george w. bush institute in new york city. it begins with brief remarks from former first lady, laura bush. [applause] mrs. bush: thank you all. thanks, everyone. thank you, ken. and good morning, everyone. welcome to today's the spirit of liberty. in 1944, a federal judge and judicial philosopher, judge learned hand, delivered a speech in central park to over a million people on i am an american day. his remarks spoke directly to the 150,000 people in the audience who had just been sworn in as naturalized united states citizens. he said, we've gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose. a common conviction. a common devotion. some of us have chosen america as the land of our adoption. the rest of us have come from those who did the same. what was the object that nerved us? or those who went before us, to this choice? we sought liberty, freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. behind me, just across columbus circle, is central park. 73 years later we're here to affirm that common faith that learned hand proclaimed. today we'll begin a conversation about how to strengthen our democracy at home. and help foster a new consensus that spreads freedom abroad. over the past century, the world has witnessed the transformative power of freedom around the world. in 1900 there were no true democracies. my mother was born before women had the right to vote. and only until the voting rights act of 1965 were restrictions on voting by african-americans finally lifted. conditions began to change in what has been described as waves of transformation. by the end of the 20th century, from western europe to latin america to asia and africa, societies that had been ruled by military governments or dictators were choosing democracy. and communism collapsed almost completely. millions of people around the world no longer think of themselves as subjects, but rather as citizens with rights. and that's a major accomplishment. this progress is a testament to the human spirit, to the sacrifices made by brave men and women who fight for freedom, and to those courageous individuals who continue this fight for freedom today. george and i believe that freedom is the universal desire of all people. during our time in the white house, and now at the bush institute, we've met with dozens of dissidents and democracy advocates from every part of the world. despite their differences of history, culture, language or religion, one thing is constant. a fundamental belief in the dignity of all human beings and their right to be free. these conversations have reminded me of the fragility of freedom. particularly in places where it's newly won. last year freedom house noted the 11th year of decline of freedom around the world. this is due to the use of more forceful tactics by authoritarian regimes and to a rise in global terrorism. we've seen populist and nationalist forces gain strength in democratic states. even in the united states, which remains a beacon of freedom to others, freedom house has raised concerns about signs of erosion that need attention. research shows that less than 1/3 of american students in grades four, eight and 12 are proficient in civics. the knowledge of the american constitutional system and the role of government in civil society in the lives of free people. this trend is even more concerning when you consider more than 1/3 of respondents in a recent annenberg study could not name a single right protected by the first amendment. more than 30% of people surveyed couldn't name a single branch of government. we must prepare our children and grandchildren with the tools they need to be informed, engaged citizens, who care about individual liberty and democracy. we must teach them history, we must insist they understand the government their blessed -- they're blessed to live under. we must teach our children how to listen, to show empathy, to show civility in the face of disagreement. and to overcome malice and hate. and we must model that behavior ourselves. this is the task of parents, teachers and anyone who touches the lives of young people today. and it's our patriotic duty as americans. this situation didn't develop overnight. we've been neglecting to tell our nation's story for years. it will take time and effort to repair. two years ago the bush institute released freedom matters, a supplemental curriculum for high schoolers. our goal with freedom matters is simple. to foster the next generation of americans. perhaps even a future president of the united states. to care about democracy and individual liberty at home and abroad. freedom matters is available online for anyone to download free of charge. the 16 lessons in freedom matters combine the personal stories of dissidents and democracy advocates featured in the bush institute's freedom collection, with broader universal concepts of freedom, rule of law, limited representative government, and the protection of basic human rights. this is just one of the ways the bush institute is committed to developing a consensus about the value of freedom. we're grateful to work with partners on a new initiative. i'm thrilled to announce that in collaboration with freedom house and the center for diplomacy and global engagement, we're launching a major public opinion research study, a poll that will help us learn how americans feel about their democracy and what americans believe their role is in spreading liberty abroad. the results of the poll will serve as a resource for others who share our commitment to democracy and freedom. grace jo is a fine example of someone who is committed to spreading liberty worldwide. grace came to the united states as a refugee from north korea. and she knows what life is like when freedom is absent. as an inaugural recipient of the bush institute's north korea freedom scholarship, grace wants to help other north koreans trapped beyond pyongyang's iron curtain. george and i are honored that she's here today to share her story. please join me in welcoming grace jo. [applause] >> my name is grace jo and i am an american. [applause] thank you. it is my privilege to be an american. when freedom is absent in my life, it was dark, sad, desperate and i was fearful. my grandmother, when she raised me until i was 7 years old, and she passed away. because she starved and she didn't have any food to eat. her last words were for to us leave the village and survive. also her last wish was to eat a baked potato. i was so little i was not able to provide her wish, but by the grace of god i survived. i came to america and i found freedom. my father, who was a hero to me, he tried his best to try to find a way to help us to leave north korea. however, the regime ruthlessly killed my father. his only crime was to cross the border between china and north korea and his only crime was to bring a bag of rice for his dying children. he was handcuffed on a train, he was not able to see or stand completely. he starved for many days and severely tortured. my youngest brother died because of starvation. we didn't have enough corn powder to make his porridge. he decided to leave us first. maybe because he realized that the regime, the country is not worth working to leave. when i grow up in china, i was able to eat white rice and pork and sometimes i can eat meat. the life in china was difficult but it was way better than life in north korea. however, i had to hide