Asia pacific area. So weve had those treaty obligations for a long time. A long, long time. Secretary cohen . If i can followup on secretary browns answer. I think we have to be concerned what china thinks. We are up to, and also be concerned about what the Asian Countries believe is necessary. As seen, china is number one trading partner replacing the United States, were number four. To say the u. S. Is trying to contain china would be to sea all of the members of asean are trying to contain china, which is not the case. They want to continue to do business with china. But they dont want to be dominated, as secretary brown said. And that is a reason why this strategy on the part of the United States makes sense in the sense of how its being pursued. To say we have 2500 marines in darwin, australia, is not a containment strategy against china although the marines think so. To say were going to rotate four combat ships through singapore is not exactly a change in the balance of power. As you look at steps that have been taken, theyve been pretty modest. But theyve also sent a signal to say we understand chinas power is rising, its inevitable. This is something talked about years ago saying the fourth reform would be that of the military. Its inevitable. Its going to get bigger and stronger. What the United States is saying with our allies in the seven treaty relationships we have, yes, chinas going to be a power in the region and onbut we want that power to be exercised consistent with international norms. So these steps that are taken shouldnt be seen by the chinese, notwithstanding their feelings, this is a containment strategy. But rather saying, use your power in a way that benefits all of us. Use the power in a way that does contain the prosperity thats been generated. And when i first was in the pentagon i had to go to their National Academy of sciences and speak to young officers coming up, there were papers saying time for asia to take care of asian ands for the United States to get out. I asked the question, do you really want that to take place . If we were to get out now, who replaces us . Is it going to be you . Is it going to be japan . Is it going to be india . Who replaces a stabilizing force we have been and will continue to be. We have to persuade them were taking modest steps to make sure their power is fully integrated into the International Regime and not seen as the United States trying to in any way to prodescribe, constrict, inhibit their growth, which is inev vitt ibl. Bill perry, anything no add. I would associate with with what my cloegs have said on the issue. We have had almost 50 years of peace in the Asia Pacific Region which is historically unusual. And that 50 year of peace, two comments. First of all a key contributor the American Military force in the region. Secondly, that 50 years of police has more than anything, china to have economic growth. So in a way which may seem insane to the chinese, the American Military presence in the region has been indispensable to them achieving this remarkable economic growth. Some chinese sense that. Few chinese are willing to say out loud their economic wellbeing has been a direct function of americas military presence. I think you can say it sort of pox americana in the Asia Pacific Region in the last few decades. Fair to conclude from the comments you think the existing architecture with the five alliances in asia, is something which should survive for the next few decades . Chinese will not like it. Exactly. That was going to be my point. And i think they believe that were pushing the envelope. I believe, during each of you opined, for instance, when you were secretary on article v of the mutual defense treaty with japan, applying to japans administration of the islands and secretarys defense owe fined and the chinese say we never hat a president who opined on that. Now the president goes to japan and opines on that. When you were secretaries, the philippines and the vietnamese built stuff on islands in the South China Sea. We department make a big deal of it. But now that the chinese are doing it, its a big deal. So one can understand where kind of their views are coming from. Well, from their point of view, thats a reasonable argument to make. On the other hand, what they are doing is completely disproportionate to what the others did. The others didnt build islands and then put elaborate construction on them and start flying airplanes into them. The chinese would say, well, thats them. Were different and bigger and we were always in charge there. Theres also the point of the world order that the United States helped build and led during that tenyear period after world war ii. And that world order was all about coalitions of common interests that established International Law. And what the chinese are doing here is they refuse to acknowledge International Law to resolve these disputes International Bodies that were set up to do this. And thats another dimension of this. That i think very important because if we see a world that now starts to unravel International Law, then where are we going . The world has done pretty well the last 70 years, no world war iii, no nuclear exchange, conflict, problem, disasters, yes. But when you consider that over a 30year period we had the two most horrible wars in the world and weve had nothing like that because of this world order, its impmic it needs to be adjusted and adapt to reals of a rising china and all of 0 the other issues. But when you start disregarding International Law, then were running into some real difficulty. I think, in my opinion, the real issue here is much as anything else on these disputes and east and South China Seas. Of course the chinese can say, well, we werent part of the making of those laws. And i think thats a reasonable point to which we could invite them to help us and the rest of the world bring them up to date. Im not clear that thats happened. Well, that, too. But i also would say, harold, the chinese took a seat on the u. N. Security council a long, long time ago and had did have a role in helping build a world order that was much to their benefit which all three of you have noted, and bill perry talked about it, as to our u. S. Military has done an awful lot to help the chinese in this regard. Speaking of disregarding International Law, let talk about one of the headlines in the last few days, which is north korea. If each of you could talk about your experience with north korea during your tenure, what lessons you learned and what you would tell ash carter about what we or i guess president obama its not fair to pin that on ash what we should be doing by north korea today. I think bill perry should answer that question first. I think, bill, you won on this one. Well we had in fi first year as secretary, we came very close to a military conflict with north korea. Now that was happily resolved without conflict by the agreed framework. But the agreed framework, which by way the North Koreans agreed to freeze their activities at the Nuclear Facility and did freeze them. But that agreed framework was terminated early in the administration of george w. Bush. And