Good afternoon and welcome. My name is eugene meyer and im the president of the Federalist Society. I want to mention to logistical things. One, after the speech, there will be questions on the microphones on either side. We ask these the federal society members. We would appreciate that. The second thing is at the end of the speech, we ask you as a favor to remain in your seats a of minutes while the ambassador leaves. The ambassador ees. It is our honor to be hosting ambassador john bolton, he has at yale ies that college and Yale Law School he followed a different path from some of those graduates. Hes had a dits to a distinguished career made up very significantly of public service. He has served under four different president ial administrations. He had positions ranging from assistant attorney general, assistant secretary of state for International Organizations, under secretary of state for arms control, then ambassador to the u. N. , and now, he is serving as the 27th advisor to the National Security council. And i should say on that, i am taking the number 27 from wikipedia, and it may be wrong. In addition to all of his very distinguished public service, i will not spend the time to go through it all, he, in addition to the amount of time at the American Enterprise institute, in his background at yale there was a link to the Federalist Society before the Federalist Society existed. E was a student of both jack robert bjork and they were both professors at the time and ralph winter and had done some distinguished early work in is legal career as well. In one of the major cases that went to the supreme court. A wonderfully distinguished career. We are honored to have him. Without further ado, please welcome ambassador john bolton. [applause] mr. Bolton thank you for your kind introduction and for the invitation to be here today. It is a real honor. An enormous difference in american law and the legal profession. As jean mentioned, i was in law school and it was a pretty small crowd. At the time a was there, bob was nominated to be solicitor eneral by president nixon. Ralph said, looking at that nomination that the first sentence in the New York Times story the next morning should be, yesterday, president nixon appointed as his new solicitor general 20 of all the conservatives at yale law chool. So obviously, times have changed due in no small part to the ederalist society. I am really grateful for the opportunity. Im here to make a major announcement on u. S. Policy toward the International Criminal court or icc. After years of effort by a selfstyled global government advocate, the supranational tribunal that could supersede National Sovereignties are then directly prosecute individuals for alleged war crimes was greed in 1998. For proponents, this supranational independent institution has always been critical to their efforts to overcome perceived failure of nationstates. Even those with strong constitutions, representative government, and the rule of law. In theory, the icc holds perpetrators accountable for their crimes, provides justins for victims, and in practice, the court has been ineffective, on accountable, and indeed outright dangerous. Moreover, this is, my friends who follow me around. I apologize for the background noise. But there we go. Yelling in the background] mr. Bolton the central aim was to constrain the United States. The objective was not limited to targeting, u. S. Service members, but rather americass Political Leadership and its relentless determination to keep our ountry secure. The icc was formally established in july of 2002 following the entry of the statute. In may of 2002, however, president george w. Bush authorized the United States to unsigned the statute because it was fundamentally illegitimate. The icc and its prosecutor had been granted potentially enormous, on accountable powers, and alongside a numerous other glaring and significant flaws, the International Criminal Court Concert to sit constituted an assault on a custom usual rights of the American People and the sovereignty of the United States. In no uncertain terms, the icc was created as a freewheeling Global Organization claiming jurisdiction over individuals without their consent. According to the statute, the icc has the authority to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. It claims automatic surest action meaning that it can prosecute individuals even if their own governments have not recognized, signed, or ratified the treaty. Thus, american soldiers, politicians, civil surgeons, servants, and even all of those sitting in the room today, are subject to the courts prosecution. A party to their statute, should they suspect you of committing a crime within a state or territory drawing the treaty. To protect American Service members the icc, in 2002, Congress Passed the American Servicemembers protection act, which at the time, some dubbed he invasion act. This law, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support, authorizes the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including force, to shield our servicemembers in the armed forces and our allies from prosecution. It prohibits several forms of cooperation between the United States and the court. I was honored to lead the u. S. Efforts internationally to protect americans from the courts unacceptable overreach, starting with unsigning the statute. We next launched a Global Diplomatic Campaign to protect americans from being handed over to the icc. We negotiated over 100 binding Bilateral Agreements to prevent other countries from delivering u. S. Personnel