and run to place to place every time in china. however, we tried very hard and how much we were careful in china, we still got caught many times by chinese police and forcefully sent back to north korea. each time we were sent back to north korea, i had unforgettable memories that remind me that freedom is a treasure. i now know the blessings of liberty in the united states. i am a happy college student, which is almost the dream life. i always dreamed to go to university and study all i wanted. now i became a college student and i'm very honored and very happy to share this news. i also work at a private dental office and support my family, also i travel place to place to raise my voice for my people. all this life, i cannot imagine if i lived in north korea or in china. so i feel very blessed, again, and i'm very happy to be an american. [applause] thank you. american leadership to advance the freedom in the world is essential. because keeping people alive in the world is the most important and valuable thing in this world, i believe. because when people try to help other people, it's very difficult and they also face challenges and difficulties. when i meet them, i always tell them this. keeping a person alive is 10 times harder than you killing a person. but you are doing a good job and keep going. working together, americans have the ability to change the world. thank you. [applause] announcer: ladies and gentlemen, please welcome nikki haley, madeleine albright and condaleeza rice. [applause] ms. schnetzer: good morning. i'm the director of global initiatives of the bush institute in dallas. new york was my home from 199 to 2003. some of those were difficult days but i can tell you that the spirit of liberty never wavered here and it's alive and kicking today. so thank you for hosting us in this city today. this session is about naming threats to liberty in the world today. some are old, some are new. but this session is mostly about turning our attention as a nation to action and getting things done. and at the core it's about affirming the imperative of american leadership. to help us explore these issues, we have three distinguished leaders who really need no introduction. but for the record, i'm joined on the stage by nikki haley, the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations. madeleine albright, the 64th u.s. secretary of state, and chair of the national democratic institute for international affairs. and condaleeza rice, the 66th u.s. secretary of state. it's going to be hard for me to say madam secretary on this stage today. so i'm going to try to mix it up a little bit and make sure we know with whom we're chatting. so, shall we begin? i think we'll start with the first piece that i mentioned and simply name the threats that we have in the world today. and they're serious. nuclear weapons in north korea. the brutality of isis. russia's aggression in europe. china's aggression in asia. and more. all of these threats attack the values and institutions that have energized america's growth as a nation and have contributed to spreading the spirit of liberty abroad. ambassador haley, let's begin with you. how is the united states prioritizing these traditional threats in the world and to our nation, and what should american leadership look like, whether at the u.n. or through our alliances in order to address them? ms. haley: well, thank you and first i want to thank president and mrs. bush for having us here today. putting me between these two cool women is a highlight. thank you very much. and grace jo, you inspire us so much. you are the reason we fight for what we fight for. so thank you very much. [applause] we do have a lot of threats. but we also have to remember that leadership matters. so our biggest threats obviously, north korea, iran, isis, those are the three because we have to always make sure we're doing everything we can to protect americans and our allies. so we'll continue on that front. but then you have so many other issues. when you look at the migration problems that we have. and you see the human rights abuses that are happening, whether it's in burma, whether we're seeing what's happening in venezuela, in cuba. all of those things, they matter too. because if any government doesn't take care of their people, conflict will follow. human rights is such a clear part of what we have to do and then you have to look at china and russia as major players. russia can't necessarily win anything. they don't have a big enough military. they don't have a strong economy. so they insert themselves in every situation to create chaos. china is doing what they do best. they are business people, they are making sure they have infrastructure all over the world. so they're making sure they have a stance in there. and the united states needs to be above all of that. we need to make sure we're watching our threats, we need to make sure that we continue to lead in every aspect, and we always have to just be true to who we are as americans. ms. schnetzer: dr. rice? ms. rice: i would agree completely. you've listed the threats and the crises and i think it's clear that the international system feels not just chaotic but indeed dangerous. i'm really glad you are where you are. you're doing a terrific job. might we just begin, i think that grace jo gave us the testimony that we need at the core of what we're talking about here. i do want to say, i think the threats are more complex, they're more difficult. i think that the nature of social media and the communication makes it more difficult than when i was there or when madeleine was there. but i think we need also to recognize that the united states has done this before. it could not have looked as if we were going to get to 1989, 1990 and 1991 when the soviet union collapsed, germany was unified, it couldn't have looked that way in 1946 when the italian communists won 48% of the vote and the french communists won 46% of the vote. the question wasn't would eastern europe be communist, it was would western europe be communist? in 1948 the berlin crisis and the birth of israel and war breaks out in the middle east the next day. and the soviet union explodes nuclear weapons five years ahead of schedule in 1949. and the chinese communists win. it could not have looked as if we were going to triumph. so you have to ask what happened. and american leadership happened. the united states of america said, we're not going to return home. we're not going to be terrified by these threats. we are going to insert ourselves right in the middle of these threats. and a pledge through article five of nato, an attack upon one is an attack upon all. think of taking that pledge when the soviet union was astride half of europe. we decided we were going to stand for people who needed to live in liberty and freedom. i had the great joy of being trained by madeleine's father. joseph korbel. but the korbel family would not have survived without the united states of america. the threats are multiple. we can talk about specific tactical and strategic responses to them. but the core has to be the united states has to be confident enough to say that with our leadership we can solve the problems that we face. there is nobody else to do it. anybody else who tries to do it will not do it on the basis of our values. and if we don't work from our values, our interests will be compromised as