Transcripts For CSPAN Discussion On Fall Of The Berlin Walls 30th Anniversary 20240713

There are dates we have that are personal and dates ladies and gentlemen, please welcome former abc news anchor stan donaldson. Stan well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this mornings program. There are dates all of us have that are very personal, and dates that we have is a country that we all share. In my lifetime, december 7, 1941. November 22, 1963. 9 11. All terrible dates for the country. And november 8, 1989, good news, the fall of the berlin wall presaging the end of the soviet union. A subject we will discuss today, how did it happen . What were the consequences . Who did this . Who knew . For a look at what is in store for us, it is a pleasure to welcome andrew card, who served in three administrations with Ronald Reagan as Deputy Assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs, with George Herbert walker bush the treasury, not the secretary of the treasury, secretary of transportation, and with george w. Bush white house chief of staff. Andrew card. [applause] andrew thank you very much, sam. I wanted to be here. We are very grateful for Georgetown University and the school of Foreign Service for helping to host the event, the Atlantic Council, and grateful for the Reagan Foundation and their institute for helping to host the event. We have many people here who should be introduced, and i am not going to ask everyone to stand who is important. And i am not going to ask everyone to sit who is important, so other more important people can stand. [laughter] im here to say that were proud to have dorothy bush, the president s daughter. [applause] and nelly solsa, his granddaughter. [applause] we also have folks from the Atlantic Council here. [applause] robinson is here from the barbara bush literacy foundation. [applause] we also have the e. U. Deputy head of delegation here. Michael curtis. [applause] and, the german deputy chief of missions is here. [applause] this is a remarkable day because we are remembering a truly remarkable event. Im about to introduce someone who i have the greatest respect for. Above all, i know three absolutes about the speaker i will introduce. First, the world changed profoundly when he was secretary of state under president george h. W. Bush. As freedom and democracy spread, the cold war ended peacefully. Germany was reunited as a member of the north atlantic treaty organization, and the soviet union imploded. At the same time, todays speaker assembled the International Coalition that ejected saddam husseins troops from kuwait, orchestrated the madrid conference where israel and all its arab neighbors discussed peace for the first time, and negotiating Nuclear Arms Reduction treaties with the soviet union and then russia. All that happened after he served president Ronald Reagan, as one of our nations best secretaries of the treasury, and before then as white house chief of staff, a position in which hes still considered to be the Gold Standard. Reciting his many achievements could take a long time, but i am mindful of the speakers second absolute. He always asks his introductions of him be short, which leads me to the third absolute. Which is of course when this gentleman asks you to do something, it is best that you do it. [laughter] i was honored to be asked by him to do something and serve president Ronald Reagan. It brought me to washington, d. C. So i am proud and honored to introduce a great american, one of americas most remarkable leaders, and i would like you to welcome the 61st secretary of state, the honorable james a. Baker iii. [applause] sec. Baker thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. Thank you, andy, for that overthetop introduction. Thank you as well, andy, for your many contributions to the nation. You have been an exemplary public servant, and the country appreciates it. Welcome to the first collaboration between four institutions i greatly admire for their excellence in preserving the past and in advancing public policy. The george and barbara bush foundation, the Ronald Reagan foundation, the Atlantic Council and Georgetown University all represent the very best in their respective fields. Im confident that todays lessons from the fall of the berlin wall will be an informative and useful examination of an historic event that led to the peaceful conclusion of the cold war. What happened three decades ago this week fundamentally changed the world. Since then, when im asked which american president was responsible for the end of the cold war, i typically have replied that it was all of those american president s. Democrats and republicans alike, from harry truman through george h w bush, each of them was firmly committed to a free, undivided europe. But as someone who served in one capacity or another for four of those president s, i hope you can understand why today i want to add that some cold war president s were more directly involved in others. Involved than others. Ronald reagans soaring rhetoric became etched in the hearts and minds of people around the world who desired freedom. Who after all can forget that picture of the gipper at the Brandenburg Gate when he said, mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. So, two years after that historic speech, the wall did come down, on november 9, 1989. As momentous as that occasion was, president bush 41 understood that the soviet union remained a distinct and potent Global Security threat. Rather than stick it in the eye of his soviet counterparts, president bush eschewed triumphalism in favor of clear eyed diplomacy. As a result, 11 months after the wall came down, germany was reunited peacefully as a member of the nato, over the objections, i might add, of some of our allies and of course the soviet union. Shortly thereafter, the 45year cold war ended with a whimper rather than the nuclear bang that we had all feared, as the soviet union itself was dissolved. So, today our nations leaders confront their own unique set of international challenges. As we commemorate the 30th anniversary of the fall of that berlin wall, i think it is instructive to recall three factors that both president s reagan and bush kept in mind as seismic changes were underway in europe and around the world. First, both understood that Domestic Support is critical for the successful implementation, id say formulation and implementation, of Foreign Policy. A Foreign Policy that does not have domestic Political Support will not last very long. Unless americans back the decisions of their president s, those policies are doomed to wither and eventually fail. President s reagan and bush both knew that they would be more successful if they had the broad backing of the American People, and they both crafted bipartisan foreign policies accordingly. Secondly, International Support, of course, is also critical. Both president reagan and president bush realized that a large component of american strength was that we were the promoter and champion of a liberal world order that revolved around open markets, multilateral institutions, and liberal democracy. Allies mattered. They still do. And Pax Americana in those days was their northstar. And third, both those president s understood the importance of deft, thoughtful and sustained diplomacy. Both developed strong relations with other foreign leaders, particularly soviet president Mikael Gorbachev, german chancellor helmut kohl, british Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, canadian Prime Minister brian mulrooney, and others. Those relationships nurtured trust between countries, and helped them reach pragmatic solutions. In the end, of course, no one individual was responsible for the fall of the berlin wall, and the end of the cold war. Every american president since truman played indispensable roles. But above all else, it was the enduring spirit of the citizens of the captive nations that finally tipped the scales toward freedom. The lessons that president s reagan and bush provided during that critical window of history remain as pertinent today as they were back then, and so as our nation continues to confront many daunting challenges, the foreign policies of Ronald Reagan and george h. W. Bush remain models that all american president s would do well to follow, as they seek to promote americas interests and values around the world. Thank you all very much. [applause] thank you, secretary baker. Im delighted if you would agree to spend a few more minutes with us. If you would just have a seat, i will call you back shortly. Wait for the call. Power i never thought i would have with this gentleman. [laughter] reporters one to be where the good action is, when a good story is there for the telling, sometimes careful preparation brings it, and other times it happens unexpectedly. As on the day that Ronald Reagan gave a humdrum speech at the washington hilton, came out and suddenly was met with a spray of bullets from a man standing 5. 5 feet away from me. I rather not have had that good story. When it comes to this great story we are revisiting today, there was only one American Television journalist on the scene when the berlin wall began to crumble, tom brokaw, the anchor and managing editor of the nbc nightly news. He was in berlin on a different assignment, but as he tells it, he fell into one of the biggest stories of the world, which he owned. Heres some of brokaws reporting that night from the berlin wall. Tom it was a night when the world changed before our eyes. Good evening, live from the berlin wall, on this wall is most historic night in history. The berlin wall was part of our lives, such a physically imposing barricade. It was so much uglier and so much more oppressive than people realize from just seeing it on television. When you went to it personally, it was appalling. And Ronald Reagan had gone there. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall [cheering] tom john kennedy had gone there. Ich bin ein berliner [cheering] tom even with all the turmoil, it seemed unlikely that that wall, such as solid image of oppression, would come down. Then, in a heartbeat, it did. I was the only journalist on the air the night the berlin wall came down. I owned that story, and that was the end of the soviet empire. And we got lucky. Id like to tell you that i knew the wall was coming down. Unfortunately, i cannot. I didnt know. But it did come down on my watch, and i will never forget it. East germany remains a country in turmoil tonight. I arrived in berlin two days before the wall came down. There was so much going on in the eastern sector, i was able to get to the east for the first time and do reporting from there. You all represent the best of east germany. Late that afternoon, there was the famous News Conference in which the propaganda chief stood up. He was handed a slip of paper, and it said all citizens of the gdr can leave and come back through at any of the transit points. I looked at my German National cameraman and soundman and said, did he say what they were and said, did he say what we thought he said . They were astonished. They said, he did. That means you can go out of the wall, and come back anytime you want. The man gets up, and leaves the room. I went up, and read it back to him. Do i understand it correctly . Citizens can leave through any checkpoint they choose . It is possible for them to go through the border. Tom free to travel . Yes, of course. Tom i went to my colleagues and said, it is over, the wall is over. We got out to call the office in new york. This is midday back in the states, and we start making preparations for going on the air that night, and i am frantically trying to get a broadcast put together. I rushed out there. There were lots of students from the west who had come to the top of the wall, and the guards were trying to hose them off, and my heart sank. I thought, theres not going to be anybody there. I made this big deal about the wall coming down, and they are being cleared off. Then people got back on the wall. By the time we went on the air, at 6 30, it was chaos. Standby. A historic moment tonight. The berlin wall can no longer contain the east german people. Nbc nightly news, with tom brokaw. Tonight, from west berlin. Tom good evening. We had a path on the satellite to get on air, so that night i came on the air, and we owned the story. No cbs, abc, a worldwide exclusive. What you are watching is a moment that will live forever. You are seeing the destruction of the berlin wall. We just threw out the script. Id written the whole broadcast and said to the producer, i will have to ad lib. Everything here, i will have to draw on all my experience about whats been going on at the eastern border, not just in germany, but in the soviet union, and how this was a defining moment. For the First Time Since the wall was erected in 1951, people will be able to move through freely. I couldnt hear myself think. I just kept thinking before we went on the air, clean this up some, dont screw this up, this is a big deal. It was amazing. And as we were standing there, somebody said, oh, my god. Look, they are taking down the wall. There was a guy with a mallet and a chisel beginning to hammer away at the wall. The wall effectively has come down, and i mean physically as well. That is a chunk of the berlin wall. The party at the Brandenburg Gate went on all night long, as they chipped away at the wall, danced on top of it, drank a lot. It is wonderful, wonderful. Tom and i thought, this is the human story. This is the story of humankind. I mean, political tyrants can only go so far. At the end, it is how people respond to captivity, how they get out of it, how they relate to one another. And that is the enduring lesson of everything i have seen in journalism. Its a night to remember. Indeed it is. [applause] you know, those of us remember it at abc from the standpoint that tom is right. He was there. He did it. When you are confronted with the real deal, just accept it. And we do. And we praise him for it. Joining us now, live from berlin, one of americas premier journalists, still today, looking and finding good stories, tom brokaw welcome, tom tom thank you, sam. Thanks very much, sam. Thank you, everybody. Sam it was very exuberant. Watching that brings back lots of memories, but what do you remember today, 30 years later, about that night at the wall . Tom i remember vividly, and i want to say at the outset, it was not just me, it was the whole nbc team, and our Foreign Editor suggested i go to berlin. He said i dont know what will happen, theres a lot of activity. I got here, and we were around for 24 hours before that memorable News Conference. We had a satellite, a cameraman, and got the first film of the people coming across the bridge from east germany to west germany. So it was a confluence of all those forces. I remember as vividly as though it were yesterday, sam, standing there thinking, my god, this is one of the biggest stories of my lifetime, of the 20th century. We have got to get it right. And with the help of all my colleagues in fact, i think at the end of the night we did get it right. It was absolutely thrilling, and i remember one of our techies going over and getting a piece of the wall, chipping it off and giving it to me, and that is in my personal collection. Sam someone you know very well, james a. Baker the third, secretary baker is with us. He would like to say a few words with you. Secretary baker, if you would come back up here, take whatever time you require, sir, and when you are finished with tom, i will come back to him. Sec. Baker tom, how are you doing . Tom doing well, james. I have a question to you, before you have a question for me. [laughter] sec. Baker you go ahead. Tom relater learned that they got it wrong. The politburo had not said they could leave, but they were looking at a possibility of a program where they could leave and could come back. A prominent historian at harvard did the whole story, and he left the News Conference, went to the compound where all the politburo members lived, and they didnt know what was going on. [laughter] my question for you, did we have any indication from espionage people, and are intelligence people that there was a possibility this was going to happen . Sec. Baker the short answer, tom, is no. It came as every bit as much of a surprise to us as it did i think to you. I remember it very well. I was hosting a lunch for the president of the philippines at the state department, and an aide passed me a note saying people were allowed free transit between the gdr and federal republic of germany, and it looked like the wall might be coming down. I raised a toast to that prospect, excused myself and went to the white house to meet with president bush about what our response ought to be. I think history will clearly mark the correctness of george bushs moderated response to what was a cataclysmic event, because he knew that we still had a lot of business to do with gorbachev, and we werent going to stick it in their eye. The answer to your question, as far as i know, we didnt have any advanced knowledge at all, intelligence or otherwise. Tom one of the things we learned in my trips back here since then, i spent the day at the stasi headquarters, the infamous group in the eastern part of germany that was arresting citizens left and right, i saw four miles of files on east german citizens, and finally that oppression, that complete pressure on east german citizens, they could not live their lives as they wanted, it broke through. I thought the wall came down mostly because of our strong stand in the west, but also citizens from the ground up in the east pushing back against their own oppressors. Sec. Baker thats absolutely right. I have just given a few remarks at this event, in which i said i dont think that any single american president was responsible for the fall of the wall. Every one of our american president s, every administration from harry truman through george h. W. Bush, was steadfast in opposing the spread of communism and the imprisonment of the people of the captive nations of Eastern Europe. I said, and i believe strongly, as i suspect you do, it was the indomitable spirit of those citizens of captive nations who made possible our victory in the cold war. Tom james, 30 years later, what are the lessons for modern america and the west, for that matter . Sec. Baker one of the lessons, diplomacy works when it is properly exercised. Were here in georgetown, which has an extraordinarily fine school of diplomacy and international relations, and i think, last night i went to an event, tom, at the state department, where they have established a National Museum of american diplomacy. We only have 400 museums that are military in their nature, and theres never been a museum in the United States or an institution for that matter that celebrates the Historic Events of american diplomacy through the years, and the state department has now, is now establishing one, and i think thats a very good thing to do. But most of all, if you look at the diplomacy that george h. W. Bush pursued, in the aftermath of the stunning victory of the fall of the wall, he knew we had a huge task to perform, to try and reunite germany peacefully as a member of the nato. And he knew we had to continue to try and achieve a peaceful end of the cold war. I think Mikael Gorbachev, and i am sure you may share this view, tom, but i think Mikael Gorbachev will be remembered very well by history. Because he after all was the first soviet leader who did not elect to use force to keep the empire together. Tom i could not agree with you more. I did the first interview with gorbachev, and what i remember, i was meeting him for the first time, and they were putting russian equipment on him which was not as sophisticated as ours, so i reached over to his lapel and changed it, and i said, mr. Gorbachev, i have to do this in my job every day, and he looked at me with a stern appearance and he said, mr. Brokaw, you would not believe what i have to do in my job every day. [laughter] it was the beginning of a strong relationship. I want to Say Something about modern germany because we have been here for a few days. There is a lot of turmoil in Central Europe and germany, and angela merkel, where do we go from here, the fact of the matter is this country in the last 120 years started two world wars and has the holocaust on their conscious, then became partners with the west. The big issue is, where does germany go from here and where does Central Europe go from here . I would be interested, mr. Secretary, and some of your thoughts on that. Sec. Baker i think it is extremely important we continue to pursue a policy of anchoring germany firmly into the west. Another significant achievement that we talked about last night in terms of diplomatic achievement was to get germany unified in peace and freedom as a member of the Nato Alliance over the opposition of our allies, the british and french, and the soviet union who were not our allies but steadfast opponents to german unification. But we got that done. That was done through the steadfast and strong practice of continuing diplomacy. We need to remember that, and we also need to remember in this country, tom, in my view, how important our alliances are to the strength of america. Our alliances enable us to leverage our world leadership significantly. Those alliances are fraying. I had dinner last night next to the ambassador of germany to the United States, and we both bemoaned the fact that the relationship between germany and the United States is not as strong as it was during those days, and at the end of the cold war. And the way we all cooperated to deal with those challenges at that time, we need to do that again today. Tom i know we do not want to take up all of sams time, but my closing thought is, in my few days here already, and this is my third trip back to germany since the wall came down, i am reminded about how conscience everyone in this country is about what they went through, whether living in the east or west. They have real difficulties now. The people left in the east are not happy about how they are being treated, but they are trying to work on it. I hope in america Younger Generations, including my children and grandchildren, will be more conscious of how we all have a stake in preserving piece peace, not just in our country, but all around the world. Sec. Baker i could not agree with you more, tom, and i believe that is the challenge facing our policy makers today. I have given a few remarks where i have said i thought those would be selfserving, and i apologize for that. But i think those policymakers would do well to look at the foreign policies of Ronald Reagan and george h. W. Bush, how they were pursued, formulated, and lamented because we are facing similar challenges today. Formulated and implemented because we are facing similar challenges today. I think it is imperative that we recognize the importance of the north atlantic