to the icc. It remains one of my proudest achievements. Unfortunately, we were not able to Reach Agreement with every nation in the world, particularly those in the European Union where the global overnance dogma is strong. Last fall, our worst predictions about the professed and overbroad prosecutorial powers, were confirmed. In november of. 17, the icc prosecutor requested authorization to investigate alleged war crimes committed by u. S. Service members and intelligence professionals during the war in afghanistan. An investigation either afghanistan or any other state party to the statute requested. Literally any day now, the icc may announce the start of a formal investigation against these american patriots who voluntarily signed on to go into harms way to protect our nations and homes and families in the wake of the 9 11 attacks. [yelling continues in thebackground] mr. Bolton the i. C. C. Prosecutor has asked to investigate these americans for alleged abuse, perhaps more, an utterly unfounded and unjustified investigation. Today on the eve of september 11, i wanted to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president of the United States. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this llegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the icc. We will provide no assistance to the icc. And we certainly will not join the icc. [applause] mr. Bolton we will let the icc die on its own. For all intents and purposes, the icc is already dead to us. The United States races this policy on five principal concerns about the court or purported authority and its effectiveness. First, the International Criminal court unacceptably threatens american sovereignty and u. S. National security interests. The prosecutor in the claims essentially unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute individuals regardless of whether their countries acceded to the rome statute. The court in no way derives these powers from any of the parties. Instead, it is an unprecedented effort to vest power in a suture met supernatural body without the consent of nationstates or the individuals over which it points to exert jurisdiction. It certainly has no consent whatever from the United States. As americans, we fully understand that consent to the government is a prerequisite to true legitimacy. We reject such a flagrant violation of our National Sovereignty. To make matters worse, the Court Structure is contrary to fundamental american principles, including checks and balances on authority, to the separation of owers. Our founders believed that a division of authority among three separate ranches of government would provide the maximum level of protection for individual liberty. The International Criminal court melds two of these ranches ogether. In the i. C. C. Structure, the executive branch, the office of the prosecutor is an orbegan of the court. The framers of our constitution considered such a melding of powers except all for our own government and we should not ccept it in the icc. Other governments, but not the United States. There are no mechanisms to hold the court and its personnel accountable or curtail its unchecked powers when required. Icc proponents argue that corrupt or ineffective judges can be removed by a two thirds vote of parties to their own statute and that a prosecutor can be removed by a majority ote however, i ask everyone in the room today, would you consign the fate of american citizens to a committee of other nations, including venezuela and the democratic republic of the congo, entities that are not even states, like the Palestinian Authority . You would not appear i would not. This administration will not. The icc is an Assembly States party and cannot supervise the court anymore than the United Nations General Assembly cant supervise bureaucracy. Recent allegations of mismanagement and corruption among icc personnel make this perfect clear. The first prosecutor elected by the States Parties attempted to protect a highranking Government Official from prosecution, assisted a businessman with links to violations in libya, and shared confidential Court Documents with angelina jolie. I cannot imagine why. [laughter] r. Bolton in short, the criminal court unacceptably places power in the hands of an authority. It is antithetical to our nations ideals. This organization is the founders Worst Nightmare come to life. An Elegant Office building in a faraway country that determines the guilt or innocence of american citizens. Second, the International Criminal court claims jurisdiction over crimes it has disputed over ambiguous efinitions, exacerbating the courts unfettered powers. Definitions of crimes, especially of aggression, are vague and subject to wide ranging interpretation by the icc. Had the icc existed during the second world war, americas enemies would no doubt be eager o find the United States and its allies culpable for war crimes for the bombing campaigns over germany and japan. The crime of aggression could become a precap pretext for politically motivated investigations. Was the mission of u. S. Navy seals that killed Osama Bin Laden pakistan a crime of aggression . What about the u. S. Coalition airstrikes in syria to protect innocent children from chemical weapons . How about u. S. Military xercises with allies and partners around the world . Or israels actions to defend itself on countless occasions . In the years ahead, the court is likely only to further expand its jurisdiction to prosecute ambiguously defined crimes. In fact, a side event at the assembly of States Parties recently