cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> former secretary of state madeleine albright and former national security advisor, susan rice joined the discussion on changes to us foreign policy under the trump administration. and american leadership in world affairs. hosted by the aspen institute in washington dc, this is three hours. >> good morning everyone. good morning. thank you for your patience. i am the director of the aspen strategy group. and welcome to this session on american global leadership in the 21st century. first i want to thank piper for giving us their space this morning. we much appreciate that. i would like to thank all of you for being here. members of the strategy group. particularly senator dan sullivan of alaska with whom i will introduce any minute. let me tell you about the program this morning. we at the aspen strategy group are 35 years old. we have this radical notion that even in washington there can be an organization resolutely nonpartisan. we have been resolutely nonpartisan for 35 years. our founders are bill perry, -- we meet annually in aspen, colorado to discuss and debate big ideas about america, american foreign policy and our global leadership. each year we prepare a book based on our proceedings for publication. this year is both is available today. it is about that we are discussing today.12 the world turned upside down. america, maintaining american leadership in a dangerous age. we will discuss the book this morning. with senator sullivan and continuing with our good friend, stephen biegun. we'll talk about major changes and how america looks at the global trade. with richard danzig about the impact of technology on america's global military leadership. we will continue with the conversation that i will moderate between former secretary of defense, bill cohen and madeleine albright about these issues and then culminate in a panel at 1130 with david ignatius of the washington post, and to former national security advisers. we have a full morning. this is what is at stake. we took on this summer in our conversation. this book focuses on probably the major question that republicans and democrats have about the future. will the united states maintain his leadership in the world in decades ahead? because that leadership is being assaulted by a combination of factors. first is the rise of right-wing antidemocratic populist movements. even in some allied countries. in poland, hungary, and in the czech republic. all members of nato, all now bearing in an anti-democrat direction.we see the rise. in france. deutschland, germany. some of these antidemocratic parties well-financed. some of them financed by the kremlin. some of them designed to howl at the european union and nato from the inside. that is one big factor that we are contending with. the second of course, is the rising power of the two great autocratic countries. china and russia. china following xi jinping' chandler clearly challenging the united states. china pushing out and violating the sovereignty of five other countries. in the south china sea and challenging japanese sovereignty and administrative control over islands in the east china sea. china, running over international law in making extravagant legal claims to the space in the south china sea. the only combination of powers that can manage this, contain china's ambitions are the united states and japan and india, all democratic countries, all increasingly aligned with each other. in europe, we are facing an equally tough problem. vladimir putin has invaded georgia and crimea. in eastern ukraine, pressured the baltic states all over the last nine years. the intelligence communities of the united states said publicly about one year ago that vladimir putin interfered in our 2016 election. there is no question that the russian government is trying to cut the united states down to size and limit our power in the world. that is a second factor. we are also going to examine technology. because the technological military edge that we have, the qualitative military edge is being narrowed. not just by powers like china. but also by the fact that countries like north korea not have the ability with cyber technology to penetrate deep into the heart of say the sony corporation into the databases of the united states government. this challenge to us global leadership is also from within. we have a major debate in the united states right now that was reflected in our conversation this summer. president trump came to office with an america first point of view. he believes, we have five members of the trump administration with us. at the conference this summer. we were happy to have the national security advisor, hr mcmaster with us and for other officials. they talked about the need for retrenchment. the need for a stronger defense. the need to have more hard-nosed attitude on trade. the need to demand more of our allies. on the other side, have critics and we had both sides in aspen this summer in our nonpartisan basis. saying that president trump is too ambivalent towards the allies. that he is upending 60 years american policy on trade. that the immigration and refugee issues are hurting the credibility of the united states. in the crackdown on refugees. and that there has been a withdrawal of american leadership on climate, on the trade issue and from un agencies. looked at both sides of