alliance, the importance of American Leadership in the world, because that gives cohesion, that gives the europeans a way to come together, because a lot of those wars you are talking about started right there in europe. I fear others could happen as well if we do not restrengthen the north atlantic alliance. But it sure is good to see you, tom. There are a lot of quail in texas waiting for you to get back. [laughter] tom [laughter] they will still be alive when i leave, unfortunately. Thanks for having me on. Sam tom, just a moment. By the way, should you decide to run for the presidency, i think you might have some support. [applause] [laughter] tom brokaw, my friend, tom. I have prepared a number of top questions, and i know how to do it on you. But, tom, you will understand when i tell you we did not find we did not buy more satellite time, it is about to expire. I have to thank you for joining us today. Tom my pleasure and my honor. [applause] sam bye,bye, tom. He is a great guy. If you think there was competition today among reporters and networks and news gathering organizations, of course there is, but there is a fraternity where you knew who the good guys were. Tom was the best. Now i am going to move over to the chair here to sit. James a. Baker said he was 90, i am 86. Never ever when you find a chair, refused to sit down. Joining us now are scholars recognized as experts on our subject today. Jeffrey ingle from the Southern Methodist university. He is an expert on the presidency and modern american diplomacy. He has written 12 books on these subjects, including one titled the fall of the berlin wall the revolutionary legacy of 1989. His latest book is impeachment and american history. Thank you for being with us today. Peter robinson is the murdoch distinguish policy fellow at the hoover institution. And the host of hoovers television program, uncommon knowledge. He was the principal speechwriter for george h. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and author of the book how Ronald Reagan changed my life. You will perhaps be best known as the person who wrote the speech for president reagan that contained the most famous line ever delivered, standing in front of the berlin wall, and we will get to that. Welcome to you, too. Throughout the cold war, berlin was a focal point of conflict between the United States and soviet union. In 1948, you may recall the soviets under stalin blocked the road access to berlin because it had to come through their zone. That dangerous situation needed relief through an airlift, and they brought supplies. The second berlin crisis began in 1958, and soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev demanded the allied occupation be ended, and berlin became a free city. Pick up the story from there. Jeffrey this is where we have to remember germany is at the heart of the cold war. There is an ideological function between communism and capitalism we focus on, but the struggle is who will control the resources of Central Europe . And for Nikita Khrushchev, he had a problem in a 1950s and 1960s as he tried to consolidate power in germany. Germans kept leaving. They would go into the american zone and not come back. They were voting with their feet. The decision was made in moscow to erect a wall not to keep people out, but keep them in. To keep the people from leaving because, to be honest, the best and brightest were the ones who most wanted to find a new life in the west. Sam our Intelligence Services, and the Intelligence Services of other western nations, went into east germany freely, no checkpoint there, and they established their agents and points, and the gdr was upset. Jeffrey the geography was key. This is something i have to explain to my students. Because germany was divided up, soviet, american, british and french, and so was berlin, even after consolidation of the british, american, and french zones, we had a section in berlin that was internationally controlled in the heart of the german capital, in east germany. We are hard pressed to find another example of a country that is willing to have another country in charge of its major capital city for decades on end. Nikita khrushchev tried time and again to get the americans and their allies to leave. Sam we will come back to the erection of the wall, but i have to jump ahead to the most dramatic period, which we are is celebrating today. Ted sorensen wrote for john f. Kennedy a famous couple of lines, ask not what your country can do for you. You wrote these powerful lines for Ronald Reagan, which he delivered in 1987. I was standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate and the berlin wall. Arguably his most remembered lines he ever delivered. Lets hear some of them now. [video clip] president reagan general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. [cheers] [applause] mr. Gorbachev, mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. [cheers] [applause] sam wow. How did you come to write those lines . Peter i went to berlin to do some research about six weeks before the president delivered the speech. Senior staff said he will stand here and have an audience of 10,000 to 40,000 people and talk for 30 minutes, just Say Something about Foreign Policy. [laughter] most of that day went badly for me, the young speechwriter. I went to the site where the president would stand. Tom brokaw are marked on this. It is almost impossible to convey now that the wall is gone what it felt like at that place. You look in east berlin, and it was as if the color had been drained from the photograph, gray dilapidated buildings, soldiers marching back and forth. Uturn and look in west berlin, color, activity, life. And that dividing line of the wall. I thought, what do i write . What do i get the president that is equal to him and this place . In the evening, i broke away from the American Party and went to a suburb of west berlin where berliners put on a dinner party for me. I did not know anyone there, but the host and hostess and i had a mutual friend with me in washington. I explained i had been told that the president should not mention the wall, and they had all gotten used to it. I said, is that true . There was a silence. I thought i committed a faux pas that the diplomat was afraid the president would commit. One man pointed and said, my sister lives a few kilometers in that direction, how do you think we feel about that wall . They went around the room, each person talking about the wall. They had stopped talking about it, but they had not stopped hating it. And there hostess, a lovely woman, charming through the dinner party, but now she became angry. She said, if this man gorbachev is serious with this talk, he can prove it by coming here and getting rid of that wall. That went into my notebook, because i knew the moment i heard that that if president reagan had been there in my place, he would have responded to that remark, the power, the decency, the truthfulness. It is true i put the words on paper, but that speech belonged to Ronald Reagan. Every bit of it was my trying to give him material that fit his beliefs, his mode of expression for that specific spot in that moment. It was suggested by a german woman. Sam what you wrote did not please his entire foreignpolicy establishment. Tell us about that. You and he against the world. Peter i took those odds. [laughter] the speechwriters, we pull a little bit of a fast one, ordinarily, speeches go to staffing before the president , but in this case we got it to the president on a friday as he was headed to camp david. We met him the following monday and discussed the speech. He said he particularly wanted to deliver the line about tearing down the wall. That wall has to come down. I remember that vividly in the oval office. Then the speech went to staff, and in the three weeks between that meeting in the oval office and the day before he delivered the speech, the state department, the National Security council tried to suppress it. They submitted my journal shows seven different drafts of eliminating the call to tear down the wall. They thought it would raise false expectations. Howard baker told me he thought it sounded unpresident ial. The state department was concerned it would put gorbachev on the spot by calling him out personally. This went on and on, and finally ken duberstein, deputy chief of staff, sat the president down, speaking before going to berlin, and he took the speech back to the president for another decision and talked about the objections, had the president read the central passage, and then ken told me that they talked about it and Ronald Reagan got that twinkle in his eye and said, now, i am the president , arent i, ken . [laughter] yes sir, we are clear about that much. I get to decide if that line stays in . Yes, sir. Then it stays in. Sam that was Ronald Reagan. Who was right . President reagan or his Foreign Policy team . Jeffrey they were both right, but honestly president reagan was less right than the foreignpolicy team, because we now know the difficulties gorbachev were facing were primarily from conservative hardline communists who wanted to repeal back perestroika and glasnost. The real danger at the end of the cold war period, which by the way, no one at the time would refer to it as the end of the cold war, the danger was not that the soviets would be too friendly, not that gorbachev will tear down the wall, it is that he will tear down the wall and then find himself facing a coup the next week. Anything that was done to encourage opposition to gorbachev to put him on the spot was extraordinarily dangerous. You can see a real difference here between the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administration. Secretary baker said in 1989 this was not a friendly takeover. There was a different mindset because the Reagan Administration was fundamentally focused on the right, moral path of trying to end the soviet union and ended the cold war, and did not give a lot of thought to what happened the next day. Whereas the Bush Administration was confronted immediately with the problem of, do we deal with gorbachev, and then what happens next . They essentially had to pick up the pieces of the great moral clarity that reagan offered. Sam you are quite right. When Ronald Reagan was not president , what he said about the communist state was interesting, but when he became president , that was important to get his view as president. In his first press conference, i asked him if he thought the soviet union was interested in detente, or by some other means world domination. Out it came, they lie, they steal, they cheat, they commit any crime. Wow. The boys in moscow must have loved that. Jeffrey they were terrified. This is one of those things we now know because we have their documentation. The great thing about a state collapse is you get to keep all of their records. In 1983, there was a series of events where policymakers heard Ronald Reagan, heard him talk about a crusade of fire, heard him talk about purging the world of communism, and talk about the communist state as an evil empire, and were genuinely worried he meant what he said. If you took the president at his word i know it is hard to imagine these days, but president ial words matter. If you take the president at his word, if you are in moscow, you are very scared. Peter academic approach has its place, above all in the place such as this, but if i may say so, you are worrying about something that worked in practice. I am wondering if it could