats been more influential in Foreign Policy and john kennedy bought a copy for every member of the senate. Kennedy, about 100 copies of the book and gave one to every member of the us senate. And that book caused a revolution in thinking in the United States about we ought to engage with the developing world. It caused, it brought about the reorganization of the for foreign aid. It a rejiggering of u. S. The initiative called the alliance for progress for the americas. It created the peace corps and it created the green berets. So these all things that were a direct result of the book the ugly american. I would say weve had several moments since since the 1960s at the end of the cold war, there were some rejiggering of our instruments ation to respond to the fall, the berlin wall. And then i would say after 11, there have been some some adjustments. Well, i would argue that were at a moment in this period of great competition or whatever we want to call it. If we want to call it a second cold war. And theres baggage with that that. The National Security imperative of engaging a resurgent china in a a disrupter in, russia require us to go back to the drawing board on our soft power instruments to respond to this new challenge that were finding. So i think you know as were as im listening to you, i mean, one of the things that really comes out is imperative of us using our soft tools and using them better. I mean, what do you see as the importance now for soft power and why do you think development and extension diplomacy are overlooked when the u. S. Is looking at how engages in the world . So if you believe were in an age of Great Power Competition and then most of our Great Power Competition not going to play out in beijing or moscow, its going to play out in tanzania. Its going to play out in guatemala. Its to play out in the Pacific Island states. Its going to out in central asia. Its going to play out in ukraine. These are developing countries, a series of hopes and aspirations, interests. And to the extent dont meet the hopes and aspirations these countries. Theyll take their business to china or theyll take their business to russia in some instances. And to the extent we dont in a number of different fields that are not in the nonmilitary sphere, they have the ability today because of their economic because of chinas economic heft to be able to fill voids that we leave behind. So im all for peace through strength, all for a strong u. S. Military and a strong intelligence capacity. But i believe most of this competition, not a military competition, its a nonmale entre competition. One of the things that i know has come up, you put out the book since it was published week. Youve and youve done a lot of these discussions is this idea of, you know, implicit the this discussion of uschina in the developing world and other regions is the idea that youre that you could be suggesting that they need to pick side how do you address how do you think about this interplay between the us and and what how do we have to think that how do we have to frame it when were engaging in developing countries . So in my heart id like them to pick a side, but i think in reality in most instances thats going to be very, very today. And that in the late nineties, Something Like 120 out of 200 countries, the number one trading partner was the united and about 60. The largest trading partner was, china today out of 200 or so developing countries, about 120 countries. Their trading partner is china. And were the number trading partner for about 60. So going to be very difficult to say to some country where their number one trading partner is Mainland China, you have to pick a side and stop working with Mainland China. So i think just not its not serious. So i think we need to be realistic about that. At the same time, there are things we cant just say if countries dont take sinovac vaccines, were not going to offer an alternative. Dont take chinese made ventilators if were not going to offer a ventilator, dont take chinese infrastructure or energy infrastructure. Sure. If were not going to enable long term, dont have to meet china dollar for dollar. But its just not serious for us, say, to countries that have developed beyond a certain level of development, have their own agency, their own choices today and and can have a lot more freedom of action for us to say dont the vaccines, dont take the infrastructure and dont close your Digital Divide with our way. We have to enable an alternative so let me go on that so infrastructure is one of the ways that weve seen china really ramp up its presence in developing countries through the belt and road . What do we need to do to offer a credible alternative to chinese infrastructure . My view is that to the extent that there building farm to market roads in the middle of nowhere if they want go knock themselves out and do that thats fine. Then theres some areas where we ought to be competing with on infrastructure, whether its us or through the Asian Development bank or japan or the australians or turkey or brazil. Thats fine. Then theres a subset of what might be described commanding heights, infrastructure where we just dont want them to build it, where they has a dual use, say an airport or a port or its certain kinds of Tech Technology like 5g controlling 5g. We do. We should not want Mainland China control the digital rails of the future in developing countries and the unholy trinity of huawei, zte and alipay. So thinking about digital in particular you know weve talked a lot over the years about how aid and Development Institutions did a lot to enable phone telephony in developing countries and countries leapfrogged they people never had a landline they only have a cell phone. So when youre thinking about the Digital Divide, what what do we need to do . What do you see as the opportunity on that so the us and the west helped create kind of version 1. 