concluded a Panel Discussion on the possibility of adding echo side, environmental or climate related crimes, to the list of offenses in the ourts jurisdiction. Here, we come directly to the unspoken but powerful agenda of the iccs supporters. The hope that its essentially political nature in defining crimes such as aggression, will intimidate you u. S. Decisionmakers and others in democratic societies. We know the icc already claims authority over crimes committed in States Parties even if the accused are not from nations that have acquiesced to their own statute. The next obvious state is to complain cut claim complete universal conviction, the ability to prosecute anyone anywhere for vague crimes identified by the bureaucrats. Third, the International Criminal court fails in its fundamental objective to deter and punish atrocity crimes. Since it sucks inception in 2002, the court has spent over 1. 5 billion while obtaining only eight convictions. The dismal record is hardly a deterrent to dictators and dust this determined to commit atrocities p despite ongoing investigations, atrocities continue to occur in the democratic republic of congo, sudan, libya, syria, and many other nations. The hard man of history are not deterred by fantasies of International Law such as the icc. The idea that faraway bureaucrats and wrote judges would strike fear into the hearts of the likes of saddam hussein, hiller, stalin, and gadhafi, is preposterous and even cruel. Time and again, history has proven that the only deterrent to evil and atrocity is what Franklin Roosevelt once called the righteous might of the United States and its llies. A power that perversely could beast threatened by the iccs vague definition of aggression crimes. We see paradoxically that the dangers of the International Criminal court stem from both its manifest weakness. Fourth. The International Criminal court s superfluous given that domestic u. S. Judicial systems already hold americans to highest legal and ethical standards. U. S. Servicemens in the field must operate fully in accordance with laws of Armed Conflict and the u. S. Takes swift action to hold perpetrators accountable. We are a democratic nation with the most robust system of accountability and transparency in the world. We believe in the rule of law and we uphold it. We dont need the i. C. C. To tell us our duty or secondguess our decisions. I. C. C. Proponents argue that robust domestic judicial systems are fully consistent with the urt because of the socalled complementary principal. Icc proponents argue robust to master judicial systems are fully consistent with the court because of the socalled complementarity principle. According to its supporters, the icc functions only as a court of last is last resort. If nations took appropriate steps to prosecute perpetrators of crime, the icc would take no further action, they say. Yet there is little precedent for the icc to determine how to apply the principle. How is the icc prosecuting a judge when the principal has een met . Under what circumstances were the ics he be satisfied . How much sensitive documentation with the ever toiling bureaucrats, demand, from a sovereign government . Here is the key question. Who has the last word . If it is the icc, the United States would manifestly be subordinated to the court. That is an acceptable. If the icc prosecutor were to take the koppelman tear he principle seriously, the court would never pursue an investigation against american citizens because we know the u. S. Judicial system is more vigorous and fair and effective han the icc. The icc prosecutors november 27 request that i mentioned earlier proves this notion and thus the principle of compliment, is completely farcical. The icc prosecutor will pursue what investigations he chooses to pursue based upon his own political motives and without any serious application of the clementarity principle. Fifth. The International Criminal Courts Authority has been sharply criticized and rejected by most of the world. Today, more than 70 nations representing two thirds of the worlds population and over 70 of the worlds armed forces, are not members of the icc. Several african nations have recently withdrawn or threatened to withdraw their membership, citing the disproportionate number of arrest warrants against africans. To them, the icc is the latest european neocolonial colonial enterprise to infringe upon their sovereign rights. Israel has sharply criticized the icc. While the court welcomes the membership of the socalled state of palestine, it has threatened israel, a liberal, democratic nation, with investigations into its actions in the west bank and gaza to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks. There has also been the suggestion that the icc will investigate israeli construction of housing projects on the west bank. The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, israel. Today, reflecting congressional concern with palestinian attempts to prompted icc investigation of israel, the department of state will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office here in washington, d. C. [applause] mr. Bolton as president reagan recognized in this context, the executive has the right to decide the kind of foreign relations, if any, that the United States will maintain. The Trump Administration will not keep the office open. When the palestinians refused to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with israel, the United States supports a direct and robust Peace Process and we will not allow the icc or any other organization to constrain