work in theory . It worked out. [applause] jeffrey that is true. Peter you cannot argue with that at the end. Jeffrey no i cannot, this is a fundamental problem about how we teach and understand history. Just because something work out worked out well does not mean it was destined to work out well. Sam but it does mean it did work out well. [laughter] peter one to say one more thing. I was told the day after that press conference that the president said to the National Security advisor, the soviets do lie, cheat, and steal, dont they . Dick allen said, of course they do. The president said, all right. Sam you have two views here. Peter asked you a question what reagan might have done in 1961, tough guy, meant what he said, and called it like he saw it. When that wall was being erected, some people thought that john kennedy should move aggressively to stop it. He had the Legal Authority, but beyond that if the soviets could get away with that, what couldnt they get away with . Because he had been to vienna, and after that meeting with Nikita Khrushchev saying, he savaged me. He took me. With reagan, in 1961, no wall, and i have the force to stop it. Peter i believe reagan would have done what john f. Kennedy did. Which is to say you pursue the policy of containment. You draw lines. As john kennedy said during the berlin wall crisis, we have the Legal Authority to take the wall down, but suppose they put it up again six inches inside their borders . Containment was pushing back against the soviets, but not creating a general war. Ronald reagan, we look back over eight years, there was one military engagement in grenada. He was very cautious. He was rhetorically aggressive, morally aggressive, but very cautious on the ground. I believe different parties Say Something. Well, Ronald Reagan himself said he did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Reagan supported harry truman in 1948. He headed an organization in hollywood supporting truman, and he had great admiration for fdr and john f. Kennedy. They had pursued fundamentally similar policies. Sam we are running out of time, however, i want you to talk about what i mentioned. When kennedy met khrushchev, khrushchev got the better of him, by his own admission. What was the result of that . Peter khrushchev felt he had the ability to put Nuclear Weapons into cuba. We do not get cuban missile crisis without john kennedy doing poorly by his own admission in vienna. By the same token, if we say you would praise reagan for pursuing kennedys policy of containment, i would argue that is what you do not do in 1987, because reagan calling out the soviet union to collapse, great mind, and something that was aspirationally wonderful, suggested the United States had the power to make it happen. The changes in the soviet union were actually what brought down the soviet peter he was calling on gorbachev to tear down the wall. There was no threat involving the American Power at all. By that point, he felt he had dealt with gorbachev. Sam shelly arm wrestle this one to the end . I am going to extend this a little bit because what happens they knew there were people worse waiting to get in line after him. Peter you asked the question of questions, which is why didnt the soviets roll in with their tanks . I asked gorbachev that question, and he said you must understand that Ronald Reagan and i shared the same christian ethics. Through the translator, he said, i am a good communist, but fundamentally we shared christian ethics. I simply was not going to open fire on innocent human beings. That is the ultimate failure of the soviet project. They had not created a new soviet man. Mikellu had in kne gorbachev was an old russian formed by the Judeo Christian angle of life. That is why the tanks didnt roll. Sam thank you so much. I wish you had more time to be with us today. [applause] ok. We have already heard, and i think it is true that the leaders of the free world had no idea that day that the wall would come down. George h. W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher and even gorbachev. So when the word came, how did number 41, George Herbert walker bush react . , and how did reporters react to what was happening . And the president s reaction . Here is a bit of what happened in the oval office when president bush came out to discuss this situation. Lets watch. [video clip] president bush i have been briefed by the secretary of state, on the latest news out of germany. And of course, i welcome the decision by theast germany to on borders. For those wishing to emigrate or travel. This conforms with the at the ddrccord, th signed. Ifthe ddr goes forward, and wellbuilt in 9 wall built in 1961 will have very little relevance. It is a Good Development in terms of human rights, and i must say i am pleased with this development. [indiscernible] president bush we have such a close relationship with the wereal republic, if we asked for assistance i am certain we would give it serious consideration. I dont know what they had in mind, but with truly open borders, it is hard to predict how many will be trying to leave. So it is a dynamic development, and we have to wait and see. But our relationship with the federal republic is such that we will help if needed. So far, germany has done a magnificent job in handling those who have preceded the exodus. [indiscernible] president bush i do not think any single event is the end of what you might call the iron curtain. But clearly this is a long way from the harsh iron curtain days, a long way. [indiscernible] president bush you have to say what you mean by warsaw pact. It seems to me there is a loosening up in terms of travel. Thes concurring with helsinki pact, and it is a Good Development. Our objective is that europe is whole and free. Is this a step towards that . I would say yes. Gorbachev talks about a common home. Is it a step towards that . Probably so. With what you just said, if this is a victory for our side, you dont seem elated. Im wondering president bush i am very pleased. I am very pleased with a lot of other developmentss. As i told you, i think the United States part of this, which is not related to this Development Today taking place, is being handled in proper fashion. We will have some who might suggest more flamboyant courses of action for this country. And i think handling this with thiswith allies, dynamic change, trying to help as developments take place, trying to enhance reforms both political economic. The fact im not bubbling over, maybe its getting along towards evening. I feel very good. [indiscernible] if your side is winning, is that something to communicate with president bush a common european home. We have said it differently europe whole and free. , a when we see citizens wanting to go and flee what has been an oppressive society, clearly that is a message that mr. Gorbachev can understand. Not only in Eastern Europe, but inside the soviet union. Lobby. Ave a good we will be discussing rapid change in Eastern Europe. We were talking about that today, just before you all came in here, talking about the gorbachev meeting, and we are determined that we will discuss, and i know we will want to discuss change. Sam joining us today, a distinguished panel to talk about that day in washington, beginning with that gentleman you spotted at the end of the video standing against the wall behind secretary baker as president bush talks. Marlin fitzwater, right here [applause] who served with both Ronald Reagan and George Herbert walker bush, one of the longestrunning press secretaries of our country. Someone who, i say this admiringly, he knew how to handle the press. He has written four books about his experiences in the white house. I have to give the title of one decade with president s and the press. Who us also, to reporters 2 reporters who were on that beat for many years. Gibbons, who was fulltime for three president s ronald , reagan, George Herbert walker bush, and bill clinton. Reporting from the reuters group. I got it from wikipedia. I couldnt remember. Peter, you can correct me. Peter, on that day was with radio, and went on to a 20 year career with cbs news news. Peter has covered every president from jimmy carter to barack obama. Welcome to both of you. [applause] marlin, it was like a bombshell. You did not know, president bush did not know, how did he get the news . What happened . Marlin can i use the podium . Sam you may. Marlin i talk better from that. You can always take it back. [laughter] well, it is not dancing with the stars. [laughter] but i do thank sam and the group for having me here to go through this. They asked me to go through the president s afternoon when he was first informed about the wanted the wall, so i to just present this brief narrative. Panelof all, i thank the before us, who filled us in on events for the wall came down. As a goodhi background, to consider what happened during that afternoon. I will just say, inside the white house, there were no sirens or announcements of change, except for the relentless ticking of the wire Service Machines that they maintained in the National Security council room. The nsc staff got first notice of everything, and they reported that reuters had a story coming out from berlin about the wall, and they delivered a copy to my deputy, and he came rushing into my office and said, we have this story, you better take a look at it. And i did immediately, of course. Security Council Staff had stamped confidential on the top of it. I said, how can this be . This is a newswire from reuters that has gone to every Radio Station and newspaper in the world. [laughter] only in america would be stamped that confidential. But in any case, i said immediately, i will go to the oval office. So i took it in, to talk to the president. The secretary ushered me in and said hes in the study, a Little Office that is off of the oval. So i went through and went back to the study. I walked in. He was working at a desk there. And i just handed him the wire service story, without comment. And he read it, and started the, thet, and reaction was fairly pensive. He wanted to kind of take it all in. And this was a busy day for him in the white house, because we were having a state visit from Corazon Aquino from the the president of the philippines. So he had already done a speech on the south grounds, meeting her and her team. He was preparing for another afternoon of meetings and a state dinner that night. So this took everybody by. Urprise this took everybody by surprise, and clearly was going to reschedule many things during the day. The first thing he did, he looked up after he read the article and said, i need general scowcroft and bob gates, the deputy National Security advisor, and secretary baker. All three were called and came over to the office immediately. So, the four of us were there talking about it, and the president turned on his television. He could see, cnn was reporting the story. This was a still embryonic, and there was some chipping at the wall. The fellow with the hammer and chisel was working, but beyond that it was not clear they would be able to take down the entire edifice. But the story was there. Wasnn, which at the time the cable news network. Thet that time,t president was starting to ask some questions of secretary baker and the others about what they knew about it, what happened, and so forth. And i must say, at that point i recalled a book by richard ben kramer, a reporter who covered the 1988 campaign of president bush. He wrote a great book