theres been nothing constraining, no such constraints on the nor koreans since then. I think it was a mistake to give that up, but thats history now. We have two, three administrations now have said they would not tolerate Nuclear Weapons in north korea but proceeded to tolerate them. And we are now faced with a societal, a modest, Dangerous Nuclear arsenal in north korea. I think the mechanism being used to deal with this is call the sixparty talks which, in my judgment, again, spectacularly unsuccessful. Not based on any subject on what theyre doing, just based on the object of judgment of what the results have been. So the situations very dangerous, i think in north korea today not only build the nuclear arsenal, making it bigger and stronger and farther reaching, making very aggressive comments about how they might use this nuclear arsenal. I think its urgent we get a serious, diplomatic effort trying to deal with that problem. Sixparty talks might be right mechanism for doing this but have not had the right strategy for dealing with it i think primarily the United States and china have had a different assessment of the threat and therefore never able to agree on what to do about the threat. Perhaps when this latest development in north korea, the chinese may now come to believe as we do this is a serious problem and needs serious action. I think the next step in the United States would be to try to formulate a program on which we can base new negotiations and then try to get agreement with the chinese other members of the sixparty talks to get agreement on that on those goals and that strategy and proceed forward. The best basis i can think of for negotiating strategy with north korea now is what the professor, former director has called the three nos, which means no new Nuclear Weapons, no more Nuclear Weapons, and no transfer of Nuclear Weapons. Thats not the same as what the goal has been in the past, to get north korea to give up their Nuclear Weapon, which is a pretty barrier to try to get over. If we could agree on that as a negotiating strategy, we might be able to make some progress with north korea, at least containing the danger we face now. If we succeed in that we might go farther and look at negotiation to actually eliminate them. But i see a history of 15 years, i guess, complete failure in the socalled sixparty negotiations. Its not because we dont have the right people at the table. They are the right people but we dont have the right strategy for trying to deal with north korea. We need to put serious attention on this problem because its a danger to our proliferation problem, danger to the asia prafk region and a danger really of Nuclear Conflict or Nuclear Terrorist group ewing Nuclear Weapons. All of these dangers aring e ag by the developments in north korea going on today. By the way, i think the latest test, in my judgment, is a test to make the Nuclear Weapon they have smaller, more compact so they can fit on the warhead of a missile. Whether i, myself, im highly skeptical, it was a hydrogen test. Even if it was not, that was not the main danger. The main danger is theyre making it them compact enough to get on a warhead. Dr. Brown . I think bill perrys proposal is certainly a reasonable one, as an objective for us. The question is, what do the North Koreans get in exchange . And that will be a very difficult negotiation. Moreover, the chinese, i think, will always be very reluctant to put a lot of pressure on north korea because if north korea collapses, for whatever reason, the prospect of an extension northward of south korean influence and prospectively u. S. Influence will worry the chinese. So its a good proposal. But its not clear what the quid pro quo will be. Secretary cohen . I agree with both secretary perry and brown. But secretary brown raises a question good, what do the North Koreans get out of this . Well, what have they been getting out of this . Theyve been engaged in nuclear extortion, blackmail. Feed us, fuel us before we strike again or explode again. So one thing theyve been getting is more food and fuel, certainly from the chinese, perhaps others. So i would hope that the chinese would look at what they are subsidizing and find ways to moderate that or modulate it in a way that sends a very strong signal that theyre unhappy with what north koreas doing. I think thats something we could do. Or they could do. Secondly, we should pursue, as bill perry has said, a multilateral, whether sixparty talks or another forum, and try and get a multilateral agreement on what needs to be done long term in dealing with the North Koreans. But we also should be prepared to act unilaterally. I think we should take action on the financial side putting a much tougher squeeze on some of the north korean elite and reimpose some of the sanctions that were imposed previously. I would hope also that we would consider and have the South Koreans and japanese consider having on their territory. This should be a concern, i know a concern to the chinese, but nonetheless this is something that is important to us and to our allies to have a defensive capability that would be able to at least knock down that kind of Missile Technology that theyre trying to develop. And finally, i think that we should go back and insist that the inspection regime because what bill perrys been talking about is danger of proliferation, the danger of nuclear proliferation. North koreas one of the principal sources of the proliferation, working at times with pakistan, working at tiles with iran, and as iran now is in the agreement with the United States and others, theres still a danger that north korea could still be a source of some testing that otherwise would take place in iran or elsewhere. So i think we should look at ways of saying, no, no, shipments coming out of north korea that are suspect, going to various ports, we should insist our allies open those cargos for inspection and not make it optional but make it mandatory, make it mandatory. And those that dont would face sanctions from the United States. I tonigdont think we can affor have the North Koreans trading in Nuclear Materials. Not only Nuclear Weapons about you Nuclear Materials it self. There are groups desperate to get hands on a Nuclear Device or nuclear experiences and explode it in an american city. Thats what secretary perry has worried about, written about. He writes about it if a factual way. I write about it in fiction. But were both concerned that is something that would be a terrible, terrible thing in the world, no matter where it takes place, that a nuclear bomb is exploded in an urban area causes hundreds of thousands of deaths. It something we need to take action. We havent been taking action. Do it multilaterally, unilaterally as well. Secretary hagel . I would add a couple. I think my three predecessors covered most of the issues. But it was just a few days after i took office, in february of 2013, that the North Koreans launched longrange missiles over the top of japan and other countries in the pacific. That obviously precipitated some new attention. And that within days had me out in a press Conference Announcing that