the issue in our nonpartisan effort to be fair to both sides, to listen to both sides this summer. what i was struck in the public session that we had this summer when former secretary of state condoleezza rice said she felt that the united states had lost its self-confidence in the world. as a global leader, so we should look at that again this morning. do you have strategic direction that most americans and both of our political parties can agree on? those are the issues for this morning. we're looking forward to a good conversation and i want to start with our friend, senator dan sullivan. this is a rather busy week. for the senate and for the house. i want to thank senator sullivan for being with us. he spent five days with us this summer. in aspen. he is someone that we know quite well as you all know, he served as assistant secretary of state for economic affairs in the george w. bush administration. he was the lead person on terrorist financing. he did a great job for that administration. have a great pleasure to work with dan during those years. dan was also attorney general and the state of alaska. he has no senator from the state of alaska. he is a member of the armed services committee and plays a leading role in that committee. he is a recognized expert on the asia-pacific region. really a global, america's local and foreign defense policy. i did not realize until i was preparing for this session, he is also a lieutenant colonel in the us marine corps reserve. he has spent 23 as the marine corps reserves as he has conducted his public career in the state department, the national security council, for the state of alaska and not for all of us in the u.s. senate. i want to invite senator sullivan to take the stage and ask all of you to join me in welcoming him. [applause] >> all right, well, thank you nick. it is a pleasure to be back. i want to first think my wife julie, she is here and when you're the senator from alaska, you don't get home that much. so having her in town for a couple of weeks has been a real treat for me and my staff, jason and liz. they are also here. i want to thank them. i had not been to aspen before. in terms of this summer. and nick mentioned, we work together. i worked for secretary rice but that the nsc and she was secretary of state as one of her assistant secretaries. so, when you get asked by condoleezza rice to spring break conference that she is cohosting, pretty much always say, yes, ma'am and salute and do that, right? she is such an incredible, incredible, important figure for our country and has done so much. but i have to tell you, i had a wonderful time at the event. a little bit of bonding with my -- julie and i have three teenage daughters. our youngest to her in college. the youngest is in high school. jesse went with me out to aspen. we went to all of the, she went over the events which is really great. we actually flew to denver together and then drove out to aspen. and she, like millions of high school kids across the country, is a huge fan of hamilton. the musical. i haven't really heard much about him that we were listening on the whole drive up to aspen. and on the drive back. i started getting into it. for those of you who are at the aspen meeting this summer, there was like -- in the meetings there were all of these numerous, summer time i think on purpose but others were inadvertent references to hamilton. right? so every time it happened my daughter would sit in the row and she and i will look over and be like -- [laughter] so there is the theme of the whole conference, which is world turned upside down. that was one of the songs in hamilton. there was another one where we were all in there. hr mcmaster, condoleezza rice, susan rice, steve hadley. all of these big shots. madeleine albright and somebody said, boy, this is really the room where it happens, right? so i looked at my daughter, hank, and other appeared and there was even a reference. this is where the real hamilton gates. somebody had mentioned, i think it was about hr mcmaster. how he was the right-hand man to somebody. so we were having a lot of fun. you probably did not know that all of these references to hamilton were going on. so, thanks again for the invite this summer and then just to say a few words here. what i wanted to do is try to address upfront, next kind of opening question. which is, will the us remanded predominant global power despite all the challenges that everybody in the room recognizes? my answer to that is, yes, probably. we need to focus on some key things. and the three keys i wanted to highlight today are returning to robust levels of economic growth. strengthening and deepening our network of alliances that nick talked about. and then something that i have a little bit of a birds eye view on now is a us senator. a stronger executive legislature cooperation in terms of foreign policy. so let me hit on these, each in turn. and then love to take any questions or comments. first, economic growth. so my team has passed out a chart that hopefully you are taking a look at. this was the biggest surprise to me as a us senator. i've been in a little under three years. when i came here, i thought the idea of growth. maybe with the exception of national security, that growing our economy strong, traditional levels of robust us growth was the most important thing congress should be focused on. because so