called what it takes, a profile of the candidates. In it, he described president bush as being a thoughtful guy, uncomfortablet an situation he wasnt certain about, he had a tendency to slump down in his chair. I had seen that phenomenon a number of times with president bush. I looked over, and i noticed that he was on his way down. [laughter] he was leaning back, going down. I suggested that we put out a statement. The press was all over us upstairs, very excited about this this. I thought he needed some kind of statement that gave context to this for the American People. He said, well, im not going to give a press conference. He said, furthermore there will not be any dancing on the wall. I took that as a pretty personal direction. [laughter] think about it some more and said, ok, i agree that we will do something. I want to do it informally. I suggested, why dont we just bring the pool, bring them into the oval, you can sit at your desk, which is the greatest symbol of authority that america has, and talk to them then about it. Then decide what you want to say. He took a little time, to give himself a rehearsal. He said, im concerned about the reaction of the soviet union. We dont know what it is going to be, whether they will react against this militarily, or exactly what they will have to say. Have the future to think about. Thean reunification, and status of the captive nations, and what happens to the soviet bloc countries. So, theres a lot of future we had yet to work out with president gorbachev. All of that took place in about 30 minutes. We brought in the pool. The president said, when do you want to do this . I said anytime before 6 00, you can get on the evening news at that hour. He said, lets do it now, which is kind of typical of president bush. When he first hired me, he said, i will run a different type of press operation. I want to go into the Briefing Room any time of day or night and talk to the press if i think it is necessary. I said, right on, good for me. I dont want to do any of these shows. Good for me, too. He said, i will do one. He did the first one, and he never did again. [laughter] this was in the mold of how he liked to pursue issues with the press. When the president came in, he made the statement where he said exactly, that this was a Good Development. But it was a very measured statement, and everyone could tell it was. The first question was about what the president expected. Then there were a lot of questions about the coming down of the iron curtain, and the future of the warsaw pact. The president took all of them. Question number seven came from leslie stahl, the cbs news correspondent in the pool. The press pool usually represents the various elements of the news media, magazines, newspapers, television, radio, and a few others. Usually about 15 people. One network and that networks cameras covered it as well. Leslie was the corresponding assigned with cbs to the pool that day. She said, you know, this is sort of a great victory for our side in this eastwest battle, but you do not seem very elated. Her office of course told her about the excitement around the country, and also told her that congressman gephardt was saying the president should be celebrating this, and leader mitchell suggested the president should be going to berlin to join in the celebration over there. So she was prepared to follow up, with a question that more or less came out of her discussion. Sam you are prepared to tell us what president , why president bush did that, but i want to turn, right now, hold everything. Gene, peter, what did you think of leslies question and bushs general reaction . I was back in the press room listening to the audio feed and q a trying to compose a breaking news story about the president s reaction, and it was difficult to do. There were no quotes. Headlines,run regardless of the consequences. As secretary baker said, the president wouldnt stick it in their eye. It would have been gray television, if he went great television, if you went out to the rose garden and celebrated this development. And wonderful domestic politics for him and terrible domestic politics for gorbachev, who might have been under pressure to roll the tanks. That day. As there i have to say, i was fortunate to have a number of visits with president bush thanks to gene, who helped clear the way for that. We chatted in his office in houston, at the apartment over point,rary, at walkers and had the final visit just months before he sadly said goodbye. About a poignant chat this, partially about this in his office at walkers point. I always wanted to tell him, sam and everyone, how i felt kind of naively, journalistically disappointed as we left the oval office that day. I told him, i was disappointed that day, sir, and i have to admit it to you. He said, really, why . I said, we are always looking for the pithy quote, the soundbite thats going to make the story, give it an imprint in print or on the air. I sense this will be my last chance to talk to him about that. I also told him, even before i returned to my Little Office in the basement of the white house, wasalized exactly what it that he was trying not to do, to antagonize the soviet union and make things difficult for mikhail gorbachev. Gene this really was the beginning of the end of the soviet union. President George Herbert walker bush doesnt give enough credit, the first time in history that a major empire disintegrated without bloodshed. I think his subdued reaction had a lot to do with how it turned out. Peter he was the man for the moment. I dont know how many times us either on the staff or following him, we heard him say, my mother always told me, dont be a braggadocio, and that was the last thing he wanted to be that day. Secretary baker said, at his funeral, and i wrote it down that day, when we were at the national cathedral. He said, president bush understood that humility toward, not humiliation of, a fallen adversary was the best path. [laughter] coming back to you for the last word. But i have to say, we have you have been around this town a long time. You know that presentation is part of it. The president might have been like the cock that crows when the sun comes up. Ah, me we have seen that perhaps. [laughter] but were you afraid that that the lowkey for all of the reasons might not do him that much good with the Reelection Campaign someday . Marlin you know, what he actually said, once he asked the question, im not an emotional kind of guy, and that is what the news carried. But as sometimes happens in these situations, th accidental the accidental question is the best, gets the best answer. And this is kind of a personal thetion, and making all news just to emphasize again the attitude that he wanted to take, that he didnt want to poke gorbachev in the eye. And just one month later, actually three weeks later we his firstlta, with meeting with gorbachev following all of this. The first thing gorbachev did was thank him for not dancing on the wall. So, he was right, in anticipating how the soviets would react to that. The president was asked at that time, if he could give the first leadoff presentation in malta, because he was not sure how gorbachev was reacting to the wall and all the events of the day, and wanted to make sure that we started the meetings and gorbachev heard what the United States position was going to be. What he did was present a 17point program of Economic Health that the United States was going to give to the soviet union to help bring them into the world economy. Sam i have to stop you because the clock tells me time is expiring. Marlin just one sam i would never stand in your way, sir. [laughter] have i ever in the Briefing Room stood in your way . Marlin this is what we had to do every day. Can you believe it . [laughter] anyway, i just wanted to say gorbachevs response at the end , of bushs presentation was to look at the floor, hush the audience, look up the table and look the president in the eye and say, that is exactly what i wanted to hear. And from there on, there was a dramatic change in the eastwest relations that we can talk about later. Sam thank you marlin, peter and gene. Thank you oh, i wish we had all day. I would have liked to hear about that malta meeting and the hurricane that was going on in the mediterranean. Peter very quickly, when i am asked, when i have the pleasure to speak to journalism students, who was your favorite press secretary . Here he is, the Gold Standard for press secretaries. [applause] and i know that gene agrees, and i know from watching him at the podium, to make him turn red. I will try very hard. There are two types of secretaries, there are those who are mouthpieces who are handed scripts, and there are those press secretaries who we knew, were trusted Communications Advisers who had access to the president s we covered. This man had both. Advisor,communications and a trusted advisor to president bush, and we knew that at the end of the day you would be going upstairs, or into the oval office and consulting with him. Sam i want to add because i think we all agree, marlin dodged and weaved and smiled and all that, served his president s well, but never lied. What press secretaries must not do is lie. When they lie, they betray us all, and this man never did. Tell us about your book. We will sell your book. [laughter] marlin what happens when you put press on the podium. You cant stop them. Sam read his book. [applause] marlin i just finished a book. Sam gave me the opportunity to promote it, it is called calm before the storm, a series of vignettes about the white house. Sam has been kind enough to give me a blurb on the back of the book. It also focuses on the president and desert storm. In it, i also have this soliloquy about gorbachev telling the president , asking him about capitalism and democracy and how it works. On when i heard that, it was the helicopter coming back from camp david. He said, how do you buy a house here . How do the banks work . What is a realtor do . That is when we all first knew he was really interested in a different kind of system for the soviet union. Sam thank you very much, marlin. [applause] its in the family. We all got along, although we savaged each other every day in the press room. Now it is time to turn to the expertise of one of the world s leading International Affairs schools and one of our cosponsors of this mornings program. Of course, they provided a wonderful hall for the event. The edmund walsh school of Foreign Service here at Georgetown University is celebrating its centennial, and to the schools dean, dr. Joel hellman, the program is yours, sir. [applause] dr. Hellman thank you very much, sam. Let me welcome you on this beautiful, glorious and important day on behalf of Georgetown University and our bmw center for german and european studies. And let me thank our sponsors for this event, the george and barbara bush foundation, the Reagan Institute and the Atlantic Council. So history is punctuated by , critical moments. Where events open up possibilities for fundamental change in the world order, and at these critical moments, the importance of leadership, diplomacy, intelligence, careful analysis become essential to shaping outcomes. These are the moments that are the essence of what we do here at the school of Foreign Service. And what we have been doing for 100 years. The Oldest School of Foreign Service and International Affairs in the United States. It is in that spirit i am excited we have had a chance to look into the