we were going to build out another eight groundbased intercepters in alaska down the coast. Now that alone was not going to deal with the problem. But i say that because, just a reminder, that wasnt very long ago. And then with the latest incident that bill perry mentioned, we all know is another reminder. But just a couple of other points i would make. Harolds point about the chinese, ive always believed that there will be ultimately very little progress made on north korea without the chinese. And it wont be because the chinese are supporting our policies or any benevolent reason, but it will be in their selfinterests. Its very clear, as harold pointed out that when you look at chinese situation, the last thing they need is millions and millions of north core re. S fleeing across the border. More to the point the South Koreans are hair triggered on this. And as joe and sam and others in this audience who know who have been to korea and had responsibilities, working with the South Koreans on this to keep them from doing something here that you cant recalibrate, its too late, that could start something, is a big deal. The third part of this, i think, and just another point, i have heard from third party sources, credible sources in asia pacific when i was there, when ive been here in the United States and also from various chinese leaders, off the record, that this north korean problem continues to perpetuate American Military presence in the region, even more and more, and we keep using it, the United States, as an excuse to keep more of our military, to protect our allies and alliances and treaty obligations with japan and south korea. So the interesting part of that is, its if they say that, if the chinese believe that or some of them, then why wouldnt that incentivize them to some extent, plus their own selfinterest to resolve some of this . I think its going to be a continued manage this process. But i do think well get a breakthrough and its for the reasons in i think, again, my three predecessors noted, working internationally, whether its sixparty talks or another forum, working with the chinese, as close as we can, i think with the japanese are doing as they are changing some of their Constitutional Responsibilities for national security, the South Koreans have been very good as the economys build out in the asia pacific. More and more awareness and more and more interests share are becoming more and more acute for every country in that area. And its going to take all of them. Lets move from an incredibly frustrating subject, north cok a korea, to one where there has been extraordinary progress since the days of harold brown, which is taiwan where we have seen kind of peace across the straits and away and kind of social and economic integration without political integration in a way that probably established diplomatic relations was not easy to predict yet we have the administration recently notified a 1. 83 billion arms sale to taiwan. How does this play out from the perspective of our service . Just maintain the status quo of continued arms sales, continued distrust with china created by this, or is there Something Else that can be done . Nobody wants that one. [ laughter ] i think it falls in the realm of trying to diminish the strategic distrust that exists between china and the United States. There are elections in taiwan, and a situation where its maybe more proindependent, but it was not an issue for me during the time i was there, because we were building better relations, getting closer economically, starting to talk militarily. And i was able to deal with this, as im sure that secretary hagel and perry have done over the years, is to say, theres a taiwan relations act. And we have Something Like that, and were committed to providing defensive equipment, to make sure a reunification occurs peacefully. Can we maintain that for the next 20, 30 years . Probably doubtful. Can we reduce the amount of distrust between the United States and china . Thats the challenge. I think theres been great progress, with straight flights, hundreds of thousands of taiwanese working in the mainland, and thats been a nonissue. So, it goes to strategic distrust of the goals of the United States. The chinese shouldnt find them threatening in any way. So, verbalizing their objection to the relationship, which must continue. And others are watching how the United States handles this. I take it that these transfers, given, admittedly, theyre part of a congressional mandate. But from the u. S. Point of view, they are a signal to the p. R. C. That they cant count on us on the u. S. Being passive if theres an attempt which might well be successful of the p. R. C. , to take over taiwan by force. In other words, the transfers might not affect the outcome of such an attempt, but the chinese cant be sure that that would not be a major, and perhaps a conflictprovoking reaction from the United States. So, its a signal. Bill, anything you want to add on that, since you ordered the Aircraft Carrier to the taiwan straits . I think at the time, it was the right thing to do. But it wasnt anything i was happy about. When i left office, i spent quite a bit of time in track two meetings with china and taiwan, to try to find a way to avoid the need for Something Like that. The best i could come up with, i could think of no way to deal with the fundamental d disagreement about ownership, but i tried to find a way to reduce the likelihood of a military conflict, and i ended up working to promote a greater social, economic, travel interface between taiwan and the mainland. For whatever reason, its been very successful. It serves the interest of both the taiwanese and the chinese. And they opened up air travel between taiwan and china, that was a difficult agreement for the two to make, but they did make it. Now, thousands travel between taiwan and china every day. And what has happened, as a consequence of that, if you think back to the days of the cold war between the United States and the soviet union, with mutually assured destruction, taiwan and china havemutually assured economic destruction. Its a very, very huge deterrent to their taking over, much more important than sending battle groups to taiwan. And if secretary hagel and cohen are correct one of the seeds of mistrust is the u. S. Policy of supporting the status q quo, or should we be more actively advocating for a peaceful resolution . Not necessarily reunification, but a peaceful resolution . A gradual reduction of the arms . Well, i think the current United States policy is the correct one. I say that because i think in this situation, not unlike most of these kinds of geopolitical dynamics, these things have to evolve on their own way, their own time, with the right environment. And i said something earlier about another part of the world. We being the most power. Nation on earth. With many responsibilities, with our allies. It doesnt mean we dictate, we impose, but we lead. And we need to help everyone manage through this. Without some conflict occurring through some miscalculation, some pushing, or accelerating of a dimension that the old architect used to say, if