0 of the internet in many developing countries and was also an enabler through through a series of obscure important institutions called Development Finance institutions like the international corporation. What was then the overseas private investment corporation, the series of European Development financing institutions enable the cell phone revolution. Thats happened over the last 20 years. And theres most people in the developing world, whether its afghanistan or african countries in or southeast asia, they all have access to to cell phone telephony and. Thats changed the world for the better. What youre seeing now is this next generation of high Speed Internet net, which has accelerated because of covid. Everybody was in their basement for a year. Whether they were in rural maryland, they were in moldova or mali, and was a realization that we all needed high Speed Internet, that high Speed Internet is new electricity. And so this is this is going to happen. And so either going there, either people are going to close this new Digital Divide of high Speed Internet, either Mainland China or through yyz and alipay or some coalition or somebody else. I would strongly prefer that some coalition of somebody else requires is going to act a little bit more together. It means us working with allies like south korea, finland and sweden. It means having some sort of a strategy how were going to use development, finance, institutions it probably means having being a little bit more thoughtful in tangible how we use aid agencies to kind of prime the pump for some of this stuff. Some of this is about making sure that various stakeholders up and on bids for certain kinds infrastructure. And then my hope is to the extent that countries pick weiwei, zte and zte for socalled 5g technology is sort of the latest technology being used that we can to the extent we lose in some instances, we need to get ready for six g or the next generation so that we can supplant Mainland China because is just not in our interest because of either values, commerce and most sort of the vacuuming, vacuuming up of Data Information thats going directly to beijing thats being used for all sorts of bad purposes. So let me let me take this. You mentioned allies in your last answer. You know, your book is entitled the american imperative. And, you know, i think some some not me may look at this and say, oh, this is a little bit of an America First argument that youre trying to make here. And i think its a its know how how do you kind of what you say to that . Where do allies where how do you kind of think about the american role from that perspective in the world . Nothing significant the United States has ever done. Have we been able to do by ourselves . We have needed friends and partners to accomplish anything of anything since the cold war, confronting big challenges like hiv, aids, response ending to covid thats required sort of leading a coalition. The extent that weve been able to do that sometimes were not a great friend sometimes were a little bit of a flaky ally and friend. We need to do a better job of that. I would that one of our greatest strengths is fact that weve got a big Network Friends and allies. And so i think we need to make sure that being a good friend and a reliable stuff you learned in kindergarten. But we so we we ag we want to accomplish in sort of this responding to closing the digital right, making sure that the next were not all sitting in our basins a year, making sure that Mainland China doesnt control the imf or the secretary of the u. N. Or the commanding heights of the multilateral system, we need to work with our friends. And so this is not America First book. This is book that says we need to. This is an internationalist book that says we need to work with our friends that we have a big challenge. I think i think theres consensus in washington that we have a big problem with russia and we have a big problem with china. I dont believe theres a consensus yet in washington about what the heck to do about it. And so i wrote the book as a contribution to say heres some thoughts about some things we could do if we could respond. China and russia and. If you believe that most of our competition is not about night vision goggles and battleships and missiles, those are all really important things. As i said, i believe in peace through strength. Then we need come up with look at a variety spheres. Think about what were going to do and how were going to burden, share and in some ways development is about helping countries become wealthy enough and hopefully enough that they join the Community Free market, you know, free, free nations that are market democracies are willing to burden share on big challenge edges and also to join you know, this is a big set of words but the liberal International Order the and i dont mean liberalism thats a progressive sort of that the or the set of rules and arrangements that were set up after World War Two. We countries to develop and then become burden sharers in the system. That was set up after World War Two. The system has up after World War Two is a great thing and so i see development ultimate league if you say what my agenda is and i think what many people in washington say is help countries to have freedom of action be have own have their own agendas in world, but also to decide on their own that its in their interest, ultimately participate the existing liberal International Order, not go off with china and try and set some new, new arrangement that were not going to like. One of the things you said in the was this isnt your grandparents developing. Can you unpack that a little bit . What has changed in the last 20 years, where do you sort see the opportunity in regions, in