israels right to elfdefense. An International Court so deeply divisive and so deeply flawed, can have no legitimate claim to jurisdiction over the citizens of sovereign nations that have projected its authority. Americans can rest assured that the United States will not provide any form of legitimacy or support to the court. We will not cooperate, engage, fund, or assist the icc in any way. The president will not allow american citizens to be prosecuted by foreign bureaucrats, and he will not allow other nations to dictate our means of selfdefense. We take this position not because we oppose justice for the victims of atrocities but because we believe the perpetrators should face legitimate, effective, and accountable prosecution for their crimes by Sovereign National governments. In april of 2016, it was right here at the Mayflower Hotel that President Trump gave his first major foreignpolicy address during his campaign. At that time, candidate trump promised he would always put the interests of the American People and American Security above all lse. T is fitting today that we reassert this fundamental promise within these walls. This afternoon we also make a new pledge to the American People. If the court comes after us, israel, or other u. S. Ally well, will not sit quietly. We will take following steps among others in accordance with the American Servicemembers protection act, and our other legal authorities. We will negotiate even more binding, Bilateral Agreements, to prohibit nations from surrendering to the icc, and we will ensure that those who have already entered are honored by our governments. We will respond against the icc and the personnel to the extent permitted i law and dan prosecutors from entering the United States, fashion their funds in the u. S. Financial system, and we will prosecute them in the u. S. Criminal system and we will do the same for any company or state that assists in i. C. C. Investigation of any americans. We will take note if any countries cooperate with the United States and allies, and we ill remember the cooperation when u. S. Foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels. We will consider taking steps in the Un Security Council tuesday to constrain the court sweeping powers, not exercise jurisdiction over americas and the nationals of our allies that have not ratified the statute. This administration will fight back to protect american constitutionalism, our sovereignty and our citizens pay or no committee of foreign nations will tell us how to overn ourselves. And defend our freedom. We will stand up to the u. S. For the u. S. Constitution abroad just as at home, and in every decision we make, we will put the interests of the American People first. Thank you very much. [applause] mr. Bolton thank you. Hank you for very much. I hope that is clear to everybody. [laughter] mr. Bolton and now, i would be happy to answer questions. I think in fairness to the society, were asking for members to take the floor first, wherever the microphones are. Thank you. My question goes to this threat towards United States nationals y the International Court. The prosecutor has focused on persons alleged to be responsible for holding responsibility of the forces. And as you know with afghanistan, the primary subject matter is allegations of u. S. Nationals engaging in torture. To what extent are you also concerned about this mode of liability and aiding and abetting crimes . Taylor was, for example, prosecuted by the u. N. Court for aiding and abetting crimes ommitted not in liberia. Of course, it raises the question of, to what extent the prosecution could also pursue u. S. Nationals for aiding and abetting conduct by the Afghan Government forces, other forces n afghanistan. He looked to a case like columbia for example, where Government Forces are alleged to have conducted crimes themselves, and of course brings he purview of the icc. For example, president bush or president obama who has as a matter of Public Policy providing Material Support thats what we do and i would it at maintaining it here adherence to the law and put it to paris and to any other. Closestthe case that is legitimacy of the it court and how we enforce of where these things are and also is there anything in particular given rise to making this Statement Today . On the second point, the court has informed us that the prosecutor has requested that the court not having separation of power to open a formal investigation and we wanted to make it clear how we feel about ,hat which is not much especially after eight years of the obama administration, so that is what dictated the timing here. Although its no coincidence tomorrow is september 11, which is how this conflict in afghanistan for us started. You know, there was a time and i think its likely to come again, when a lot of countries thought by adopting what they called universal jurisdiction statutes they could prosecute pretty much anybody they wanted any time. Belgium, for example, 20 or so years ago passed such a universal jurisdiction statute and they were going to serve a warrant, as i recall, on secretary of defense rumsfeld when he showed up in brussels for a nato conference and he reminded them it wasnt grave and natos headquarters was in brussels so if they tried it see what happened next. Amazingly they rethought the idea and never served him with a warrant. Its preposterous these ideas, many of which are embodied in the rome statute and the i. C. C. , can be allowed to take effect and bind americans. The i. C. C. Is a much prized institution by many people around the world