it doesnt fit, dont force it. And i think it has to evolve, and i think what bill perry said was exactly right, its imperfect, its still dangerous, and im still hopeful, if theres a new government, with the elections this week, i hope that the new government doesnt start to unwind some of the right progress toward the right end, the right agreement that gets china and taiwan to where they need to be, also for that region, for that part of the world, and also it doesnt, as bill pointed out, it doesnt put the United States in a position where we have to take a tough decision on whether or not were going to support obligations or not. Maybe because im an eternal optimist, i always think a d. P. P. Election gives them the ability to compromise more than the k. M. T. Would, because their flank is protected. Thats one for the secretaries of state, i think. Its one for the fortune tellers. Lets talk about the economic relationship. Secretary brown, when you were there, it was almost nonexistent. Now, its massive. And apple, their last quarter, have sold somewhere in the neighbor of 17, 18 billion of product in china. And people talking about how deeply the two economies are tied. And weve talked about the disruption in the Chinese Market has had an enormous effect. How did it affect your thinking when you were secretary, and how do you think it affects policy today . And Going Forward . In my case, when i was secretary, it really had almost no effect, as you said. Now, each country depends substantially on the other. And of course, a lot of that apple sales consists of pieces that were made in the u. S. , actually. Yes. Not the bulk of the mass of the product, but the value of the product. A large portion, probably most of it, is made outside of china. So, its part of a world trade system, in which trade with china by the u. S. Is a very large part. That does not automatically produce peace. Before the first world war, the trade between france and germany was massive. So, by itself, it does not ensure peace. It sure would make war more disruptive, and in that sense, it may act as a partial deterren deterrend deterre deterrent. I would point out that our ambassadors were the Business Community. Every business that was investing in china, and chinese investing in the United States, they become ambassadors of goodwill. Jobs are at stake, here and there. And the Business Community in the United States is investing in china, and i serve on the u. S. China Business council board, and this is what we discuss on a regular basis. How do we continue to promote better relations . Most people are worried about yo their jobs. And it doesnt mean youre going to always establish peace through economic prosperity, but you have a better chance of maintaining it than you would if there were no such strands of economic interaction. So, the economic issue, its the butterfly effect. You saw what happened when there was a little bit of bad news, disruption in the chinese stock market, a big one, and then it affects all the markets globally. Its the consequence of globalization, and what happens on a remote place in a remote time, may seem instaignificant, but it has major consequences. It would be interesting to find out what chinese businessmen do in the way of telling their government how important it is that there be peaceful relations between the u. S. And china. Does that come up at some of these track two meetings . Also addressed, is there is a negative side to this . The allegations that u. S. Technology companies are selling out the United States in terms of our defense readinesreadines . I come at these things, steve, and i always have tried to, no matter what job ive had, as a businessman, or a government job, with as wide a scope, based on as wide a frame of reference as i can, and nair narrow it down. There are violations everywhere, and that its not new. People take advantage of technology, use it for the wrong reasons. Is there some risk of hightechnology companies doing business in the areas of totalitarian dictatorships . Yes. But you have to keep in the wider scope of how you judge these things, and make the decisions that a president or secretary has to make. Its not theory, that you have to realize, and i think this was the iranian negotiation, the whole point, is any of this perfect . Is any situation perfect . No, not that ive ever seen one. But is it overall moving the World Economic development in the right direction . Were not going to unwind what has started. An interconnected world is not going to be unwound. Were 7 billion global citizens in a global economy. Were not going to stop that. And interesting, at least it is to me, the very dimensions in dynamics that the United States and west has pushed since world war ii, economic prosperity, respect for human rights, dignity, those dont always come together. China is a good example of that, but isnt it interesting that as youre seeing the world build out, the world weve always pushed for, more trade, development, opportunities for us and our trading partners and people in the world, if for no reason, its not a guarantee of stability, but its a platform of stability, the more interconnected we are. We get to a point where theres some debate in american politics, i know thats not the subject here, but its part of our environment we live in, trying to push that back, saying thats bad. And of course, china is going to build their economy and try to prosper. And do things that are in their interest. I think overall, you have to look at it, is it in our long term interest . I think it is, and its clear, the more you can gauge commercially, business is as good an ambassador as we have in the world. Bill perry, anything you can add briefly on this . On this specific question you asked, i would associate myself with the attitude that chuck gave. A slightly broader question, i am concerned that the chinese view of the South China Sea is different from ours. We need to be there as part of our global trade efforts, but the chinese treat it almost as if its an inland sea. And i think that different perception sets the stage, really, for major disagreements which could, if were not careful, lead to some kind of a conflict. Thats a fundamental problem that we need to work hard to try to avoid. Seems to me, thats more the focus of a potential security problem than as taiwan is. I want to get to the audience, at least three, four f stars i can see here. Former ambassadors, former u. S. Secretaries of commerce here. I want to open it to the audience, but first some short questions. Should we be training young this is a policy question. I know you in washington dont like policy questions, but we want to should we be training young p. L. A. Officers in annapolis and other institutions . Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Bill . Yes. Did you worry, american command and control systems are very sophisticated. Did you worry, or would you worry today about the command and control systems in china, where we have incidents that beijing was not aware of and couldnt control . Yes. Yes. Yes. Bill . Yes. Yes. [ laughter ] this is double jeopardy, right . What surprise here. You guys just won a free trip to beijing. Youve rigged these questions. Do you think the greatest threat to security in the pacific is Climate Change . No. Shortterm. Yes, long term, without defining long term. I agree with secretary brown. [ laughter ] well, very, both have given political answers, so i will. The only thing i would say, the reason i agree with what harold brown has said, i think it is a threat. I wouldnt rate it as the most immediate threat, but its clearly a threat. A security threat. Thats what i mean. Bill . Always. Perry . Well, Climate Change, and the catastrophe that could occur from a Climate Change, and from a nuclear exchange, are both being existential. They need direct and immediate attention to keep them from happening, 10, 20, 30 years from now. Mmhmm. This one just for secretary hagel, since you set foot on lao ning, the chinese have announced the construction of an Aircraft Carrier. What are the implications, and should we be worried . I dont think we should be worried. Im not surprised that they would make that decision. I think an Aircraft Carrier, not only strategically, tactically for them, is important. But i think the symbolism is particularly important for them. I was told, when i was there, when i visited that Aircraft Carrier, the retrofitted ukrainian Aircraft Carrier, which is not much of an Aircraft Carrier, looking at our modern standards. But the reality is, as the chinese reminded me, the Weapons Systems that they have, the technology they have, to attack Aircraft Carriers, is rather significant. And i dont think any of them said to me theyre outdated. But i received a pretty clear implication that they are more vulnerable Aircraft Carriers than theyve ever been. So, my opinion, i dont think the chinese see this as any particularly new tactical strategic weapon thats going to give them any more significant dimension to their defense capabilities, but i think it is important to them for other reasons, symbolic reasons as well. And i think its probably good for us, for the u. S. , if they want to spend their money on that. Secretary cohen . The Aircraft Carrier has always been important from a United States perspective as a sign of our commitment to the security of other countries. They want to feel us but not see us on their territory, but wed be over the horizon as a presence. Which i think is reassuring. The chinese Aircraft Carrier is for a different reason, so we can see them as well as feel them, and its important for the South China Sea, but i think it would be different than ours. Let me open this illustrious audience, let me open the floor to questions. Still have a few more minutes. The lights are bright enough. Right, are you media . Right here. Okay. The chinese woman right here. Shes not chinese. Im the president of the institute. There are many experts internationally that are saying were closer to nuclear war than at the height of the cold war period due to a variety of reasons. If that would happen, by accident or otherwise, it would lead to the annihilation of manki mankind. There are other stabilizing factors, the world bank said were in front of the perfect financial storm. The uae, isis wheres your question . So, my question is, why can we not make a new paradigm where we answer to the chinese president s offer he made in 2014 that the United States would cooperate in a winwin strategy, and in his new years address, he again said, we must build a community of the common destiny of mankind. Why can we not build a new architecture based on common Economic Cooperation . I think to some extent, we have. Mamhmm. I think things would be much worse out Economic Cooperation. But to say youre in favor of peace and cooperation is a question, is just the very first step. The mechanics and details are everything. Can i just add one quick comment, because i want secretary curry to talk about this. I think weve become too lax in our concern about Nuclear Weapons. I go back to churchill, saying we may one day return to the stone age on the gleaming wings of science. Pakistan, north korea, iran certainly may be building more. So, i think the existential threat has to cause us to really think or rethink about how were going to survive on this planet. I believe the threat of the spread of Nuclear Weapons is much greater today, because more and more individuals and groups are trying to get their hands on them. We had rational governments at one point dealing with this issue, even coming to the edge of brinksmanship. And terrorism, are we working with the chinese just right, too much, too little in our counterterrorism effort . Well, since im the most recent secretary of defense, and i think the real terrorist threats have really been defined since 9 11 in ways weve not seen before. I would say that we are working with the chinese, with all nations of the world, in the areas where we can. To assure our own selfinterest, the chinese, russians have selfinterest. That this scourge of terrorism is a plague on all of us. And its a threat to all of us, and its real for all of us. It varies with the area, the dimension of the threat, and all the variables in this. And there are different views by each nation as to how to handle that. Which is not easy to resolve either. But yes, we are working with the chinese on this, and weve had, i think weve had some success with working with the chinese. It depends on where you sit. From a chinese point of view, one big terrorist threat is from the its not clear that we want to cooperate with them in suppressing that terrorism. Its a different issue, another issue involved. And that is the reconciliation between privacy and protecting the rights to privacy. China may have a different idea. Let alone the europeans. And chuck was saying, this will present a real challenge, how do you reconcile the different view points in a way that doesnt turn you into basically a stalinist state. And you start worrying about and listening to conversations and looking at individuals for their signs of misconduct, et cetera. We have to be careful, deal with terrorism and identifiable groups that are promoting terrorism, and about protecting whats left of privacy in this digital world. Let me recognize the woman here. Thank you very much. Very nice, secretaries, to meet you here. I would like to know what will be the most challenging decision you made as secretary of defense regarding to the South China Sea, and how would you comment on the current situation, and what are your solutions . I didnt have an issue. It did not exist at that time. There were no reasons for the chinese, at that point, to be concerned about the u. S. Presence in terms of posing any kind of a threat to its sovereignty. I think over time, china has grown as an economic power, and theyre now growing as a military power, the claim of jurisdiction over the south or east china sea, parts of it, has become much more of a prominent issue. And i think were going to have to really insist that, we see the chinese rising as a military power. Weve recently had the foreign minister of singapore say were not going to be able to stop that. India may have some issues about freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. They have a lot of traffic going through. I think whats most important, we be very clear about what were saying, and not send mixed signals. On the one hand, we cant say, well, its innocent passage were requesting. Its freedom of navigation of seas. If we say it with ambiguity, were confusing our own allies, and angering the chinese. And sun tzu said be prudent but not hesitant. So, we have to be clear about the issues for us in the region. And in my days as secretary of defense, the sevendash line was an unknown document in the archives of the regime. One quick question, and then well go to a final question. Are we doing enough, that we should be doing that were not to improve the military to military relationship . Or are we doing everything we possibly can . We mentioned before you mentioned sending cadets to annapolis. I think we could do more to encourage military to military relationships at the senior level. You wacant have a onesided pu for that, and so far, i think its the chinese that have limited that. But i would push again. Bill perry . Anything . I would continue to promote minister to minister dialogue. And we should continue to support the chinese cadets at our academies. And beyond that, i think perhaps the single most significant relationship would be that which i think back and think the Pacific Forces can make with china. Theyre very close to military issues in that part of the world, they can make an excellent ambassador, and perhaps the single most important relationship we could continue is with the sinc pac. And make it so it doesnt just look like the United States, australia, japanese, conducting exercises. To the extent that we can find ways in which they can become more integrated. And they can see pretty much what were doing. But i think thats a way of trying to build more trust, even though it raises some questions about security. Admiral locklear, if he was called up here, he would have a lot to say about this issue. Because he recently came out of the job of pacific commander. He knows how much our military has invested in military to military relationships. And there is so much we have done and are doing to build that, that most people never see. Which i said earlier in my comments tonight, much of what i inherited was the result of their continued good work on this. But i think it is a continuation of reaching out, and by the way, we are doing more and more military exercises, training, with the chinese. And as harold pointed out, its a twoway street. And all of our chiefs in china the last two years, i think this is critically important, that isnt going to fix the issue. But the other part of it is, i would say, as someone who has walked on both sides of the street, on the political side, on the administration side, our politicians have to listen more to our military. And i dont mean changing the constitution, i mean listen to the military. They get it better than most politicians on things like this. Some the finest statesmen ive ever seen in my life are military people. This is not a paid advertisement, but i mean, as you know what i mean, across the board. But it is a yuniversal use of al of our assets and resources and leadership that i think is the biggest part of this answer, to use them all more effectively, with a broader policy and strategy, what is it we want to accomplish . Final question. Its january 20th, 201 00th, 200 a. M. In the morning. And president elect trump no, the president has given you one minute to give her advice give the person advice on the u. S. china relationship. The security aspect. In 60 seconds, what do you tell her . [ laughter ] 60 seconds. Your time is running. Remember every promise youve made. I would say, rerun this program. And let me be serious about this for a second. I think whats happening in our political system, were witnessing the polarization of our system, and when we make promises in order to appeal to our respective bases. And when youre in office, you have to think about the consequences of your promises. I think we have to be careful, i urge this to all president ial candidates, dont make promises, or else youll have to break them. President carter made a pledge to pull troops out of korea, and he came to the decision that it was a mistake. But on the chinese side, they are much more mature than before about our political system. Bill perry, 15 years ago, the chinese may have reacted much more differently than today. And second thing, mr. President , get a fiscal policy in place. And by the way, consult with congress once in a while. Its a coequal branch of government. I think specifically, with respect to china, the advice id give is, this is in the long run, the most important bilateral relationship. Take it easy. Dont take big steps, certainly dont take big steps, without thinking it through much more than most of your predecessors have most of the time. Bill perry . A presence thats much more important that you realize, get the u. S. china relationship right. And its much more difficult than you realize to get it right. Okay. Secretary hagel . Last word. One word, listen. To the chinese, too. Listen. I want to thank everyone on behalf of the National Committee on u. S. china relationship for joining in on the beginning of our 50year history. Tell the next president , take 90 minutes out of your day, watch this, youll learn a lot about u. S. china relations. But please join me in thanking the four secretaries. [ applause ] thank you. Thank you. Tonight on the communicators, john lansing discusses how u. S. Media organizations like voice of america and radio marty are operating and how hed like these agencies to retool in order to address propaganda. Hes joined by ron nixon. The reality is, we started 70 years ago as a radio enterprise. We still do some radio. But our ability to shift to mobile and social is certainly there, and were no different than any other Media Company that you and i know about that has had to do the same thing. New york times, done a fantastic job. And thats our mission, shift to be more in the peer to peer conversations, shifting away from the stodgy, old media. Tonight, 8 00 p. M. Eastern, on cspan 2. As president obama prepares for his state of the Union Address on tuesday, he released this video. Its my last state of the Union Address. And i keep thinking about the road weve traveled in the last seven years. Thats what makes america great, our ability to come together as one american family, and pull ourselves closer to the america we want to be. Its hard to see sometimes, but it is who we are, and thats what i want to focus on. Cspans coverage starts at 8 0 8 00 p. M. Eastern, looking back at the history and tradition of the president s annual message, and what to expect this year. And 9 00 p. M. , live coverage of the president s speech followed by the republican response and your phone calls, tweets, and emails on cspan, cspan radio. And on cspan 2, after the speech, well hear live from members of congress. Next, ed royce talks about u. S. National security threats. Topics include isis, north korea and other security threats. Good