countries . What that look like for the United States and how do we have to think differently about it . Well, they all have cell phones. Theres been an incredible amount of Economic Development in the last 30 years. Theres a net net. Its largely a freer world than, say, 40 years ago. Theres been a lot of progress in democracy. Then been a little bit whats been called a democratic recession. If you go back from, say, 40 years ago, its still freer than it was 40 years ago. If you go back from 40 years ago, its still wealthier than it was 40 years ago. Theres been Amazing Health progress. There has been metrics in progress and in education in terms levels of literacy. Theres major progress in terms of the status of women in the world, in terms of their levels of education and participation the economy and their participation in the political. These are all great things. So at the same time, theres also become as countries, they have an ability to, as they described earlier, potentially burden share big problems. And thats a good thing. They also a lot of countries they develop they buy a lot more goods services. We want them buying our goods and services as opposed to somebody elses goods and services. We also, you know, you have as countries develop, theres a greater demand for Higher Education and training and different kinds of Higher Education and training. And so 50 or 60 years ago, we didnt exactly have a lock on sort of the global Higher Education, but we had sort of kind of a lock on global Higher Education. Now theres a lot more access to universities and schooling in developing countries. Thats for the good. But what were also finding is that for certain kinds, specialized training and education were not the only game in town, some of some of that can be provided by our allies. Partners. Thats great. Some of that can provided by Mainland China. There are now major Higher Education player. We want the global least the developing countries to study in the west preferably the United States because when they become finance minister or Central Bank President or, Health Minister or ceo of a company we want boston on their speed not beijing on this so mentioned in the beginning that you submitted the manuscript for this around february march of 2022. So obviously the russian visited ukraine on february 24th 2022. Were coming up on the year anniversary. Over the last several months, you and i have spent lot of time thinking about economic reconstruction in ukraine. You know, and in the interim, the us has appropriated over hundred billion dollars and counting to support ukraine. How you thinking about this . This where does russia fit this era of great competition and how can continue to use aid and other Development Instruments to support ukraine just during the war . But looking ahead to to reconstruction, let me first start with the fact that china is the russian war machine. So when they buy oil and gas from the russians theyre financing the the russian war. So i think we to start with that the chinese have been horrible on ukraine theyve hemmed, theyve abstained when they should have voted the right way on they voted the wrong way theyve fiddled with language important communiques that things like the g20 to help to favor russia. China has not ukraines friend china has picked a side and theyre basically tacitly or explicitly an ally of the russians in. This fight against ukraine and everyone just needs to understand that. The second thing is that Vladimir Putin is not going to stop and if he gets a couple of pieces of ukraine, he wants to re redraw the map and, a whole bunch of places hed like the baltics back. Hed like a piece of poland back, hed like a piece of kazakhstan he probably thinks belarus is sort of fake country, and hed like that too. So if anyone thinks, well, this is just get him, you know, hell hell be see created. Hell be satisfied with with bits and pieces of ukraine. Were fooling ourselves. Its in our interest for russia to be strategically defeated in ukraine, that they break their back on ukraine and they say for 100 years they feel the way they feel about. So they invaded finland. It was a really bad experience for the russians and the russians said, oh my gosh, for the next hundred, i dont want to i dont want to think invading poland ever again. But we want is for the russians to say, oh my gosh, that was the worst experience ever. Im never and im not invading ukraine for another hundred years. I dont want to do it. And im my my expansive grand ambitions for for a resurgent sort of neo soviet union. Yeah. Were going to put that aside basically we want them to we want them to have such a horrible military experience that that is what happens. The other thing is china is watching what happens in ukraine. So to the extent that russia is able, quote unquote, get away with invading and the costs are acceptable is going to give russia and china the temptation think they can get away with invading taiwan. So if anyone thinks whats going to happen in ukraine stays, in ukraine, their mistake in this is has Global Implications. It absolutely has impacts on asian security. And if youre taiwan, you should be doing everything you can to help ukraine win because a weaker russia means a weaker and a weaker china means that theyre less likely to try and invade taiwan in to all that. What we want is 15 years from now we want to see ukraine fully win the war and be seen as winning the war but from in addition that what we want is we want a ukraine thats wealthy its one fourth the and its the same size as poland and should be as rich as poland and its one fourth as rich as poland. But theyre going to have to do a whole bunch of things to kind of fix that. Some of it will have to do with economic reforms, governance reforms. We want them to have the agricultural potential