well. ms. albright: i do think the threats are as listed. but i also agree with condi in terms of the role that the united states has to play. i do think this is an incredibly complex time, to use a diplomatic term, the world is a mess. the bottom line is that the issues are coming from everywhere. and i think grace jo's story is so moving. i'm an immigrant. the thing that i liked most of all is to give people their naturalization certificates. the first time i did it was on july 4, 2000 in monticello. i'm giving out naturalization certificates and this man, i hear him say all of a sudden, can you believe it, i'm a refugee and i just got my naturalization certificate from the secretary of state. and i went up to him and i said, can you believe that a refugee is secretary of state? and i really do think that speaks to what america is about. so welcome. i am an american. and so are you. it's great. i do think that the issues are, and i think, condi, you described them so well, in addition to that, i think we're living in a very different world. where the combination of the technology, the interconnectedness of society, have created issues where people -- it used to be that there always was a division between rich and poor but the poor didn't always know what the rich had. so the technology is something that is out there. i do think it is absolutely essential for the united states to lead. you said, i think being at the u.n., you can really see that unless the u.n. speaks, the u.s. speaks at the u.n., either at the beginning, to start the conversation, or at the end to summarize, or sometimes in the middle, nothing happens. so i am very concerned in terms of how we project our leadership, how we explain to the american people that nothing works without us. the american people that nothing works without us. and that there are certain sacrifices that have to be made to have that leadership role. but we don't do it alone. the word indispensable, there's nothing about it that says alone. it means engaged. and i think there are incredible challenges out there that you see every day, that we used to, but i really do think american leadership, and this is absolutely crucial, and how to explain it to the americans. ms. haley: i think i have an interesting story in terms of when i first got there, we obviously had issues. but the one that was really defining was when the president made the decision to hit syria. and after the chemical weapons. when he made that decision, the number of calls and emails i received from countries saying, it's so good to see america lead again, was amazing. and it was enlightening to me because they felt like we had been dormant and they really feel weaker when the u.s. doesn't lead. they want to see us speak out. they want us to weigh in. they want us to lead on the international stage. and when we do, they feel more confident. so i think you're seeing that, whether it's with japan and south korea on the north korea issue, you're seeing that whether it's with our arab partners when we're dealing with iran. all of those things, whether it's venezuela or cuba, i think it's always going to be important for to us know the power of our voice and what leadership means to the world. ms. rice: you also were a governor. and you know america in ways that those of us who hung out in the foreign policy establishment will never know it. i think you're absolutely right about how the world fields when america leads or -- feels when america leads or does not lead. i think what i hope we'll see, as the administration progresses, because it's early yet, is an overarching narrative about what america is doing. i thought that the strike on syria was essential. i think that the voice about what is going on in venezuela and the sanctions on venezuela, this is a middle income country where people can't buy medicine and food and you're going to have a refugee crisis in countries that are now stable in the and even region. and the -- andean region. and the president said, what maduro is doing is unacceptable. he's acting anti-democratically. we need, though, a narrative that says, human rights, democracy, what happens in other countries matters to us. and if we say, if we step back and say, we'll leave others to their own devices, we don't have an overarching way of explaining why what we do in syria or what we do in venezuela is important. and as a governor, you know that getting that narrative then out to south carolina or california or texas ultimately has to happen because without that, you can't sustain american engage am. ms. haley: i think that's right. you have to have not only international communication but the country needs to believe that everything's ok. they need to know there's stability. they need to know that we're leading and they need to know why. i think that's very important. that we have to always keep making sure we're in touch with americans, to let them know why we're doing what we're doing overseas. ms. schnetzer: secretary albright, i'm going turn to you for a moment. we live in a world of new challenges and some new dangers. some of them we're only beginning to find the right strategies and tools to deal with them. take, for example, the cyberthreat on our financial system and now we know on our election system. as chair of n.b.i., i have turned significant attention to this issue, particularly problems of disinformation. how do we begin to grapple with new challenges like these? ms. albright: this is part of what makes this era so different. but let me just say, i have always been interested in the role of information and political change. there's always some addition, whether it's the printing press or -- and i did my dissertation on the role of the czechoslovakia press in 1968. and then i wrote a book about e polish press under the valenca period. at that stage it was cassettes. what happened was valenca would be in one factory and they'd tape it and send it to another one. so there's always something. but what has happened now is the technological spread is just remarkable. and cyber that we don't fully understand. and what it is that those who don't like us can affect with cyber. conde was talking about nato. on the 60th anniversary of nato i was asked to lead a new strategic concept for the new secretary general. and one of the things we talked about was whether a cyber threat was an article five threat. because estonia's banking system had been brought down. at that stage people were kind of nervous saying, we don't really know the genesis and what do we do? i think now we understand that a cyber threat can bring a state down. there's also the usage of cyber and technology to undermine systems. and one of the things, as chairman of n. dimplet, i have just come from georgia and ewe cravenlt and in ukraine i was -- ukraine. and in ukraine i was briefed by people that showed what the russians had been doing to undermine the system there through fake news. and they were able to penetrate in a number of ways and take a piece of the story and turn it around. so, for instance, ukraine is a very complex country and the western part during world war ii, there were some that worked with the germans because of what the soviets had done to them. so all of a sudden there were stories in the ukrainian people about the fact that all of western ukraine were nazis and so they took pieces of information and pushed it. and i think