many of our challenges did better if we are growing. and so many of our challenges get worse if we are not. and yet, my biggest surprise is a us senator when i came here three years ago, was nobody talked about it. obama administration certainly did not talk about it. democrats in the senate didn't talk about it. republicans didn't talk about it needed to be perfectly honest. in my confidence i used to get up and say hey, how come no one is talking about growth? i had been going on into the senate with a chart and other charts could i feel a little bit like ross perot. i thought these charts on the senate floor get the same speech. at least once 1/4, sometimes more often. look at this, look at this chart. okay? this explains a lot. from my perspective. and this is very bipartisan. democrats and republicans. we have focused our country on strong growth. the redline is three percent. which is good, it is not great, but it is okay. it is a good target to shoot for. we have not hit three percent gdp growth annually in almost 13 years. and nobody was talking about it. there was a lot of discussion talking about make america great. what makes america great? this is what made america great.almost 4 percent gdp growth annually. the average of all of the recessions since world war ii. since the founding of the republic is about four percent. and yet, we had a decade starting at the end of the bush administration, the entire obama administration, that never hit three percent. and nobody was talking about it. my view is, you want to understand what happened in the 2016 election? boom. to me, we have to, have to, have to get back to strong levels of economic growth. i'm a little biased as nick mentioned. i was the assistant secretary for the economic and energy and business affairs bureau at the state department under secretary rice. but i think this is even more important than military power. after, this underpins military power. and yet, we really haven't been focused on it. so, what happened was -- if you listen to narrative particularly in washington, people saw this and they were like, wait a minute. how do i explain that? and so, people started for making excuses calling this the new normal. the new normal. one and and a half percent gdp growth is america hitting on all of the economic cylinders. that is a narrative in washington. to me, is one of the most dangerous narratives there is. if we think that one and and a half or two percent is it for the country, we are going enormous challenges. and we're not going to be positioned for a global leadership. my view is different. i don't think that that is the future. i do not believe in the new normal. as a matter fact, one of the privileges of being in the u.s. senate is if you go reach out to smart people and many in this room, who have time on their hands. you say i would like to talk you about an issue. next time you're in washington. i have reached out to dozens of people with one question. is this the future? do you believe in the new normal at 1 and a half percent? and if not, had to be get back to robust levels of gdp growth that have made this country great?in our foreign policy strong? nobody believes in the new normal which is why the narrative is so dangerous. so what is the good news on that front? western to focus on getting back to robust levels of growth.democrats, republicans, the white house. i think the policies, you can undertake. tax reform. remember, a lot of ideas in the current tax reform bill you do not hear about in the press. the president obama had this idea, chuck schumer had this idea, nobody thinks the corporate tax rate is a good idea in terms of competitiveness in america. infrastructure, energy. energy, energy, energy. the us is on the verge of being the words energy superpower again. the largest producer of oil. look then you have saudi arabia and russia.the largest producer of natural gas. bigger than anybody. to me that is an enormous opportunity to grow the economy. when people talk about instruments of foreign policy, instruments of american power, energy is one that i think we are just scratching the surface on. it is a win, win, win. and the last administration did not like to talk about hydrocarbons. i was in charge of producing hydrocarbons in alaska. the highest standards in the world on arctic development in alaska. you don't produce there, a drive out there, what do you do? you drive it to russia. or brazil or iran. places that do not have nearly the focus on protecting the environment that we do. so, to me, this issue of strong robust growth is an issue also that nick mentioned. in his opening remarks. this also goes back to the issue of american confidence. which we need to regain. and so many smart foreign policy practitioners recognize that we are best at developing confidence, long-term foreign policy and the american people in the country feels confident. and there is nothing like the confidence of a growing economy versus something that is not growing. hr mcmaster focused on this last week at the reagan defense form. when he talks, as nick said, condoleezza rice talked about this after aspen. one of my mentors, someone who i think has a lot of respect in this room in terms of foreign policy. a very well-known responsible stakeholders speech was given. he talks about american confidence in having a deal with china from a feeling in position of strength. to