of canada. They could totally do that. They ought to have the sector of estonia. They ought to have the kind of great infrastructure japan has. And they ought to have the military Industrial Base of israel. What we want is at the of this a really strong, free and rich ukraine thats, a full on card carrying member of the European Union and a full on card carrying member of nato and a full on card member of the oecd, which is the club of democracies. So i think a lot us didnt necessarily think wed be back looking in europe the way we are now, but in said we still have a lot of problems in the regions that you know, our traditional focus for global development. Can you think about how our youth when you when you look at your book where where do fragile failing states come in and what do we need to kind of do that to ensure that theyre do better those areas to ensure that theyre not going be the problems of the future. We have a hard time with states. We dont have enough folks who speak very obscure but important languages in some of these places. We dont have enough people whove lived in these countries and understand the the really complicated what might be described as political economy issues of sort of the sum of its tribe, some of its political, some its about whos, you know, whos you know, theres douglas north, whos an important economist, talks about open access orders and limited access orders and that most of the world are limited access orders are basically sort of, you know, autocratic, poorly places that and its hard for limited access orders to become open access orders, which are basically think of them as market democracies for making that leap. And so we need people can speak what might be described as im going to call them strategic important languages that are not spanish or french or or not kind of romance. And also folks who make long term commitments to. Some of these places general petraeus talked about maybe year commitments and we ought to maybe even have a special track, the Foreign Service for folks who are willing to make a 14 year commitment and have some sort of an accelerated process by which, if you do 14 years to seven year tours of duty and different really difficult, you can get early retirement. I think a lot of people in washington brains will explode if i say that because i think including i think, you know, but i just think that after 20 years of sort of having a series of sort of one year tours of duty in afghanistan and it seems to me that we need to have deeper expertise and make were unfortunately for good or for a lot of developments to happen in this in whats described as bottom billion. Its a tough, poor places. And so were just going to need folks who have regional expertise to make significant commitments. And i my belief is that in a country of 330 Million People and a country of immigrants, we should be able to attract people some folks from the diaspora, some folks who just understand the importance of this. Say, were going to make theyre going to make this that part of their career and that this is a this is an attractive career. For folks. And so it may be folks we may also be want to think about drawing upon people who are former military, who are, you know, whove lived in some know ambiguous security, ambiguous to you know to draw upon that as a as a as a talent pool for something this. Yeah. So one one thing that i really like about the book is you, you, you do great job of using examples of countries you where that are either transitioning toward you know upper middle income status or you know you do a good job of highlighting their strategic and how we could do engage better one country you talked quite a bit about is bangladesh. You know bangladesh has gone from what was seen as kind of a basket case, which i think, you know, during the nixon administration, there was some very it was a term was the term used, i believe, by Senior State Department undersecretary of state. Im trying to remember his name right. It was you. Was it you, alexis . Yes it was. It was alexis johnson. So you, alexis. Exactly. It was urals. Urals. Yeah, exactly. Thats so its but its come a long way and a lot of that has because of the growth of the textile industry. Thats lifted a lot of people out of poverty, including lot of women. Theres still a lot ofssue t but talk to me a little bit. Tell me more about bangladesh. How does this how does that serve . As an example of these countries and how we can of help them move further along their Development Journey . Im pretty high on bangladesh, so i take it as an example i think that if most people of a certain age im im im in my early fifties so if youre in your if youre a baby boomer you are a member. The concert for bangladesh hosted by George Harrison in 1971. Right and so your the last time you probably thought about bangladesh was the concert for bangladesh in 1971. My theres story in my family that one of my family members instead of giving Christmas Presents one year said they had made ten or 20 donations at the benefit have for bangladesh. Some my family members took that well so my family didnt take that well but that is how they associate when they think about they think about right there the Christmas Present they didnt get. And so anyways i think the if you look at the gnp per capita of bangladesh it is a higher gnp per capita of any country in south asia today. Its higher than india its higher than pakistan its higher than sri lanka. Its certainly higher than afghanistan. And i think one of the reasons is, is theyve invested so much in women now, some of it is women and girls. And so theyve said, okay were going to make sure that women, girls get access to basic education. Theyve had a series of the recently in the last 30 years. Theyve had two female leaders whove led the country. Now, theres