we have to recognize that we are dealing with a president of a country, of russia, who is a k.g.b. agent. and they know how to do propaganda. and what they're doing is using information in a way to undermine the system, democracy, what they want to do is undermine the democracies in europe and separate us from europe and i do believe that they have figured out how to make our life more complicated in every single way through various new methods, tweets and bots and various aspects. and we are an open society. and they are using our openness and how do we deal with it without closing down? so it is a challenge for all of us to think through. but it has changed because we are being attacked in a new way through a new system. and it's very interesting because the russians, chairman of their joint chief, of their general staff, has in fact developed a doctrine about this. it's hybrid warfare. and their military guy has put it together in the way that they plan to reassert themselves in a variety of places in the world. ms. schnetzer: dr. rice, i'd like to ask you, as secretary albright just said, disinformation isn't new and the mindset behind this disinformation, meaning putin's world view, is not new either. is this simply a case of everything old is new again? do we need to revive sovietology? i'm a form -- one of the last sovietology students. what's different? ms. rice: i do think that this is an old story, but with very new capacity. and we have to recognize that not only does the cyberworld allow you to more rapidly influence, but it allows you to do it in a way that's mace ed, in ways -- masked, in ways that it was not masked before. i've done some work to look back, when i was a student, at what some of the soviet efforts to influence death columns and so forth, and actually they were kind of clumsy. and this isn't clumsy. this is highly sophisticated. i will say that i hope we are on top of what really happened to us. that we're really investigating it in ways that bring all of our tools, including what people in places like google and apple and facebook will know about how this is done. and then we've got to fix it. because my own view is, if they do this to us once, it's their fault. if they do this to us twice, it's ours. so a national effort to figure out what happened here and then to stop it the next time is going to be very important. madeleine said the right thing. we have to do it without shutting ourselves down, absolutely. but we need better cooperation between the private sector and the government on this. sometimes out where i live in the silicon valley, people talk about privacy of we always want to protect privacy -- we all want to protect privacy. but we also want to protect the country. and that conversation is not going on in a very effective way. there's too much suspicion between government and private sector. one other thing, i know the europeans worry a lot about privacy and some of the things that they believe american intelligence agencies may have done in their countries. but whatever differences we have with the europeans about privacy pale in comparison to the differences that we have with russia or china. so i hope that the europeans will be a part of this conversation as well. ms. haley: i find it fascinating because the russians, god bless them, they're saying, why are americans anti-russian, and why have we done the sanctions? well, don't interfere in our elections. and we won't be anti-russian. i think we have to be so hard on this. and we have to hold them accountable. and we have to get the private sector to understand they are responsible for this too. we all have to step up from this event. we can't just assume that that's going to happen again. and i will tell you that when a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. it really is. because you're making sure that the democracy shifts from what the people want to giving out that misinformation. and we didn't just see it here. you can look at france, and you can look at other countries. they are doing this everywhere. this is their new weapon of choice. and we have to make sure we get in front of it. i can tell you, our intelligence agencies are working overtime now because there's just so much when it comes to cyber threats that we have that we're having to deal with. ms. rice: i wanted to say from the silicon valley perspectivive, i think these companies are recognizing now responsibility. this is the time then for a kind of quiet national conversation. i won't say national conversation because i don't want to see it on the front pages of the "new york times." but i hope that people are reaching across these boundaries. i think there's a willingness to have that conversation that was not there even a few months ago because this russian effort has really goten people's attention -- gotten people's afention in the way nothing else did -- attention in the way nothing else did. ms. albright: i think we have to be very protective of our press. the u.s., he our democracy depends on having a free press. people that are able to go out and cover stories as they want to. and really not undermine the importance of the press in this country. because we are an example. by the way, one of the things just generally in terms, mrs. bush, you were talking about freedom house and what's been happening in other places, i think that what's happened with n.d.i., when we're out abroad talking to people about the importance of compromise and the parliaments working with their executive branch and how they can work better, and they look at me and they say, you mean, like you guys at this point? so we need to remember that we're an example with our press, with our institutional structures. i think that's very important. ms. schnetzer: let's turn to part two and that is coming back to the question about the imperative of american leadership. actually it is no question. so i recently saw an email exchange where someone quipped that in washington, d.c., there are no less than eight dozen conversations going on right now about the future of the liberal democratic order. so we're going to start another one here today. secretary albright, what do you think about this sense now years in the making that the liberal democratic order formed in the wake of world war ii is at risk? is that order still relevant? what's the role of american leadership today? ms. albright: i think the order is definitely still rel vanlt. because i believe -- relevant. because i believe that we're all the same and people want to be living in societies where they can make their decisions and be respected for them. and i never liked the fact that people say people in x country are not ready for democracy. everybody is. it evolves in different ways. and i think -- i have to say, i always sound so kind of sentimental, but i'm so proud to be an american. because of the things that we've done and especially if you've come to this country, because of wanting to live in freedom. and i think that the question, however, is, how do we explain what we're doing? and how important it is to talk about the resiliency of democracy. and that the strength of democracy is that we can correct our mistakes. but it does require us to have honest conversations. and to say, ok, for whatever reason, one election turns out one way, why did it happen, what was the interference by the russians, what was it that we