morning, everybody. Were starting on time for once, and im very pleased to welcome congressman ed royce, republican, of california. We have an hour to talk about national security, the plans ahead, all of the challenges we face, all of the solutions you have in mind, and the president s state of the union next week. So, im not going to take another second, but i would like to welcome mrs. Royce, because im delighted to have her here. Over to you. Thank you, the state of the union is coming up here, the seventh state of the union. And weve had seven years now of policies that have frankly been focused on befriending our enemies and distancing ourselves from our allies, ignoring our allies. And the consequences of there was an historic opportunity in iran to have a a chance at reaching out to the people of that country who had gone to the streets after a stolen election, and many of you remember the early broadcasting, you see the young woman on the street that was shot by the authorities. And the consequences of a society which according to gallup polling, had been robbed of an election, and the president made a decision to decide that the engagement would be a long term engagement with the ayatollah, and subsequently, the decision was made to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, that had been funded partially by iran, but distance us from the people of egypt. And the consequences of these strategies was to leave us in the middle east in a position, in my opinion, where it was the jord jordanians, the israelis, the gulf states, people no longer trusted the judgment of the administration. And thats important, because it means people no longer necessarily take our counsel, take things in their own hands, and adopt a new calculus based upon the assumption that weve now tilted towards iran. And the reason this takes a new urgency, in the last few weeks, weve seen a series of steps by the Iranian Regime with violations of the u. N. Reside resolutions with two missile tests, in which you see the firing of a rocket near the coast of the uss truman, our carrier. We have seen another american hostage taken hostage. We have discovered recently of attempts to hack into a dam outside of new york city. I remember when we discovered the efforts here by the iranians to attempt to assassinate at cafe milano with a bomb, the ambassador from saudi arabia, and now, iran openingly speaking of toppling the government of saudi arabia. So, the question is, who is watching this . Not just our allies, but all over the world, people are watching our failure to respond to these provocative actions. And given that, i think it explains a lot in terms of our position around the world. On the Foreign Affairs committee, were attempting to reach back to the old bipartisan commitment in terms of strong engagement overseas. We need u. S. Leadership. We con nan not be in a position where our policy is one of constantly backing down. We need more backbone in our policy, not backing down. And thats the crux of the problem today. So you have a lot on your plate for the committee. I know youve been talking about what to do about iran, working with mr. Engel, and you introduced a bill on north korea, thats post a nuclear deal at the time touted by bill clinton as the model for how to come to a Nuclear Agreement with a country. Now, another agreement with the iranians. What are you thinking about what congress can do . I remember debating wendy sherman, and i would just make the point that we had an example of what could deter north korea. In 2005, we had a situation where you had banco delta asia. In macao. 100 bank notes were being counterfeited, and they moved forward, and gave a choice to the bank in macao and ten other banks that served as a conduit, they could get cut off, and bank with north korea, or freeze the accounts. What were the results . Afterwards, we discovered that the missile production line, north korea could no longer get the hard currency they needed, it came to a complete halt. More importantly, not only was the dictator not able to pay his army or his secret police, wasnt able to pay his generals. Thats not a good position for a dictator to be in. As a consequence, every meeting after that started with one question, when do we get our money . Unfortunately, treasury was not left in the position of making the key decision on this. Unfortunately, that decision was made by the state department, and they lifted, as part of a negotiation, that north korea would come back to the table. The legislation ive offered would bring that back into law, well put it on the president s desk with strong bipartisan support, and this is the approach that will work because you need consequences. The idea of strategic patience, means patience while north korea goes forward with test after test, until it fully develops its icbm program, and its delivery capability. Right now, the icbms can hit the United States. We dont want them to succeed in miniaturizing the weapons. Has the United States taken a position on the legislation . I have not heard a position, but im hoping the strength of the vote behind it changes their c calculus behind the decision. And now, weve had several nuclear tests. Were about to open the financial spigot in records to iran. How do you address the threats that iran is posing in the region . Im going to try to move legislation that will address those issues. But id like to revisit a conversation i had with the secretary of state, in which we were advancing legislation based on stewart levys work, which will give the ayatollah a choice between agreement or economic collapse. And i go back to the world war ii thesis for the United States, for a strong showing, we put the bill together, and we passed it out of the house of representatives with a vote of 40020. And our request of the administration was that we had a bill come up in the senate. But instead the administration did the calculus and felt they had to extend an olive branch. Our argument was, lets at least have this in reserve. For which there will be consequences if they dont follow through. So, allow us to bring the bill up in the senate. We had more than enough votes for a veto in the house, and we had 65 senators that had shown an interest in the approach we were taking. The bill was blocked by the administration, as a matter of fact, as i recall, that session, no Foreign Policy initiatives came up in the senate, because the Senate Leader at the time, reid, was concerned that this would be attached to it, and would get to conference or could get to the president s desk. I think this was an absolute blunder, and i think weve got to get back to the issue of whether or not there are going to be consequences. One of the things we were assured of, if it went to agreement, it would be enforcede on the floor of the house of representatives, was look, there are u. N. Sanctions in place. Well enforce those if we see a violation. Of either the issue of icbm testing. Weve now had two violations and what happened . The administration began to move forward with some very di min mouse sanctions. Informed us in congress and as soon as there was push back from iran, they