who have larger aspirations in the field of global governs which i think is governance which i think is time and time again we find antithetical to the u. S. Constitution and its important to stand up and say it as clearly as we know how to do, just speaking in secular terms here i dont want to speak to be heard to be speaking in religious terms, but in secular terms on this earth we dont recognize any authority higher than the u. S. Constitution. Sir. [applause] thanks for coming today. My question is, some of your critics, perhaps outside this room, might say this is typical of the Trump Administrations skepticism about multilateral organizations and this is just another example. I wonder if given the chance, how would you articulate a conservative vision of multinational organizations that do respect sovereignty and what do those look like . Can you give us what that ideal is . Mr. Bolton well, i think collective defense organizations like nato are an excellent example of an International Organization that advances american interests, is consistent with american sovereignty and strengthens americas allies around the world. The difference there are some of these some institutions, some treaties that purport to create authorities and institutions outside of beyond above the constitution that put themselves in a kind of continuing revision outside the power of the senate and the executive branch. I think thats particularly true of treaties that create traditional institutions, but many, many treaties that we see have conventions of state parties. They get together every five years. They pass declarations. Theyre in effect reinterpreting the treaties. Putting new obligations on States Parties. Those never come back to the senate for ratification. I think this is something that frankly deserves more attention in the senate than it gets. Theres some institutions, the European Union in particular, that are founded on the notion that the nation state was a failure. And to create institutions above the nation state, thats what theyve been in the process of doing. God bless them. Its their democratic choice to do it if thats what they want. And god bless the people of Great Britain who two years ago voted to get out of the European Union. [applause] my name is kami. You mentioned about Osama Bin Laden and afghanistan and given we have troops in afghanistan, its still important part of the u. S. Foreign policy. In light of afghanistan and our Foreign Policy objective in afghanistan, do you see the election of this guy is an opportunity for america . He is obstacle given he is the most progressive guy we could find in that part of the world. He was raised partially in england. If you think this is his election is an opportunity, then do you think we should return pakistans 300 million that they have already spent helping us to control afghan borders . Thank you very much. Mr. Bolton well, you know, secretary of state pompeo was just in pakistan. He didnt meet with khan, but he did meet with a number of his counterparts. Oh, he met him. Mr. Bolton he wanted to convey the message that we hope and expected that pakistan would cooperate fully in the war against terrorism which they had committed to do. It was before my time but the Trump Administration did not take the decision to cancel substantial part of the military aid package to pakistan lightly. It was done knowing full well that pakistan is a Nuclear Weapon state and that risk that the risk that the government could get in control of those Nuclear Weapons was particularly serious, but its a serious part on the subcontinent. I hope its one that the new government of pakistan addresses, because this terrorist threat is a threat, i think, to the majority opinion of the people in pakistan, not to the terrorists and not to some of their supporters in the military and elsewhere. But its a matter of extraordinary importance to the United States and one that we hope the new government addresses. Maam. Ambassador bolton, thank you so much for being here. President of the Federalist Society, my law student chapter. First, i want to say thank you for upholding the Justice System in the country that i hope to be part of just shy of two years. My question for you, does the u. S. Consider the previous convictions by the i. C. C. To be invalid . Do you believe there is a need to relitigate these issues in a more sovereign nation . Mr. Bolton for those countries that decide they want to be part to the rome statute, thats their choice. Its not a choice id agree with. I think whenever youre dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity and these kinds of atrocities, gross abuses of human rights, you have to look at the circumstances in each country to decide what the right way to proceed is. Theres some countries that made conscious decisions that they would not follow a prosecutorial model in south africa, for example, after the fall of the apartheid government, nelson mandela, over the objections of many people in the African National congress thought that the best way to unite all of south africa was through creating what they eventually called the truth and reconciliation process so that there would be an incentive for people who committed gross abuses of human rights under apartheid to come forward, confess fully and be absolved of the crimes they committed. You can debate the merits of that proposition. Its obviously a complex issue, but it was mandelas feeling that was better than prosecution. Many of the countries in eastern and central europe, after being liberated from communism, tried to