missed about how the liberal order needs to operate? and in fact that it is based on respect for other people's views. and so i think it's more important than ever for the united states to act in a leadership role on this. and i really would like to thank president and mrs. bush for doing. this because i think it's very important meaning -- because i think it's a very important -- this. because i think it's a very important message and i'm very glad to be a part of your system here. ms. schnetzer: thank you. ambassador haley, you've been at the united nations for nine months now. the u.n. was formed in response to world war ii and its charter affirms human freedom and rule of law and aspires to progress and prosperity. does the liberal democratic order have traction at the u.n. today? and how do you assert that? ms. haley: what i've tried to do at the united nations was just give a strong voice to meveraget i think the biggest surprise that -- to meveraget i think the biggest surprise i saw -- america. i think the biggest surprise i saw were the ambassadors at the u.n. are not just figures that were sent. they each are the most trusted person that their president knew they could send and they have their direct ear. so negotiations can actually happen at the u.n. i can go and try and negotiate something and they literally can get on the phone with their president and we can start moving foreign policy. so what i have found is the united nations is the center of the universe for every other country. and so what my job is, to show the american people why it matters to us. what the role of the united nations can be. how we can make it more effective. and i think what we found is we're showing strength at the united nations through the power of our voice, but also through the negotiations and then communicating what we want to see happen. the u.s. has led and we're always -- will always lead. but if you look at the rest of the world, as much as we worry about the threats and the chaos that seems to be there, it's still in a better place than it was years ago. so it's improving slowly over time. it's just different issues and different threats that come up. so i think it's important for us to use every avenue, whether it's nato, whether it's the united nations, whether it's any of those, and always make sure that we are not doing things alone, we're doing them together with other countries. but we're showing the power of our voice in the process. ms. albright: i have to say, you just said something, which is there are people who think that the ambassadors at the u.n. just go up and go to receptions and do nothing. [laughter] and the bottom line is, it is the opposite. i found when i got there that the people, either they were high level people in their own governments, and they acted from that perspective. and they -- everybody works really hard. you see more foreigners than any other diplomat and being able to do that is so important, and america's voice. but there are receptions, but they are working receptions. [laughter] ms. haley: they're fun receptions. ms. schnetzer: those of us at washington never thought that. the liberal order -- ms. rice: the liberal order, i think, is actually a bit in trouble. i think the principles are still extremely important. and so what was it? we believed in an international economy that was not zero-sum game. , so the protectionism of the period between the first world war and the second world war had led to a great depression. beggar thy neighbor trading policies. and so the -- the people who found themselves in leadership after world war ii said not again. and they believed that with the free trading system, we could build prosperity for everybody. not a zero-sum game. then there wouldn't be conflict and competition over resources and markets. we would compete. but it wouldn't be conflictual. secondly, they believed in free people. we forget that when germany and japan were rebuilt, people feared that germany and japan would again rise and threaten their neighborhoods. so what did we stay in no, if they're rebuilt as democracies, democracies don't fight one another and there's something called the democratic peace that political scientists have demonstrated. democracies don't fight one another. particularly certain democracies. and third they counted on american military power to protect the whole thing. now, you know, there are challenges to that. there are questions about whether the benefits of free trade have been evenly spread. in our economy. that's a good question. but we have to recognize that the system really did create an awful lot of prosperity. so without throwing the baby out with the bath water, we have to find a way to reaffirm that. but i think what the international order needed most was patience. and that's what i most see lacking. it took a long time to defeat the soviet union. but we did it on the basis of our own model prosperity draw, and on the basis of our values and we stayed the course through multiple administrations of different parties we stayed the course. i always use the following example. people say, well, you can't do anything about the russian annexation of crimea. maybe not in the short term. but for more than 40 years we refused to accept the forcible incorporation of the baltic states into the soviet union. as a matter of fact, i was the specialist of soviet affairs for president george h.w. bush. and i had a stamp on my desk and whenever you mentioned lithuania, latvia and estonia, you stamped it with the united states does not recognize the forcible incorporation of the baltic states into the soviet union. we stood for what was right, even if we couldn't do anything about it plide. and when the soviet union collapsed, we never had better friends than estonia, latvia and lithuania. so it takes patience, it takes recognizing that democracy takes time. who are we as americans to say, well, they just can't get it right? as i stood in front of that portrait of ben franklin as president bush swore me in, i had to remember that the first american constitution counted my ancestors as 3/5 of a man. and yet there i was, taking an oath of office to that constitution in front of old ben franklin, sworn in by a jewish woman supreme court justice, ruth bader ginsburg, because the values and the institutions eventually got that piece of it more right than not. and so this democratic effort is a long-term effort. sometimes i think one of your hardest problems is explaining to the american people and maybe even to the administration, this can be hard in stride, that hese things take time. >> these things take time. they've also take bipartisanship. ms. schnetzer: there was a sense during the cold war of bipartisanship in our u.s. foreign policy. certainly there were points of disagreement. and sometimes big ones. but there was a certain unity of vision and continuity. was that real? sometimes people say that wasn't real. was that real? and can it live on today? and how? i'll turn that -- ms. albright: i believe it was real and it needs to be. you can imagine that i worked very closely with chairman jesse helms. and it was very important that we did that. it was through that that we were title of the bill have a bipartisan foreign policy, expansion of nato, any different of things. i now am counting on bipartisanship in terms of funding democracy programs. sindly -- lindsey graham