some people who criticize the government and that i wouldnt necessarily say that the two female leaders have a great relation but theyve had you know, theyre a Muslim Country thats invested a lot in, women and girls that have made sure that women have access to education. Theyve also been open minded in terms of bringing technology. So south korea, the Garment Industry in the early eighties and right now, 5 million women are employed in bangladesh. So women leave the village, come to work in a factory chain. That has also changed society. You have women working and the labor force having having money and the studies show that, you know, if women control of money, their the the overall i dont want to you know generalize generalize but its its a very positive thing that. Studies show that women are have are more careful with than men. They have a proclivity to it in and things like education for their children. And so as a result you have this virtuous circle in bangladesh of employment and savings in education. So theres been investment in people. Theres been and theres been an openness to bringing Foreign Direct Investment thats changed the society. And now they have the aspiration to become an upper middle income country thats a lot of words. But basically, theyre not theyre not a grindingly country anymore. Theyre not a basket case anymore. Theyre a middle income country. Theyre a country that has cars. Theyve aspirations. They like to join. The oecd, which i described, sort of the club of market democracies. And so thats not a crazy goal. And so 20 years from now, todays, you know, 2023, theres no reason bangladesh couldnt be a member of the oecd 20 years from today. And they fought a war more than 50 years ago with pakistan, and theyre wealthier than pakistan in on a on a per capita basis. And theyre in a much better place than if they were still with pakistan. And and so i think you have ask yourself, okay, well, why is it that this a country thats a you know, that you know, this an example for others to emulate people ought to say, okay, well, if you invest in women and girls, this is you can have kind of amazing outcome. And if you are open to having certain of Foreign Direct Investment and be friendly to foreign direct, there are certain kinds of benefits your society. So i think these are all to the good. Theres lots of things not bangladesh isnt perfect. There are a number of criticisms against pakistan excuse me, bangladesh including a variety, different things, whether its in their political realm or its in the labor and sort of labor rights. I understand that. But the big picture, bangladesh, an enormous Success Story and an Enormous Development Success Story. One thing thats come up a lot today, as weve been talking about the book is, is education. And i think this is another area where you really highlight in the book in particular really highlight the value that education can play in advancing development. You also go further really think that suggests that the us needs to fundamentally rethink how its approaching support of education as one of the ways in which were engaging across the world. You know, what do you what do you see . What do we need to do differently . What are the what are the what the benefits for us from an education perspective . So theres both theres the Higher Education in world, theres sort of the vocational technic gold training world, and theres the basic education world. And so in the case of basic education, theres been an amazing in global progress in basic education four years, 40 years, but some seats i think thats the technical term levels of attendance much higher there is some discussion about world quality education, but if you look at levels of literacy, if you look at levels of numeracy, youve seen major improvements around the world. There are some unfortunately, some. And oftentimes its around like holding girls back for a variety of reasons. And so we need to kind of keep pushing that. But youre also that what youre also seeing people as people get more educated in and as economies evolve also greater demand for skilling and Higher Education, some that has been met by the creation of universal cities and Training Institutes in developing countries. So 50 or 60 years ago, a lot of the world had to come to the United States or the developed world to get Higher Education. And thats so the higher landscape has changed. At the same time. And we were a big financier 50 or 60 years ago, as many as 20,000 students came to the United States every year on the federal governments dime to study in the United States. Its something around different depending on what all different buckets of funding. Its maybe a little under 2000, Something Like that. Now, covids thrown all this off. There was sort of a two year period where we, you know, we werent doing that or it was, you know, it got it got disrupted. But but my point is that today, china funding enormous of scholarships. The Chinese Government is financing tens of thousands and is even more than that scholarships in developing countries of future leaders who are going to go back, become Central Bank President or Prime Minister or ceo of companies in developing countries. We they are going to have beijing on speed dial, not boston on their speed dial. And thats not going to be in our interest. So we need to think about Higher Education. Theres some problems in the us Higher Education system. You could argue, and were not going to we dont have provide Education Training to every developing country leader in the world. And like i said earlier i think its a win if if somebody in a developing country goes and studies in the uk or australia or canada or germany, i thats great. Freemark you know market democracies if they get exposed market democracies, i think thats great for for that matter. But