history of such a critical global moment. And now we have a chance to pivot, on the current importance, where, 30 years after, has the fall of the berlin wall left us in Critical Issues shaping the world Going Forward . For that, i am pleased to have a wonderful panel of experts to talk through some of those thorny issues. I start by introducing eric adelman, a career Foreign Service officer who held key positions at the u. S. Embassy in moscow, and handling soviet affairs at the pentagon during the time of the fall of the berlin wall. He went on to ambassadorships in turkey and finland and eventually became u. S. Under secretary of defense for policy. Welcome. [applause] next, we have a professor of International Affairs here, as government. Ment of as well as a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. He served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European Affairs on the staff of the National Security council in the obama administration. He held senior positions at nsc and the state Department Planning staff. Welcome. [applause] finally, we have paula dobriansky, a graduate of the school of foreign affairs, and indeed a distinguished expert on Eastern Europe and the former soviet union. As a diplomat, she served five u. S. President s, democrat and republican. She was at the nsc covering soviet and eastern European Affairs during the fall of the berlin wall, and ultimately rose to an extended stint as under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, and is a professor here in our masters of the Foreign Service program, and a member of our board. I will go over to the panel, we will have time for discussion among ourselves, then we will go to you, the audience, for questions. Let me begin. So, i want to start first, we talked a lot about the history of the event, the implications of the event, and the Lessons Learned from the event. James baker started to give us some sense of what he felt the Lessons Learned from the event were. Obviously, a lot of discussion about the triumph of diplomacy, the importance of leadership, and how the fall of the berlin wall was handled. How we responded to a critical moment in which change in the global order was possible. First, what lessons do you take as you think about Foreign Policy now in the current moment from that experience, maybe starting with you, paula . Paula thank you, and i would like to thank the institutions for hosting this. This is an incredible moment and opportunity to reflect on what is and was a most significant point in history. Secretary baker i think well articulated a number of key points. But let me mention a few that maybe also need to be tossed in the mix. First, there should be a lesson of optimism. That we can actually make a difference, have an impact, and in those places where, change the status quo in those places where we may not always think that we can. So, theres a lesson of optimism that i think that undergirds all of this. There is also i think the crucial fact that here, there was a kind of supposition of a lack of change that could take place. In other words, that totalitarian regimes were not necessarily vulnerable. And i think what we witnessed, not only with the fall of the wall, but the sequencing of events, that really highlighted that there is great vulnerability, and here the power of ideas can really make a difference. The moral narrative. The fact that fundamental human freedoms cannot be buried or blocked by any kind of wall or barrier. I think the consistency of the diplomatic approach combined with the elements that the secretary, secretary baker mentioned about American Leadership, the importance of our allies, the importance of also the International Support that also reigned through this period. But, he mentioned something i dont want to be left aside. The domestic component. And i think he is quite right. When i reflect back on the period of the cold war, there was the domestic element of bipartisanship and that kind of support that undergirded Foreign Policy, which also provided us with a very strong and resolute backbone. And i guess finally, i would say earlier, mentioned it but ideas matter. Here, at the height of the cold war, it was between the issues of freedom, fundamental human freedoms and democracy, against communism, as the secretary articulated. In this sense, there was that ideological battle, and we were very consistent in laying down markers as to what we stood for. Dr. Hellman charlie, your thoughts . Charlie a quick three points, picking up on some things that paula just said. First, even though i agree completely with what we have heard this morning about the importance of statespeople, and Foreign Policy and engagement, lets keep in mind that in many respects the end of the cold war was about history running away from statesmen, not the opposite. That is to say the soviet union , fell apart because gorbachev tried to reform it and lost control. And what we ended up with, exactly what paula mentioned, the kind of flowering of the human spirit, the overthrow of the structures of the soviet union, and then gorbachev and reagan and george h. W. Bush and others stepped in and did a remarkable job controlling the aftermath. It is stunning, that the cold war came to an end without war. Most transitions of that order are usually very bloody. But it was about people power. It was grassroots. When i was a student in the 1980s, i went to poland after the imposition of martial law, and i didnt see the end of the cold war coming any more than anyone else. Ut i saw a clear sign that the lie was in the streets. When i went to meet people, they said, i want to meet you in the lobby of the Main International hotels. And they would wave at the security people who were monitoring us. That was kind of, you knew it was going to come up, and the soviet union was going to collapse, it was just when. But to me, it is keep an eye on that people power. An important lesson for us today. The same thing is happening today, but the spirit we are seeing is different. We need to keep in mind that mr. Mr. Orban,ther mr. Trump, they are symptoms as much as causes. They are responding to political currents. And we need to understand why peoples attitudes are going that way instead of that way and figure out what is going on. Be to point would highlight something others have said today, the importance of the u. S. I am probably more proeuropean than most people in this city. I think the European Union is one of the great accomplishments of our time. It is a revolutionary change in europe, but it still needs our help. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said, i like germany so much that i always hope that there are two of them. [laughter] germanynt know whether would be reunited had it not been for the u. S. I look at europe today, it is hanging in there, but the brits are leaving, no one home in berlin, macron is trying, but it is tough, and they still need our help. Final point, again, the importance of a certain kind of american help. That is what we call liberal internationalism. The marriage of power and partnership. It took a long time for americans to discover that. We tried in 1898, and it was mostly too much power. We tried in 1917, and it was too much partnership and idealism. Finally, fdr comes along and puts these two together, and i think that reagan and bush did a great job combining those two. They are now splitting. Thats in part because of what paula said, the bipartisan compact behind that marriage of power and partnership is coming undone. It is leading to a different kind of american engagement in the world that we all need to get our arms around and understand. Eric thank you. Great to be here, great to be on this panel with paula and charlie, though i find myself slightly disoriented to be on charlies left. [laughter] charlie i like you there. [laughter] eric it is great to be part of this event commemorating a hugely important event in modern history and to be part of this with so many great people, including andy card who was the chief of staff when i was working in the bush 43 administration. Really great to be part of this. I guess the thing that i take away most particularly, with all the discussion of diplomacy, having devoted 30 years of my life to the Foreign Service as that something i learned from one of my early mentors in diplomacy, who said, dont get vertigo. Because there are ups and downs, and you cannot allow yourself to be thrown off by the momentary hi from an event like the fall of the wall. Because, although we have frequently titled diplomatic agreements as the final act of this or that, there are no final acts in diplomacy. You are in the business of theging problems, managing adjudication of National Differences by nonmilitary means, although military means are important. And whatever problems you think you have solved, you have either pushed off the face them another day, or created some problem along the way that you will have to solve in the future, or you have allowed new problems to arrive that you havent paid attention to before, that you will have to solve. So very quickly on the heels of this event we are commemorating, we found ourselves, for instance, dealing with problems really of world war ii excuse me, world war i settlement. Because we found ourselves dealing with the breakdown of the former yugoslavia. Iraq,ecause of the war in we found ourselves dealing with a middle east that was created by the world war i settlement. So here we were, thinking we had solved the big problems that had been created by world war ii, only to find ourselves reengaging with problems created by world war i. And then, just to pick up on. Omments paula and charlie made important,s very particularly as we consider some of the totalitarian or authoritarian regimes we are dealing with today, to remember the reason that we were able to get to the point of the wall coming down was, as secretary baker said, we had bipartisan support for a number of years on the policy of containment. But towards the end, we had administrations that made it a point to force the soviet union to confront what i might have called in an earlier part of my life the antagonistic contradictions that the system was based on. And only when that happened were we able to force gorbachev and his colleagues to make a series of choices that led, as charlie said, to the process getting out of their control. The second point i would make, looking forward from today, is the problem we were wrestling within those years, and i started in the Carter Administration in the Foreign Service, and then the carter, reagan and Bush Administrations, was a threat to democracy largely from the left. Today, as charlie was saying, the threat to democracy is largely on the right, from populist, authoritarian regimes. It is a global problem but is particularly acute in europe and Central Europe where it has become a particular problem. We can talk about some of the reasons for that. One of the things that was essential to u. S. Success in the cold war was the role of liberal anticommunism. The fact that the centerleft in the United States agreed with the centerright, that certain parties in europe were beyond the pale. They were beyond the pale because they didnt have an allegiance because they had an allegiance to a Foreign Government and took assistance from that Foreign Government. And they were beyond the pale because they would not agree to abide by the rules of democracy if they actually won an election. And the centerleft said that is unacceptable, and you cant be a participant in the International Liberal Order we are creating if you go down that path. I think it is incumbent on those of us who selfidentify on the centerright today to take the same attitude to these movements that are revising and challenge the norms and habits of democracy, and of taking assistance from foreign powers. Dr. Hellman following up on that, with the fall of the berlin wall, there was tremendous euphoria, that we had reached the end of history. The cold war looked like it was over, the cold war unification was going to bring Eastern Europe into the fold of nations. And yet, as you point out, we are starting to see deeply worrying regimes in hungary, poland, and the czech republic, in parts of former east germany. We are seeing that moved to the right of populism. ,it is surprising, because the economic advantages for europe in integration have been tremendous, even overwhelming, and yet still there is this disquiet. We have russia rearing up cold war competition. It seems to be regenerating. 