is my best friend. and i think that it has been very important to make sure that the budget of the state department and the various programs are funded by part -- bipartisanly because it is about american leadership. i think that it is important and i've just done a lot of work with steve hadley and i believe in bipartisanship. and it is essential. it is what america's about. which is why when we go abroad and we deal with opposition parties, to tell them that there are various issues that they have to work on together. ms. haley: and i think it's bipartisan now. i think if you look at the way both parties strongly support what we're doing with north korea, and how we move forward in protecting it, the way that they look at our military and making sure that we're defending our military, building up our military, all of those things, what we've done with venezuela. i mean, there's a lot of -- the focus on isis in syria and iraq and how we've been able to defeat them and how we're moving forward on all of those things, there is a lot of bipartisan support and i can tell new reference to the funding, what we've tried to do is really talk about what works and what doesn't work. what can we improve on, what's absolutely necessary, and we can build off of that. and what is just not working? we just got of unesco. you look at unesco and it wasn't defining america's values. they had assad on their human rights committee. that in itself, you look at that, an anti-israel bias and all of these other things and you're saying wise are taxpayer dollars going toward that? -- saying, why are taxpayer dollars going toward that? we couldn't justify it anymore. because a deal happen, whether it's in a previous administration or not, it doesn't mean a previous administration was right or wrong. because you have to go back and re-evaluate every program and say, is it still working? and that shouldn't be seen as an offense to a previous administration. it should be seen as america moving and changing and we have to be able to change with it in order to keep us prosperous. ms. rice: i agree with the need to make sure things are working. the american taxpayer has to be assured that the tax dollars are being well spent. i would say that when you take on what's not working, always affirm what is. so one of the questions, i think it's out there, the sort of the elephant in the room, is will you affirm the things that clearly have worked? so if you ask most americans, how much of the national budget goes to foreign assistance, they'll give you wild numbers. 20%, 25%. we know it's either less than 1% or 1.5%, depending on what you count. now, if you look at a couple of signature programs that president bush launched and that president obama either kept or extended, the president's emergency plan for aids leaf, everybody says worldwide, we saved millions and millions and millions of lives. if you look at global health issues like women's cancer, we've saved lives. malaria, we've saved lives. if you look at the millennium challenge where we're saying to chris, you have got to be governing wisely -- countries, you have got to be governing wisely, fighting corruption, investing in your people or you will not get a grant from the united states of america, and oh, by the way, we'll take it away if you stop doing that, as we did with nicaragua, that's something that could be affirmed tomorrow because there's plenty of testimony about how it's worked. so i've been a budget officer. and as secretary of state, i paid a lot of attention to the state budget. and made people defend those programs every year. but it's important when you're saying, we're going to stop doing some things, unesco, you won't get an argue frmentmerks but you have to affirm the things that have worked too. because when you lead with what doesn't work, that's all people hear at home and abroad. so i would just hope that it could be recalibrated to talk about all the things that work. if i could just mention one other thing. when we talk about democracy promotion, i prefer the word democracy support. because people think that when we say democracy support or democracy promotion, we mean iraq and afghanistan. now, i would never have gone to the president of the united states and said, you know, mr. president, we ought to use american military power to bring democracy to iraq. that wasn't the idea. we had a security issue, perhaps with not as good intelligence as we would like, maybe it wasn't the security issue that we thought it was. we certainly had a security issue in afghanistan, where those safe havens were being used to attack the united states and after 9/11 we had to get rid of them. so we had security issues. once we had overthrown those dictatorships, we then had to say, what are we going to leave behind? and we believed that we were better to try to help the iraqis and the afghans build stable democracies. by the way, i would still rather be the iraqi than syrian today. now, most of democracy support and promotion, though, isn't that complicated. it is helping women's groups to find their voice in kuwait. it is helping people to do election support and monitoring, which n.d.i. and i.r.i., the republican side of it, do in places that are having elections and want to make sure that they're free and fair. it's supporting a free press. it's supporting civil society. i met a woman in russia a few years ago when we were there, a woman who was of limited sight. and she recognized that the soviet union in russia had a long history of just tossing disabled people on the streets. ecause they didn't somehow exemplify the greatness of a country. she went to vladimir putin and said, we've got to be better than that. and usaid supported her little nongovernmental organization, doing support for disabled people in russia. that's what we do. and i hope that as we think about what doesn't work, we really look at what does. ms. haley: i think it's a perfect example, if you look back at the africa policy during the bush administration. i'm going to africa on saturday, the president's sending me. because we want to build it back up to what it was. it has fallen and our african friends feel that. we look at pepfar and all of those programs where we went and helped them build up their economies and all those things, we want to get that back to where it is. but i think that there really needs to be a clarification on the budget situation, with what happened. i was a governor. and when you have an executive budget, you lay out ideas and you lay out the direction you want to go. you don't expect it to be set in stone. so when the president laid out this budget, it was just his conversation point. he was starting a conversation. and the conversation he wanted to start was, we need to build up our military. we need to update our nuclear programs. we need to make sure that we are prepared to take on any threat that america comes. the fact that the state department was brought down to a bottom level was not the fact, official gut the state department in the process t, this is my priority -- process, it was, this is my priority. what we told them was, look when it comes to peacekeeping issue, these are very important, we're doing these. but we're also looking at the peacekeeping issues. the budget we've been spending 28% in funged the u.n., but what we saw was -- funding the u.n., but what we saw was, every challenge