if theyre studying in russia, china, i think thats bad. And we should about that. So i think we should make we should be and think about how use our federal dollars to attract people from developing countries to come to the United States insert in sectors it could be public health, it could be economics, could be urban planning. Im not saying finance mbas and law degrees. I think im less interested in that. But the economists certain kinds of train, the technocrats, the future train, the technocrats of the future we should we should be about that. I also think we have in the largest number of foreign students right now in United States are from Mainland China, not against that. So some folks would say we ought to just turn off the spigots on that for having a large number of mainland Chinese Students. The United States. I do think we have to police several things if theyre ganging up on other mainland Chinese Students because theyve now gotten the taste of freedom and theyre there sort of expressing their views. And so then some other Chinese Students beat them up or, bully them, or narc on. I think thats the young people. What the young people say the kids say these days is nark on them. We shouldnt allow that. This confucius institutes, this these institutes funded by china thats pushing a certain kind of line we either out of they are a straight up or way a close them this soft and hard intel stuff where like were sending you people to get phds in theoretical physics then stealing our intel or doing medical studies and then taking medical specimens back. You know, theres been way the heck to many bad examples of that. And so id much rather have them go study comparative literature or comparative religion or english and then go study quantum computer ing. So i think a lot of want to do the the computing stuff and so pays better. I think yeah, i think it pays better. But i think the point is i actually think the long run we want to have as many people from Mainland China exposed to the west as possible like i actually think the argument that we engaged china for 40 years and we failed. Im sure thats totally fair. And so i have slightly different view than many people in, the sense that i think that we dont know yet. I think the jury is still out. Like if you look at how many members of the politburo have lived abroad or studied abroad, i think number is about one. Yeah. My hope is, is that 15 years from now, you may have as many as 12 or 15 who lived or studied abroad. So i think you also see the elites, china, they they have money overseas, send their kids overseas to study thats thats a revealing preference that says something about how theyre thinking about themselves and how they think about us. So we should want to the extent of not stealing our stuff, bullying others, pushing some propaganda. And we ought to have im open to us having a lot of them, the whole idea of saying were going to cut them off completely, i think is an error. Yeah, weve talked a lot about market democracies and i know from our Long Association that your preference is on democracy. But let talk about the markets for a sec. I mean, one thing thats come through in your book is the importance of the private sector. And we dont always think about that from a Development Perspective how, how have and youve done a lot on partnerships over year, over years . How do you think about the role of the private sector in development . Its a big question. Where does it fit within your. So a lot of the theory of change to kind of use a term of the last a think tank its a think tank dam or its a think tank and. So the theory of change has while seems to kind of forget that nine out of ten jobs in the developing world are in the private sector, that most of the financing and most financing of basic needs of health and education isnt from foreign aid, its from the taxes collected in developing countries, theres been a toppling of taxes in africa in the last 20 years. What that says that most even some of the except for a hand maybe 20 or so developing countries the poorest of the poor, most of the rest have an to finance a lot of their own. They have they have the ability to finance a lot of their own infrastructure, finance a lot of their own education, and a lot of their health and a lot of their own. And so i think we have a little bit of a of a simplistic that were the largest in the room or whatever were allocating from the world bank or usaa. It is giving or the aid community, which is, you know, about 130, 150 billion a year. That thats the biggest chunk of money financing development. Its not true. And it hasnt been true for at least 30 or 40 years. But we have started old cassette tape to date myself. We have an old cassette tape in our head about how Development Gets funded. So ambassador jim michael, whos a advisor here, has done some thinking on this. He used to run the Major League Baseball commission of foreign aid. Its called dac, the Development Assistance committee, which brings all the aid agencies together and wrote a paper looking at this. So dont believe dan, you know, believe somebody like ambassador jim michael whos you know much sort of been part of the Development Conversation for 50 years and is said that the the the kind of financing for development and even the United Nations system talks about it through its the financing for Development Track is called foreign aid to be a catalyst so its think of it like yeast. Its not the main its not the big show. We think of it as as the big show. And so if the private sector is where all the jobs are and if the private where all the taxes are, theyre going to finance development, then you probably to have a certain kind of a relationship with the private sector, you got to make sure that theyre following environmental rules and labor rules and weve got to make