decide how they would bring their societies back from the misshapen form they had taken under communism, how they would approach this question of collaboration with communists and the communist network of informants through decades of communist rule. Most of them came to the conclusion that prosecution was not the right way. On the other hand, where you have circumstances where prosecution is warranted or deemed desirable, i think honestly it should be the government of the country in question that undertakes the prosecutions. Now, there are two objections to that. One is, well, theyll never do it and be fair. My response to that is, you dont know that necessarily. You dont know when it might be appropriate to do it. Besides, if you take the decision out of their hands, as the tribunals for the former yugoslavia, youre interfering in the political maturation process of the people involved. You dont bring political maturity to people by taking hard decisions away from them. I think that in fact runs the risk of sewing the possibility of future discord. But ultimately, a maturist society thats going to Stay Together has to be willing to make prosecutorial decisions, and the idea that a group of elders, you know, wiser people, will make this decision for them around the world wherever it might be is not simply terribly patronizing, i think its utterly unsound from a selfgovernment point of view. Yes, maam. Yes. I read a couple days ago theres unsubstantiated claims by the russians that our government used White Phosphorus in syria and other unsubstantiated claims that syria used chemical weapons. Some claim that saudi arabia, and i think its been pretty well acknowledged that israel used White Phosphorus. Who exactly would prosecute any of these governments if they did these things . On a completely unrelated question. If we do want National Sovereignty, why is the United States still in as a member of the United Nations . Mr. Bolton well, with respect to the second question, you know, Jean Kirkpatrick was once asked, why werent they not a member . Because its not worth the trouble. Only jean could come up with an answer like that. I have to say look, i dont think in significant respects most of the u. N. System posed a sovereignty problem to the United States. I think there are aspects of the u. N. System that do pose sovereignty problems such as the u. N. Human Rights Council and the high commissioner for human rights, which is one of the reasons why the u. S. Withdrew the human Rights Council and will defund the high commissioners office. [applause] mr. Bolton as long as we have the veto in the Security Council and the veto can be taken away by an amendment by to the u. N. Charter which requires the consent of the five permanent members, i dont think it will happen anytime soon, i dont think it can do that kind of damage to us. It does advance some american interests. It wastes a lot of american money, but i dont see the u. N. System as a whole. Wed have to look at specific cases. I dont see that as a sovereignty threat. Thats why i thought the i. C. C. Was very different than the u. N. Which was always imagined as an organization of sovereignty governments. Thats basic to the charter, to be admitted to the u. N. , you have to be a state. Which is one reason why the Palestinian Authority should never have been allowed to succeed to the rome statute or join any u. N. Body which was allowed to join unesco. With respect to the question of chemical weapons in syria, you know, response to the Trump Administration when we had unmistakable proof twice, once in april, 2017, once in april of this year, was to use force against the syrian regime. Because of the use of a weapon of mass destruction that the Trump Administration found unacceptable. Weve tried to convey the message in recent days that if theres a third use of chemical weapons, the response will be much stronger. And i can say weve been in consultation with the british and the french who joined us in the second strike. They also agree that another use of chemical weapons will result in a much stronger response. Now, in part, in response, i think the government of russia and others have said that we are giving the authorization for al qaeda to use chemical weapons and try and pin it on the government of syria. That has to be in the history of propaganda in the 20th and 21st centuries. One of the most outrageous claims i can think of, this is something that we take very seriously and, you know, ultimately, if syria is put back together, this is the perfect kind of example of a case where the people of syria themselves are going to have to confront what governments did, what their government did purportedly in their name. Im not sure anybodys ever going to be able to find the perpetrators. Battlefields are not Crime Investigation scenes, but that reality is out there. Its very unpleasant and amazingly it happens with no deterrent effect from the i. C. C. Its just a further demonstration that the idea that the i. C. C. Would deter a commission of these heinous crimes has been proven utterly false, as was entirely predictable at the outset. Yes, maam. Hi, im kimberly reid, President Trumps nominee to be Exportimport Bank of the United States. Not there yet. Almost. Mr. Bolton congratulations. So the president s National Security strategy pillar to is promoting american prosperity. I just love to get an update from you on your focus on that. Mr. Bolton well, we spend a lot of time looking at abuses of the International Free trade system. I think theres a lot of misunderstanding in the press as to