that came up, they were throwing more peacekeepers at it but they were never checking to see if they were trained. they didn't make sure they had the equipment. if we're going to do something, do it smart do it right. and so we've cut off $700 million of the peacekeeping budget at the u.n., but we didn't cut helping people. we made them smarter and better. we made the quality of those programs good. and so the same with every program at the state department. what i'm trying to do is bridge between the president and congress on, ok, what is really working that we don't want to gut, and what is frivolous that we do want to cut? i think that conde's right, we need to make sure we're always talking about what works and what's really good. and i think a perfect example was you saw the united nations and you saw a massive u.s. representation. you saw the president and the vice president and the first lady, you saw general macmaster, you saw general kelly, you saw so many of the u.s. delegation going because they see value now in the united nations. they see what it can do. they see the meetings that can happen and the americas that can happen. so i think this is -- and the negotiations that can happen. so i think this is a learning process for the administration as much as it's a learning process for the public. but i think we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt as we go forward. ms. albright: i think you're going to see the following problem. if funding for the united nations is cut, and you go and try to work on reform, you're not going to be listened to because you don't have the leverage. it happened to me. because congress unilaterally cut the amount of money that was going to go to the u.n. it led our best friends, the british, in the general assembly to deliver a line they had waited more than 200 years to say. representation without taxation. and so it's very hard to have any leverage. [laughter] so that's part of it. the other part, i do believe that we need a strong military. but the difference between the budget for the pentagon, over $600 billion, and for the state department, under $50 billion at the moment, is crazy. we do not have a lot of tools. and it is necessary to have a functioning diplomatic service. and to have people, if you're going to talk about north korea, to have people that are really out there and president trump is going on a very complicated trip at the moment. and there are not enough people in the diplomatic system to be supportive. so i'm worried about that. and i also -- i have to say this. i agree with you. i don't like democracy promotion. i think you can't impose democracy. that's an oxymoron. what you have to do is have a support system and what i'm very proud of that n.d.i. does is elections, but also support for the rule of law, civil society, getting women into office all over the world. by the way, the national democratic institute and the republican institute was created by ronald reagan. and so the issue is, and nation building is not a four-letter word. i think the boment line is, it is -- bottom line is, it is really the advantage of the country that we're doing, it but it's better for america. because we will, as you said, conde, democracies don't fight each other. i'm very proud of something we didn't did which was to create the community of democracies -- we did which was to create the community of democracies. to meet and share best practice and try to to figure out how to support each other. those are the kind of tools that are out there that are not -- i know it's new. i know what it's like to take over. but i think that there are things out there that the trump administration could really use to strengthen america by strengthening our friends and allies. ms. haley: i think congress has been helpful. because i think what they've tried to do is really see the fact that that conversation was happening. and say, ok, how can we do this? so on the peacekeeping, what you're going to see is, it was at 28%. u.s. law says it's supposed to be at 25%. so i've asked them to move it to 25%. but it's still going to be at 25% and that's fair. we need to make sure that we keep things fair and in a good place. so we're not going to see things gutted. we're not. that's just the reality of it. because we can't and the president doesn't want to. but what we do want to say, is can we have a conversation -- is, can we have a conversation from everything we're doing internationally, and make sure it's still in the best interest of the united states? and i think that's what you're seeing us try to do. ms. schnetzer: in the few minutes we have left, i want to turn to one of the very important audiences for this conversation and this entire event and that is the american people. we've often been described as reluctant internationalists. i'd like to talk about, how do we make the case to the american people today, for a strong, active u.s. leadership in the world, what are the arguments and proof points that need to be different? and maybe we'll use one example, about free trade. ambassador haley, i'll start with you. as governor of south carolina you were a champion of global economic engagement. some data indicates that 1/4 of the state's work force is now supported by global interprice. how do we communicate to the american people that active trade and strong engagement have positive benefits for the country as a whole, but as individuals and as families? and what can we do better to support those who are adversely affected by globalization, by changes in technology? we'll start with you, but i'd like to ask that of the entire panel. ms. haley: the people of south carolina are overjoyed. we now have five international tire companies. we have three international auto companies. and what you see is when we manufacture, when we get other -- when we get companies to come into the country and manufacture, everyone wins. our economies get better, we have more people going to work. we see everything start to improve. and so as i recruited companies in, south carolinians just felt the strength of what was happening. and i think americans know that. i think what they want to see is, yes, we want to see more businesses do business in our country. but they just don't want to see us as being taken for granted. and i think in a lot of cases like south carolina, you can talk to them and they'll tell you it's absolutely worth it. the way i saw it as governor was, either we can create the jobs in south carolina or those jobs are going overseas. and i'd much rather have them in south carolina than not. and that was the goal of recruiting international companies in and getting them to go and help us with our economy. ms. schnetzer: how do we create that in other states? ms. rice: first of all, i agree with you completely. my home state, alabama, is another state that is very dependent. actually the german car makers there are the most prolific in terms of employers, other than a couple of local companies. the problem is if you start to talk about renationalization, though, other people might decide to renationalize. so you can't say on one hand, let's bring those fact iries back from mexico or -- factories back from mexico or canada to the united states because we're going to produce here, and then tell the germans, oh, produce in alabama. so the free trade narrative can't be broken into pieces. we want to have