pulled it back. Also, we were assured that there would be no liflt lifting of sanctions against those who were involved in terrorism. You know, the irgv is going to be a main beneficiary. There are several banks in iran that have funded with the iranian run as well as so, our point is why arent we sticking to the letter . Why do we consider to, when we continue to fall back. We put lels out yesterday to the committee to address some of these issues and we will continue to push forward, but it is incumbent among the commander in chief in this country to lead. In this nation. I want to turn to the question of that leadership and an authorization for the use of force, but before we leave iran, i want to ask you for a second what your tase is on the flare up between saudi arabia and various other gulf states and the iranian over so, here is one of the unfortunate consequences. Of the calculus that is made in foreign capitals. That we have tilted. Or the administration has tilted towards iran. What that means is that they are less likely to take our counsel. So, when we give advice you, for example, the Iranian Forces were involved in helping orchestrate the takeover in yemen. Of the shia militia there and a decision was made to put together an arab force to go into yemen and try to push the iranian out. And youll yoel notice we were not included in those discussions. Egypt, saudi arabia, other countries in the region are increasingly making decisions. On their own. Without our counsel and i think part of that is they now lack the trust in the judgment of the administration. With respect to anything dealing with iran and the other con quenss of this, by the way, is it makes it harder for us to get solutions to other problems when this sectarian, when sunni and shia begin to separate. Because of the consequences again. Of actions where had the administration originally in 2008,i in guess it was, 2008, w the iranian green revolution. Had we led then, we might have a different situation right now on the ground. When twothirds of the people feel strongly that an election has been stolen and you dont speak out and you dont help increase the passions to 86 , which is what you could have done with radio free europe, radio liberty, if you dont take reagans view on this, that its our responsibility to lead with public diplomacy, which we could have done effectively by broadcasting into iran in support of those efforts in an effective way and now, were in this situation. It is very hard to untangle the lost opportunities. Hard to get the confidence back in egypt when theyve seen the embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and this is the challenge we face. In this theatre. With you just brought up a whole series of things that i want to talk to you about, which is our public diplomacy, which brings in russia and all these other questions. I dont want to leave the middle east until we talk about the authorization for the use of military force. I know you support the notion of an u authorization. There was a lot of back and forth between the administration, which didnt want to get language to the congress and the result is that weve been operating in what amount to a military were operating under the 2001 and 2002 authorizations. What i support is an authorization to the use of military force that will give your commanders the flexibility they need in the field. One of the things we need though in all of this is the commander in chief to be a commander in chief. One of the things we need is as we move forward is a commander in chief willing not to tie his own hands of whoever follows him in office, but instead not to be dedicated to a containment policy, but destroying isis and let me just speak to that issue for a moment. Because when isis came out of raqqah and began its assault across Northern Syria and then across the border into iraq, there were call frs the pentagon, calls from us in congress to use u. S. Air power in the same way we used it in the first gulf war when kuwait was invaded. When kuwait was invaded, the United States took a position that those 42 divisions were going to be obliterated and we did that with 118,000. Took out those armored divisions and the question we had at the time to the white house was, theyre moving with toyota pick up trucks. You can see them from the air. Why not use that strategy and remove isis before they ever take falluja. Or before they ever take mosul. Town by town, city by city, this argument was made month after month after month after month. As we held hearings on this. And somehow, the administration set in a state of paralysis when isis could have been destroyed before they were embedded, before they were recruiting on the internet from all over the world. Before they were selling the concept that they were indestructible. We could have taken them out from the air. Lets take to the next stage. Then they finally on yezidi mountain, thats when the administration final ly decided to take some kind of action. After mouz l had fallen. After they had taken the central bank. And what action did we take . Well, we had a young yazeezidi captive speak before our congress. And before our committee. And explain to us what happened to her. She said, in my village, all of the men were killed. The women, the girls and the women were sold. She said i was bought by an american. I was a concubine to an american who had been recruited into isis a few years ago on the internet. And he explained to me that as a yezidi, i was an apostic, and therefore, that was what happens under a just system. If youre not a believer in the isis you know, strat cause, youre an aposttate. She said, why wont you arm the yezidi men . Why wont you arm the curd isku men and women . 30 of the batallions and they are fighting with 40yearold weapons. All right . They are fighting isis and when you ask the question is well, baghdad, well, yeah, the shia arealed government in baghdad does have a problem with us arming the kurds or yezidis or others in the region. But thats because of the influence of iran that doesnt want to see anything except shia militias operating across the region. Why should we care about the pressure from iran on baghdad . Why shouldnt we and ive got Bipartisan Legislation to arm the kurdish forces. You have 180,000 peshmerga. 180,000. You have what, 30,000 isis fighters. But as the, as the kurdish soldiers tell us, we dont have artillery. We dont have long range mortars. We dont have antitank weapons. That is why it is so hard for us to stop isis. Another question i had. Besides arming the christians and yezidis and kurds an the sunni tribes who want the take their towns back and live now in dp camps. Maybe 7 Million People now have been displaced with syria and we have no safe zone this administration has set up to protect them. They would like to go back. They would like to have weaponry and some training from the u. S. To take their villages back. But as long as were going to defer to shia militia or to baghdad and iran, how is this going to happen . And as long as were not going to forward deploy our forward observers in order to call in those air strikes, how are we going