me it is all about the economy. that is one area. we have to do better. i think we are getting there. the second is with regard to strengthening our position with our allies. and as all of you know here, as nick mentioned over decades, democrats and republicans have focused on that. to me, again, even stronger than our military. this is probably the most important strategic advantage we have as a nation. we are an ally rich nation. and most of the adversaries are potential adversaries, they are ally poor. there are not many countries looking to join the iran team or the north korea team or even russia or china team. but in my experience, there are still countries who really want to be part of the us alliance system. so we need to deepen our card alliances and expand them. so, how are we doing on that? well, i think is a mixed assessment. last year, i thought that we hit a low point. to such a degree that went on the senate floor and gave a couple of speeches about the importance of our alliances be why was this a low point? at the time, you had a presidential candidate. talking about nato being obsolete. questioning korea and japan alliances as a candidate. the other thing going on that didn't get nearly as much press. some of you probably read this. there was a very big article in the atlantic.by jeffrey goldberg about the obama doctrine. you read that. it made with donald trump saying on the campaign trail, pale in comparison to how dismissive president obama was up almost all of our allies. go reread that article. pretty remarkable that a sitting president was knocking pretty much everybody but angela merkel. so that was what prompted a number centers to say wait a minute, democrats, president obama -- possibly a new president. you guys need to remember, our allies are critically important to us. so, in terms of my assessment on this, how are you doing? well, i think again, going back to this issue of strong economic growth and more energy. that kind of power from the nazis binds us closer to our allies. as all of you know, focus on the asia-pacific. a strong us economy in many ways is much more important than our military presence out there. versus china's strong economy. i think if we can start turn that around, start using it when strings of power like energy, it can help us with our allies.in asia, i think we are starting to do well. the president has put together a team, secretary mattis. -- between the us, japan, australia and india. for me it was a very smart strategic move. hopefully we can deepen that. i even think that we need to look at perhaps, a much stronger trilateral security arrangement. between korea, japan and the united states. which has a lot of potential. so, in that area, and i also think despite some news last week in the middle east with regard to the opportunities with our alliances, we have an opportunity with regard to particularly our allies in israel, working much much more closely together because we all see and view our common interest particularly with regard to pushing back against the hegemonic aspirations and terrorist activities of iran. these are areas i think in terms of allies, there are some positive things happening. the negatives. europe, there continues to be a lot of skepticism of this administration. particularly i think a lot of it is driven by what happened with regard to the paris climate accord and the iran nuclear deal. and, i will touch on that in a minute. it also strategic communications. finding our allies means discipline strategic comms. i think by definition it is not strategic and we need to do a better job on that. thomas can obviously play a really important role in all of this. which brings me to my third and final point. in terms of setting the united states for continued global leadership, i think that we have to do a better job of getting back to the difficult work because it is difficult. i better executive legislative cooperation and working together in the area of foreign policy and national security. you look at history, all of you know because you are all experts on it. united states is strongest in the world when the executive branch and congress are working together. for speaking with one voice. it is not easy. often it is hard. people look back on history as it was easy getting the nato alliance to the senate. no, it wasn't. but it is hard work. but what is it? it is durable. it's terrible. so, in my short time, three years in the senate. i've seen where this work and where it hasn't. steve will talk about trade. one of the things he worked on the republicans we took power in the senate after the 2014 election, was in the class that i came in with. we immediately started working with the obama administration on trade promotion authority. the president could not get it when his own party was in power. when the republicans came back, took the senate, that is when the discussions happen. i work closely with the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of commerce come obama administration to make sure that we got tpa past. it passed the senate with 60 votes. not one vote to spare. i think that is an opportunity now that we have that. that is in the law. but, with regard to the iranian nuclear deal, with regard to the paris climate accord, i can say at least from my experience in my class of senators, there was zero, zero engagement from the white house. zero! no