foreign companies here, but we don't actually want to have our plan plants in foreign countries. that's a little bit of the confusion right now. trying to say to the american people, the reason the system works is that people can locate their production in various places and we're getting our fair share of that in places like south carolina and alabama. but if i can make just one other point. you ask, what do we have to say to the american people? we do have to recognize, i'm a believer in globalization and free trade. but there are places that have not benefited. and most of it's automation. that is true. but it is also true that there are people who don't have the skills to keep up with the globalizing economy. it is absolutely true that it is absolutely true that there are people who look out a globalization and say they are a threat. i will make three quick points. i know you are going to have a panel on the domestic side but i am an advocate or. that is really my procession -- profession. the education issue is a national security problem. second, don't have 18 and 19-year-olds go to college come out with debt and no marketable skills. do something about 35-year-old who have to be retrained. what is happening is americans are not so confident anymore that they can compete in this globalizing economy. we used to have supreme confidence that if the economic rules were fair we would win our fair share. i think the president's right to look at where the rules are not fair. he is right to look at some of the practices that china engages in. that, let'sdoing remember that if america's prepared, america can compete. we have really benefited from a system in which we were allowed to compete. ms. albright: i find it very hard to talk about trade as a zero-sum game. it has to be reciprocal and fair and all that. what i am troubled by his we're asking people all the time, will was me, america is in trouble, and everyone is taking advantage of us. i think that is not helping. first of all it is not true. and second it is not the kind of attitude we need to have. -- ie to say the following am also a walkie internationalist. because i was his chief legislative assessment -- assistant i became the empress of -- -- sent me toaine maine to talk to these people. the interesting part was whether it was a walmart or something up there, they bought cheaper goods. the question was if they are only workers are also consumers. because they want to have that kind of change. i do think it has to be reciprocal. the -- we cannot tear down all the trade agreements. i happen to have been in mexico about three months ago. there was a change of mind in terms of what was happening on nafta. partnersonfused our and friends in terms of the direction that we want to go in in trade. part of the problem has to do with automation. that has nothing to do with trade. i agree on the educational issue. we cannot keep thinking that the united states is pathetic and that we are in trouble. we are not in trouble. we need to lead and we can lead for a position of strength with partners. ms. schnetzer: would you like to respond? ms. haley: first of all, i will never say this country is pathetic and i would never want anyone to think that. i am the daughter of parents who came here and reminded us how blessed we are to live in this country. i am the wife of a military veteran who fought in afghanistan. i won us to all be very proud of our country. but i do think when we have the treaty agreements there is nothing wrong with going back and looking at them. there is nothing wrong with see if we can make them better. i don't see us tearing up any deals. if that was the case we would have done already. i do see the fact that this is an administration that said, can we make it better? that's the overall theme. they are constantly saying can we make it better. in some cases we cannot make it better but in a lot of cases we can. condebsolutely agree with in that education is key. i talked in south carolina. one of the companies we recruited was international bicycle company from china. town ofto this small just a few hundred people that had not seen any sort of business in years. they suddenly saw that. they saw what it did. they saw the greatness of it. those are the stories we have to tell. ms. rice: the other reason you have to be careful about the rhetoric as you are looking -- there can be a reaction in other countries, too. speakmes we only think we to our audience and they do not hear it abroad. places like mexico say if that's the game we are going to play, i can play that better than you could ever play it. it's having an effect of i think reinforcing -- i call them the four horses of the apocalypse. they tend to ride together. when we use that language, even for very good reasons, but sometimes we deem you to look at the agreements. we have to remember that others reacted not necessarily ways that will benefit us. ms. schnetzer: while the clock tells me we are out of time. i am so grateful for the three of you for your leadership. [applause] let's get together sometime. i would love to hear your stories. [applause] announcer: just ahead, more from the george w. bush institute democracy. the house works on 2018 federal spending and raising the debt limit, during funding expires february 8. also working on a package for respond tolief to the recent hurricanes and wildfires. and continuing work on a number of judicial nominations. later in the wii, senators expected to debate and vote on the tax reform plan. live coverage on c-span. live coverage on c-span. most of last week debating the tax reform bill. on wednesday we will show key moments from the committee markup which passed out of committee on a partyline vote. that is 1:30 p.m. wednesday on c-span2. a consumer advocate organization recently found high lead levels in some fidget spinners. u.s. public interest group education fund will release their annual report on 20 safety on tuesday. watch live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span two. political -- live coverage from the hudson institute starts at noon eastern also on c-span2. morneau now from the george w. onh institute forum challenges to freedom and democracy. coming up we hear from former housing secretary mel martinez, jean case of the case foundation, jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center, and wes moore of the robin hood foundation. the event was held at the lincoln center in new york city. >> and thank you to our panelists for being here. i will introduce them in a moment.

Related Keywords

Latvia , Myanmar , Alabama , United States , Afghanistan , China , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Syria , Russia , Nicaragua , Ukraine , Mexico , South Carolina , Kuwait , Andean Region , Argentina General , Argentina , Poland , New York , Pyongyang , P Yongyang Si , North Korea , Georgia , Japan , Iran , Texas , Washington , Cuba , Togo , Germany , Estonia , Iraq , Israel , Monticello , France , Venezuela , Berlin , Polish , Americans , America , Burma , Chinese , Soviets , Russian , Germans , Afghans , Ukrainian , Iraqi , Soviet , German , Syrian , Russians , American , Wes Moore , Mel Martinez , Nikki Haley , Madeleine Albright , Lindsey Graham , George W Bush , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Joseph Korbel , Ronald Reagan , Steve Hadley , Jeffrey Rosen , Vladimir Putin , Ben Franklin ,