sure theres not corruption. But the kind of and we need to make sure people are paying fair share of taxes. And i thats a thats a decision for each society come up with. But i think that we need to see them as a really central partner in and other thing is our aid is were a supporting actor in someone elses movie were not were not the star of the movie. Were a supporting actor in someone elses drama. So and i think its like, how do work with them . How do we think about enabling, making it easy for them to operate in a country . These are all things that that are relevant and appropriate for for the uses of foreign aid and diplomacy. Let me shift gears a little bit so were comes through in the book is the opportunity and the need and the y for for for for american soft power but when you look at our bureaucracy when you look at usaid for example, what do we need to do differently . An organizational perspective. And i know youre famous in washington for saying you dont like to do org chart discussions, dan, but when you think what do we need to do differently . Because i think were talking and as and when you read book it comes through that may not be our system may not be fit for purpose for what were trying to achieve. So what would you you know what, some quick wins what are some harder things that we have to do . So i havent met anybody in washington has said theyre happy and satisfied with the current arrangement is sort of like the state department in aid and there are 20 agencies so that have some that touch some the kinds of things ive talked about in the book now when John F Kennedy reorganized the foreign aid architecture, if you can use that term in 1961, there were four agencies and he said that was too many. 21 so no ones wanted to kind of take this on because whatever rubiks cube permutation up with. Not everyones going to be satisfied. So youre going to you create various people will will go and its its its important topic but its still obscure enough that its sort of at the whim of kind of Interest Group, if i can describe it that way. And so the only time weve ever had big shifts is because theres some geo strategic thing that override some of these Interest Group politics and thats why i would say the i wrote the book is i think that were at a jewish strategic moment where we to kind of make some decisions, how we allocate things. I would like to have id have a lot of this leadership and agency i would, i would put a lot of stuff at usaid. Id say theres too many things and other places as i think theres some things that need to do in terms of allocating people time, money to some things that we could, we could revisit how where were our people time. Id like us to we dont have to dollar for dollar clothes Digital Divide but i think were probably going have to put some money into this Digital Space in way that we havent necessarily. I dont want to spend a year in my basement again because of another covid. Were going have other pandemics and i dont think were fully prepared for the next one either. Early Warning Systems or we need to have swing in the developing world to make because if we have that if someday im going to have to wait for get in line and wait six months because the factory in baltimore has got to take care of pittsburgh paraguay in the political leaders are always going to pick pittsburgh over paraguay. So we need to have additional swing capacity of vaccine production and we need to figure out a way to deal with that. I dont want them building dual use airports, ports and in developing countries and so we need to probably ride herd on the multilateral system and dfi to do a better job of being a financier of choice and, a partner of choice. And, you know, as countries develop, as i said, this is a different world. We need to meet folks where at. And so kind of our offer to be updated if were still offering bags of rice and they can grow their own food, then perhaps we need to kind of look at that and say maybe, maybe thats not what we should be doing. Or if can finance their own basic education, maybe we need to look at that. If they can pay for their own basic health, maybe we need to look that. So i just say, you know theres lots of places where we still need to do that, but i think that we, i think need to have a take a look at all this. I also think we need to think about how do this in partnership with others. I was talking this is not an america alone conversation and this is about ultimately about burden sharing. So ive got two final questions for you. First, dan, i think everyone, anyone who knows you knows youre a republican. Yeah. Not outing you. Yeah. Dont help me. Not outing you. How do you the argument to other republicans that this is an important issue to invest in are and i, i dont love to do both sides but you there are always voices on the left to who see who think that need to invest in domestic priority over perhaps International Priorities but how do you make the argument to your other republican folks . Yeah. That american internationalism, which was a bipartisan thing that arose the end of World War Two. How do you make the argument to your folks that this is an important investment . So i have yet to meet somebody in washington says i am really excited about. Turning over the reins of Global Leadership to the Chinese Communist party. So whether its in the infrastructure space or the Digital Space, the vaccine space or even multilateral wisdom, what ive posited the question of were either going to do about this or the Chinese Communist party is going to fill this void and very no one. Yet, as ive challenged i would welcome someone to make the argument to me that all that awesome thats great. Im ready to hand over the reins to to read china to to put it, to use a being slightly correct right that i think i havent heard anybody