one ever came over and said senator, this is what we are trying to do. this is why this is good for america. we will bring this to the senate. to the contrary, they did everything they could to avoid senate ratification of these very important agreements. i think it is a little bit difficult to complain that a president who actually campaigned against these agreements, because they were not ratified by the senate. what is taking a lot of hard work. and then we came in and did it, is now being criticized. my view is some of the criticism should have been on the previous administration that never came to the senate all exodus iran nuclear deal is really important. here is why you should modify it. and here is how we are going to work hard to make sure that you understand it and can do it. when you don't do that, you get dramatic swings in foreign policy. that kind of work is hard this was little ãa critical role that the u.s. senate plays with regard to particularly giving long tenure, six years. it staggered elections. with regard to our relations and keeping a steady foreign policy.when you point that. you have a sling canceled by, we need to get back. there is. good news is there's a lot more bipartisanship ãread about it. i'm the one that loves to get up and bash the media but i will say this area, the media loves to have stories about conflict. about how the partisanship in the senate -- i was reading a couple of years ago a very smart observer of the foreign policy seen in the financial times. he wrote a piece that's in the partisanship in the senate hasn't been so high since the civil war. no offense to this writer but is a ridiculous statement. and ãthere's a lot more that goes on. it just does not get reported. let me give you some examples big and small. the national defense authorization act. that is a very serious important piece of legislation. i sit on the armed services committee. this year it dramatically plus is often military. dramatically!it passed out of committee unanimously. unanimously. did you read that in the paper? i didn't. and yet, when it went to conference, with the house, came back to the senate for a vote, it passed by unanimous consent. that means 100 us senators voted for the nda that the president will sign this week. it is very significant. that is about as bipartisan as it gets. he did not read about it. and that is a very important bill. for the country and national security. when i talked about and aspen. joe kennedy and i had the opportunity to sit on a panel when we were there. talking about bipartisanship. for the domestic homefront. he and i have a bill. it has already passed the senate. he is working hard to get it passed in the house. on a topic that all of a sudden is very very timely. to bring much more resources to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. essentially, attorneys. to represent mostly women who, as you are seeing across different parts of american society, have been abused. okay? it is not a huge bill but i think it is a really important one. and joe is the lead guy and how scared i am the lead guy in the senate. he already passed the senate. and it is on a more personal front. tomorrow night julie and i will buy dinner with one of my colleagues so i consider a good friend in the senate, sheldon whitehouse. if you know his politics, and dan sullivan his politics, you might be like, i can't believe these guys are going to dinner. but that happens! as a matter of fact sheldon whitehouse and i have a bill that has already passed the senate called the save our seas act. talking about cleaning up the ocean to prepare trying to get that passed in the house. there's a lot more that goes on. i just think that in terms of foreign policy, national security. to position ourselves from a strong perspective in the future, we need to have a kind of cooperation in the congress. so, strong growth, imperative. strengthening, deepening our alliances, imperative. and better cooperation on the foreign policy, national security issues between the congress and the executive branch to me, do set us up for the next several decades of leading the world during challenging times. thank you very much. [applause] >> the senator will take your questions. why don't you let me know who would like to ask the first question. i now teach college. i can call on people. ambassador negroponte. welcome, sir! good morning, ambassador! [inaudible question] i was wondering given that it has been in the news lately, whether you might want to comment on your views and the work of your caucus? >> sure! this is, this is an honor even to be asked a question by one of the deans of the foreign service and great leaders of american diplomacy over the last generation. i also have had the privilege to serve with. but, you know, one of the things i got to the senate -- i, there are caucuses, right? they kind of show the demonstration of support in the senate. and there's a caucus on a lot of different issues. but where the caucus in my view is strong, there is an army caucus, a marine corps caucus, navy caucus, air force, coast guard, right? really strong constituencies in the congress for these very important aspects of american government. and for those of us that do not believe that, julie and i just spent a saturday in philadelphia at the army navy game and trust me, there is a lot of strong support for our troops and