how the president feels about this. I was there in canada at the g7 meeting when he said to the other g7 members what we really ought to talk about here is a system with no tariffs, no subsidies, and no artificial barriers to trade. And they all nodded and said, yeah, that sounds right. Then they wanted to go and talk about something else. Thats the objective that we ought to be aiming for. We shouldnt be under any illusion that just because an International Trade agreement is called a Free Trade Agreement it really is. Its a there are series of managed trade agreements many of which were badly negotiated on the part of the United States. The president is trying to fix them. Hes trying to fix the abuses that china and other countries have undertaken in things like the world trade organization, what theyve done in terms of stealing american and european intellectual property, forced technology transfers, discrimination against foreign businesses and investors and the like. Its very complex but its central, i think, to the president s view which i think is unquestionably correct that you cannot have a strong american presence in the World Without a strong american domestic economy and you cant have a strong domestic economy without a strong presence in the world. So thats why the questions that we debate domestically about our economy are so important for strategic the strategic ability of the United States to protect its interests around the world. Yes, maam. Ambassador bolton, thank you. From voice of america. I have a question on north korea. North korea celebrated its 70th anniversary over the weekend. They didnt display the icbm. Their new intel reports that north korea is putting more efforts to hide their nuclear facilities. I was curious how feel about that . Could you help us understand what specifically next steps we are waiting for north korea to take and what are the negotiations with north korea . Mr. Bolton well, i think the best way to put it, in meeting with kim jong un in singapore a few months ago, President Trump tried to hold the door open to kim jong un and his regime. If they would denuclearize, as they committed to do in singapore, they could have a very different kind of life in north korea. Kim jong un had committed in april to the south korean president that he would denuclearize. He committed to do it quickly. He said, we can do it in two years. The south korean president said to kim jong un, moon said to President Trump, he said, why dont we do it in one year . Kim jong un said well do it in one year. Thats where the one year came from. One year is not bad. Were still waiting for them. Now, the possibility of another meeting between the two president s obviously exist. But President Trump cant make the North Koreans walk through the door hes holding open. Theyre the ones that has to take the steps to denuclearize and thats what were waiting for. Is there anybody else over here . Want to take one more over here. Yes, sir. Hello. So my question is, do you think the United States serves as a threat to other countries under sovereignty like china and north korea . Thank you. Mr. Bolton do i think the United States is a threat to the other nations sovereignty . No, i dont think there is a threat to anybody elses sovereignty. I think it has been so important for the United States to appreciate the significance of a government that has the consent of its own people that it has in contrast to every other major power in World History that im aware of has not sought permanent permanent a permanent empire all across the globe. After we expanded across the continent, that was pretty much it. That makes thats a demonstration of, if you will, american exceptionalism. And i think were very conscious of the importance of sovereignty. We cant and dont attempt to control what other nations do. As i said before, if the European Unions wants to desolve National Sovereignty into the bureaucracy in brussels, thats entirely their prerogative. Others are free to do it as well. But we dont push anybody in that direction. And in fact, i think were conscious of it even as we renegotiate a lot of the trade disputes we are talking about today. Theres no desire on our part for something akin to the European Union. And with that, i appreciate, again, the opportunity to be with you. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you so much, ambassador bolton. We really appreciate this. Before we leave, id ask id ask our people to remain seated for a couple of minutes while the ambassador leaves. Thank you. Sunday night, Richard Norton smith discusses his biography of herbert hoover. When all is said and done, accomplishment is all that matters. Its the sort of thing you would expect an engineer to say and that is one of the keys to understanding his life, his success in everything but the presidency. Sunday night in 00 eastern. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern. Reporter bobst woodward is our washington sunday guest monday at 7 a. M. Eastern. And on tuesday, ken starr joins us to discuss his book. Watch next week on cspans washington journal. Both the house and senate are set to return wednesday and to find out what theyre up to, we talked to a reporter from capitol hill. Lisa mascaro joins us for a look on spending bills. She is a Congressional Correspondent for the associated press. Lisa, where do things stand at this point with the spending packages through congress . Lisa we are in really familiar terrain. Congress is staring down at a september 30 deadline to fund the government. That is when the current bill runs out