that and so i and im not trying to be tricky or clever by framing it that way. Im just saying that that serious that there they are wealthy enough and capable enough and have that ability to look at the vaccine conversation look at the infrastructure, look at the way theyre able to deal with Higher Education or the multilateral system and issue in issue across issue and this not in the military world there able to fill voids that we leave behind look at trade and look and i think we have to decide are we going to cede the space to china or not . Because time in the sum total of that, that means theyre going to have the ability over time to rewrite the rules of the were not our kids our grandkids are not are going to be angry with us and will will suffer if we have a world thats led the Chinese Communist party, its going to be a world that where corruption is a lot more common. Its going to be a world where pollution a lot more common. Its going to be a world where people, the governments get into your business on like your most intimate decisions. These are folks. These are the one child policy people. These are people that arent open to religious freedom. So if you care about that, theyre not super open to kind of freedom of assembly or freedom speech. So if you like all those things, youre not going to like a world led by by the Chinese Communist party. And so what im saying is, is if we let this go and we dont provide a response and pushback and im not and i across a number of nonmilitary areas fears that the sum total of that is going to mean that theyre going to ultimately supersede us and theyre going to get to rewrite the rules of the road. And were not going to like it. Now, i think we . Id rather be us than them that. I think if we get our act together, we have a strategy and we work with our partners, we can can push back against this. The other thing is because of their horrible one child policy, their selective sex abortion of girls, where theres Something Like 40 Million Girls have been aborted in china, something people dont like talking about is kind of taboo. They are inheriting the whirlwind. Theyre going to have the demographic shift and, an energy of portugal, which i dont wish them well. I actually. What if so if we dont get our a shooting war with them, theyve got rickety political system. They got a rickety Economic System that, if you ask me, is built on a house of cards. Theyve got horrible demographics. Id rather be us than them. So if we just wait them out. Theyre going to, you know, going to run out of demographic gas and theyll, you know, theyll be part of the global furniture, but in many ways, theyre going to go away. And so we need to but we need to a strategy for the next to 40 years. And if we dont get shooting war and i want to get in a shooting war with them and i dont necessarily want to call it a phone war. And to the extent can work with them in some stuff. Yes, but i think we need to go into this with our eyes really wide open. Last question for you. Your generally an optimistic guy. Youre very hopeful. I know that. What gives you hope and optimism . The future. So i think that i believe that a science and technology will help us solve a lot of problems. I think a lot of original and science and technology happens in the United States. So im hopeful about that. I think to the extent that people want to legally migrate to the united, thats a good thing. I dont see a lot of people to cross some border from to enter illegally Mainland China. So how i feel you know banging on the other lines out the door the Chinese Embassy saying i want to migrate to beijing. There are very few people like capable people from other societies that want to move to china. Theyre very few people know that are like, oh my gosh, i want to i want to cross i want to illegally enter. Im so desperate to get to russia because its so awesome. So to the extent that want to legally come to the United States and we have i dont know, a million or so people come to the United States legally every year, thats a market signal that. Were were still an ongoing, attractive. So i think were still on attractive place weve got some problems sure. But i think i still im optimistic about the science. And, you know, to the extent that remain a leader in science, technology and, weve got to keep an eye on that. And then id say to the extent that we have, you know, some level of entrepreneurship and the strength of our kind of our of our capitalist system and people are able to start up theres lots of problems of stratification in our society and other things, but theres still a lot of entrepreneurship here and you can still you can still make a go of things. And so i think that im optimistic about about the United States. Like i said, id rather be us than them. And yeah, i think we just need to be a better friend. We need to get our act together a little bit more. We need to understand like i said, i think theres a consensus in washington, a problem with the Chinese Communist party and the russians under putin. But i think the i wrote this book is to say we need to have a strategy and a plan for pushing back against them. And i dont think theres been a full consensus on that because as i and the reason i wrote the american imperative is to say that most of this Great Power Competition isnt going to happen in the sphere. Its going to happen in all these nonmale streets, places and way and in developing countries and nonmilitary ways. And so we need to have a strategy in the nonmilitary sphere to, push back against it. Thanks, dan thats great. So thank you, everyone, for coming today and joining us online. Dans new book is the american imperative reclaiming Global Leadership through soft. I encourage everyone to buy on amazon, buy it at your local. Dan, its beenits my pleasure o tonights program