30 years on, the fall of the berlin wall that was meant to reintegrate and bring into the family of nations former rivals, there seems to be fraying at the edges, to put it mildly, from all sides. What are the implications of that . Why did we not understand, and what did we miss when we thought of the euphoria after the fall of the wall, of how we would get to this current moment . Go ahead. Paula i was going to pick out a couple of issues that i think have had bearing on these developments. The first one is the lack of reform of the European Union. I pick that out primarily because i hear constantly those from central Eastern Europe talk about how they have been part of not really ever integrated. Over basic issues, issues that have economic bearing to their respective countries. So, i think that part of this is interrelated with the way in which the e. U. Has been operating. I think there is a need for reform. I think theres a need for greater flexibility. Theres another component, that some who follow closely the Political Trends have said. Particularly when the centerleft, as you were mentioning, were in power, there could have been more inclusive approach is taken, and maybe more coalitionoriented policies. There were certain lines drawn. Centerleftn the didnt produce economically, the centerright and rightists came in, there wasnt this kind of feeling of camaraderie, or coalitionbuilding. Third and last, it is interesting when we equate the reunification of germany with the fall of the wall, and we also think about the end of the cold war. It is interesting, at this time when people talk about europe, where things are going, russia also looms large again in terms of what its agenda is. And there have also been concerns about that. Not a causal relationship with your question, but i think it is also important to put that on venue is, because the not the one, and the feeling was not the one at the fall of the wall in the end of the cold war. Dr. Hellman charlie, do you agree . Charlie i think i will broaden the lens a little bit, in the sense that it is right across the western world that the populists are thriving. I think what is happening here and in western europe is similar. A combination of economic insecurity and identity politics, mainly in response to immigration, that has created a toxic brew. And i think the u. S. And the u. K. Are particularly hardhit because we have twoparty democracies, so you have a lot of angry people out there and they really have two places to go, the democrats and republicans here. The parties to the left and right, centerleft and centerright, are being depopulated. Same thing is happening in the u. K. Continental europe is a little better, because the angry people have other places to go. Alternative for germany, the national rally, and centerleft and centerright are losing market share, but are still in the center and generally empower. Once we talk about Eastern Europe, it is a different kettle of fish. Their economies have generally been doing well, and they dont have any immigrants, so what the hell is going on there . Theink its more about success in some ways of these countries, and the degree to which a more conservative, rural, religious segment of society has been politically empowered. Erdogan figured that out. Has done it. Orban has. They have manipulated the antiimmigrant sentiment, particularly in east and Central Europe to great political effect. Quite blatantly, it has very racist overtones, and it has worked. And i have to say, especially when we think back to the postcold war era, it is quite distressing to me has susceptible our populations have been to this kind of antiimmigrant, racist narrative. The simple truth is that its working. Eric i think it has been, these are more or less footnotes to what paula and charlie are saying, but it has been i would say the unequal distribution of gains economically across from globalization, across a variety of polities, that have led to a sense that a large groups in large various countries have been left out from what an elite has been able to benefit from. In the european context, that has been exacerbated by the european project for some time has had a huge disconnect between the brusselsbased multilingual elite that has benefited from it and the populations at large. It is not just in central and Eastern Europe. You see it in france, for instance, as well. And you see it in the history of various referenda on e. U. Treaties where the principle of democracy has been to some degree subverted by the requirement that we vote on this until we get it right, by having multiple referenda on treaties that have been rejected by national publics. So i think there has been a disconnect that has affected things. And just to add to what charlie said about migration, its not, there have been a couple waves of this. One, the fear of migration into members ofope by new the e. U. Because of freedom of movement, which created problems in central and western europe. But then it was the failure, ultimately, to deal with both libya and syria that set off a new wave of migration both in Subsaharan Africa and the middle east that has made not just actual migration but fear of migration as salient as charlie just suggested. Dr. Hellman i will ask audience members who want to ask a question to line up here, and i will also ask Sam Donaldson if he can come back out if anyone wants to ask questions about some of the earlier things. But while they are lining up, if i could quickly get a lightning round of questions, regarding something james baker said. He talked about the fraying alliances between the United States and europe. He talked about his discussion with the german ambassador. What do you think the possibilities are, for the rubberband snapping back in a new administration of our relationship with our alliances, the transatlantic relationship in general . Kenneth snape back can it snap back, or is real permanent damage done in the 30 years that we have built and forged that alliance . Just the talk of the flexibility of it moving back to a status quo . Paula briefly, im not sure that i would in all cases agree with that premise. Let me give an example of nato. Nato, all administrations have tried to get nato to go with burdensharing. The approach was a hardhitting one. Hasiew is that i think nato moved forward in a very, very, already in a very important and substantive direction. There may be differences, but the agenda has been tough and forwardlooking. I will not necessarily agree with the premise of the question. Charlie i agree with the premise of the question, and i think a lot of damage has been done. But i agree with paula that there is a resilience to the transatlantic relationship, which we have seen in washington. Congress invited the nato secretarygeneral for the first time in history to give a joint address. Public opinion in support of the alliance is exactly where it was under obama, 75 to 76 positive. The thing that worries me is, are our allies over time going to get sick of us . Are they going to question our reliability . Are they going to see us go from here to there and back and say this country doesnt know which end is up . I think thats starting to happen. Does that mean they are going to walk away from us . No, because there is no alternative, but i think it will take a lot of repair work once we get over the next hump. Eric i think there has been damage done to alliance solidarity over the last two presidencies. I think a lot of the rhetoric about burdensharing that we heard from the Current Administration we heard from the previous president , for instance, in his interviews with Jeffrey Goldberg and there were already building concerns about it in allied capitals before the Current Administration came in. And i think as well, the efforts to boost nato spending began before the Current Administration came in. They get some credit, but not all the credit for that, in my view. I am actually more concerned about the damage that has been done inside the United States government. If youre going to conduct diplomacy, you have to have a diplomatic instrument with which to conduct it. And i think there has been very serious and lasting damage to the career Foreign Service. I think we will find out more about that in coming weeks. And i would say it is very easy to diminish your capabilities in that area. It takes quite a long time to build them back up. I would say the same with regard to interagency. It is like muscle memory. If you lose it over a fouryear or eightyear period it doesnt just come back to what it once was. Dr. Hellman thank you. From theake questions audience. Phrase your question in the form of a question. We will take a few of them. Tell me who you would like to address them to end we will keep the conversation going. [inaudible] [indiscernible] dr. Hellman just a question, please . [indiscernible] joel thank you, very much. Can i have the next question, please . Thank you to our panelists. Im a graduate student at the school of Foreign Service. I want to know if we can take any lessons from the fall of the berlin wall, especially our american response, in the plight of other parts of the world. I am thinking in particular hong kong today. Another semiautonomous region independent for an way of life. I address this generally to the panel. Thank you. Dr. Hellman another question. Thank you for being here. Goes to United States ambassador dobransky. At thecally looking former soviet union and china, as a threat when it comes to space issues. Do you believe we veered from the fall of the berlin wall to more domestic policy issues, and that created a vacuum of not watching adversaries like russia and china, leading to a new space race happening right now, in the National Security space . I wanted your opinion on that. Paula i will say a word on the hong kong question. Just a footnote on the hong kong question. My answer is yes on that. I think there are a lot of lessons and application to what is happening in hong kong. I was in australia, and the australians are very engaged in this. Cited the u. S. And our approach, not publicly but behind the scenes, is helping the demonstrations taking place. Excellent question. With regard to space and of the United States and russia, you focus on a question that is key in Foreign Policy. There has been a lot of change definitely, it is agreed to those in the Foreign Policy in the Foreign Policy community, there is bipartisanship around the fact that we are being challenged by china and russia. There is strategic competition. I expand your question to not only russia, but china in this case. It is called the new frontier. There are issues of cyber, of artificial intelligence, space, and one could go on, digital where there hasnt been the kind of focus there needs to be in terms of our preparedness and our own investment in those areas. Interestingly enough in recent days when scott morrison, the Prime Minister of australia, was here he contributed significantly to our program. In space. This has become a top agenda item of this administration. Personally i think it is important. These are topics that are now part of the discourse of what and how National Security is defined. It is not traditional warfare of the past. Charlie and i were talking about the rise of authoritarian regimes. Paula touched on it as well. Because of that phenomenon, and in the wake of dashed hopes after the arab spring, there has been talk about the democratic recession, which is a real phenomenon documented by Freedom House and others. Having said that, i think that has led a lot of people to conclude that democracy, promotion, and advocating for human rights more broadly in our Foreign Policy is sort of passe, we shouldnt really do it anymore because no one cares about it anymore. What is going on in hong kong, moscow, sudan, and other countries is an indication that people having that debate are largely ones that already enjoy the benefit of democracy. It isnt going on where people are being denied the fruits of democracy. If either president reagan or bush were here today, they would be wanting us to encourage what is going on in hong kong and moscow. Charlie two quick comments on hong kong. The country that has drawn lessons from the cold war is china. The lesson is we arent going to let that happen to us. That is in my mind one of the reasons xi is tightening things. I am surprised he has not gone into hong kong in a more aggressive way. Im with eric on democracy promotion, but we have to do it steadily and patiently. We got it right in the cold war. We out waited them and they collapsed from within. We bit off more than we could shoot. Trying to turn iraq and afghanistan into ohio has not gone well. Take the lesson from the cold war as the right way to do it. In regards to russia and germany, should the United States try to lead more from the middle . Since 1989 both countries are much stronger than they were before. We acknowledge that without trying to impose on them, but recognize they are in a strong position . I am a senior. Im wondering what are things the Younger Generation can do to reaffirm democratic order and democratic principle . One last. Good day. I have a personal relationship because my father came from the if my father had not come to the u. K. I would not exist. You could say, from russia with love. Issues going on that require the u. S. s input and its allies support, i get my sense around around that what should be the United States grand strategy . We had a clear one during the cold war, but in recent years we dont seem to have a clearcut pathway. I was wondering what that could be . We will start with charlie because he teaches a course on grand strategy. Charlie i think the top priority when it comes to grand strategy is to get our own house in order. If the liberal anger of the international liberal anch or of comes unglued, which it might, then managing Global Change in the centuries going to be difficult. We know that change is coming. The Global Distribution of power is shifting rapidly. The Atlanta Community used to be 80 of global gdp, we have a low 50 and it will continue to shrink. I would say the top first, second, third, seventh priority is to make sure the liberal democratic world gets its mojo back. The question from what do we do . Get active. Get political. Im struck by the degree in this country and everywhere else, yes, there are checks and balances but they dont seem to work as well as we thought they would i would agree with that. In my class at georgetown, i am delighted every single student is going into the Foreign Service. To me that is getting active. They are going into the diplomatic corps, but one student is running for state legislature in michigan. We were very impressed. Get active. On grand strategy, my view is the tenants of our overall Foreign Policy have to be focused on the strategic competition and challenge posed by russia and china, now and in the future. As part of that, the moral narrative, in other words the liberal order matters. There has been a complacency and a real need for coming forward and ensuring that moral narrative, through the International Liberal Order, is in fact maintained. It is being challenged by china, by russia. We have to have that at the forefront of our framework of action. I completely associate myself with my colleagues remarks about Public Service and i encourage everyone at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service to think about the problems i described earlier as an opportunity. On the grand strategy point, i agree largely with what paula and charlie have said, but i would add this. I think there is going to need to be serious thought on both sides of the aisle about what it takes for the United States to play the role in the world we have played historically since 1945. That does mean getting your house in order. Getting our house in order, if you read the longterm budget outlook, means we have to get a handle on the entitlements problem. Entitlements is what is driving the longterm debt problem. It is not the defense budget. My friends on the left need to understand that, as do some of my friends on the right who think the account is just another budget account that should be cut like all of the others. George Cameron George cannon gave a lecture that i remind my Foreign Service colleagues of all the time. You have no idea how much more cooperative and collegial diplomacy is if you have quiet power in the background. That is something i think we should remember as we think about diplomacy Going Forward. As we talk about what to do now, i will give the last word to Sam Donaldson about the role of the press and the current world. Be careful. When you give me the final word i run off. The role of the press is difficult today. More difficult than when i was operating in washington. You know the difficulties. The press continues to try to do what i thought was its fundamental purpose, whether you electronic or print or what have you. Uncover what you consider to be facts, a very elusive things somehow, and bring it to the American People, because our democracy depends on the public weighing in. Getting the public weighing in is hard today. It is not just hard getting the facts, it issomehow hard convincing the public they ought to pay attention. When i first started in this town there were three networks, you had to watch, you had no vcrs, no internet, and you did, because of the cold war. Now kids get their information from facebook and tweets and whatever. There are so many access points. It is difficult. I think the thing to impress on people is, excuse me for being partisan, we are not the American Peoples enemy, we are not the enemy of that. If we have enemies, it is the enemy of things that are not true and it is our job to continue to cover them. How to get you to watch, this audience, no problem. Watch tom brokaw. You will watch and you will read. How to get people who may have never left their state. Look at the number of passports available. Even those that require us to go to canada and mexico for 2005 you do not have to have that. Very low compared to other countries in the world, not just europe but other places. How do we get americans to travel . How do we get americans to get their information from looking at it and seeing at it. Mr. Limbaugh may be a great source, but there are other sources. The problem of the press is to do its job. If someone says you cannot come to the white house, you go to court and you go to the white house. You say no one will tell you anything, they may. You have to be there in order to receive it if they do. If they do not, it is not the individual loss of the reporters and it is loss for truth and finding out what is going on. We encourage young people have a problem. There are some that do not know anything about the press and some that do our activists. I did not think people at this university have the problem of where to get their news and how to process it. If any of you can come up with an idea you cannot tell the American People you have to watch this, you have to read this. That is the worst way to get anyone to watch anything on television. You come up with a way to induce people to get interested in the facts and in news organizations that will bring them the facts. Please see me. I will nominate you for the nobel prize. [laughter] thank you very much, sam. [applause] let me end by thanking our panelists for an interesting discussion. Thank you, Sam Donaldson. Let me turn the microphone over, for the final remarks, to roger, who is the executive director of the Reagan Institute. Everyone, please join me in thanking all the panelists, to Georgetown University, and all of our students and guests. Thank you to our friends at the george and barbara bush foundation. Todays event was a perfect First Partnership for the bush foundation, the Reagan Institute. Looking forward to more collaboration in the future. Thank you to the Atlantic Council, and our moderator, the incomparable Sam Donaldson. Thank you so much. A few more comments and we will close this out. The day the berlin wall fell, i was a kid at the time internalizing it from the tv and my parents living room. Sams abc news colleague Peter Jennings described the developments as perhaps the most important announcement made in Central Europe since the end of world war ii and certainly since the wall went up in 1961. On that day americans knew they were watching history. We also remember president reagans speech at the Brandenburg Gate is another defining moment on the path to the soviet unions demise. In june of 1987, it did not seem that way at all. It hardly made news in america. It was not until the wall came down in 1989 that those four powerful words, tear down this wall, truly echoed around the world. That is the nature of history. Sometimes you know you are witnessing it. Sometimes you only realize it years later. Looking back, it can appear inevitable. Almost unremarkable. Not even president reagan or president bush knew when the wall would come down were how the war would end. They did know it was a cause worth fighting for. Back in 1989, on the day the wall fell, president reagan joined Sam Donaldson live on the air from his home in california. This is a transcript. Please do not correct me. We got it off the transcript service. The question was asked, did you think it would come down this soon . President reagan responded, i did not know when it would come, but i have to tell you i am an internal optimist. I am an eternal optimist. I believed with all my heart that it was in the future. Maybe that is the most important lesson today. That like president s reagan and bush, we must always have faith that we can achieve a Brighter Future for freedom and humankind. Thank you all so much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org adam schiff is expected to reject many if not all of the requested witnesses. Open impeachment inquiry will be fixed this week