wonderful young men and women that go to the world-class institutions. what was interesting to me, and for those of that served in the foreign service, there was not any kind of caucus, and it kind of you know, establish group that is supporting our career foreign service officers. as -- i got to know what a great group of professionals our foreign service officers are. who in many ways like the military, deploy overseas. dangerous places. some have been killed in action. families sacrifice and risk. and to be honest, as a republican i thought, some of the -- there was kind of a, i'm trying to use a diplomatic term here. a sense that it allowed the foreign service was kind of left leaning and but, my experience was very professional. they do great work. so i went to senator chris van hollen. his father was very well known in the foreign service and said hey, we should get a foreign service officers caucus going in the senate. to support the men and women in the foreign services. and by the way, those of you who have served at the department are part of the foreign service but there's also culture that they hate coming up to the hill. i think. most of them. so this was a little bit more of a, it will not be the t.v. cameras, just a caucus. to come and meet and let us try to show our support for you. we launched that about six months ago. as a matter fact the deputy secretary of state is coming to the caucus this wednesday. on the senate side to meet with senators who just want to show their support, have questions and concerns. but i think making sure that our foreign service officers know that there strong support in the congress, and a constituency that supports them, is really important. and i guess this issue of executive, legislative cooperation.those are the kind of things that greeted cooperation. when we first launched the caucus we had on the republican side, senators like orrin hatch, jim resch, very strong and respected. chris murphy on the democratic side. catherine cortez masto, nevada senator. a good group. we intend senators i think we will go that. i think this is an element of the strengthening executive legislative cooperation.and making sure that we on the senate understand the hard work, the sacrifice that our foreign service officers do for our country every day. >> center can i just follow up? the ambassador and i both served in the career foreign service administration proposal is a 31 percent budget reduction for state. to take the officer corps down by eight percent. it is no secret morale is very low. and there is a dismantling of the foreign service league. that is what i think. can the congress intervene to defend the foreign service? >> look, i have concerns. some of it is what you are reading in the paper. you have to get to the truth. let me give you an example. there was an article recently that said applications for the foreign service were down by 50 percent. now i do not know the truth of that. it was in the newspaper i am assuming that they were correctly reported. but to me, that should be a cause for enormous concern. think about it. the marine corps is precluding down by 50 percent. guarantee you we will be having hearings on the armed service committee saying what is happening in the marine corps? your question on the budget, i do not think it is that dramatic epic cut. one third of the foreign service or our related aid programs are going to see that kind of support in the appropriations process. in the congress. again, part of this goes to a broader issue of getting the congress to understand, to know the great work that the men and women and their expertise in the foreign service have. and i think everybody when you do a code l, you go overseas. people see it. but do this on a regular basis is what we are trying to do in the senate. >> i think we have time for one or two more questions. congressman harmon, a member of our group. welcome. >> thank you. delighted to be here. dan, you are a great credit to the senate. >> thanks! >> is wonderful to hear your many topics including the arctic which we did not get to today. my question is about congresses role in the authorizing use of military force to something nick that knows i am passionate about. i was there in 2000 normally passed with all the one-vote, the authorization to use military force against those who attacked us on 9/11. that document is still the basis for most of the s activity in the middle east and elsewhere. at least seven wars have been justified under that. the state department and the defense department recently testified that they don't need more authority. they testified beechworth john mccain is committee. you think that is true? or do you think as i do, that there ought to be a robust debate in the senate and the house about the use of military force. the strategy behind it, so that the american people can have a chance to consider and buy into the military activities we have underway. >> let me, i will kind of address that in two parts. there was a debate recently. rand paul had an amendment to trevor now it was not a multi-day debate. but i believe it was part when we were marking up the ndaa on the senate floor. his amendment essentially said what you are saying. hey, we have authorized the 2001 authorization it has been using a whole host of other ways. we need to either reauthorize it or cut it off. that was what his amendment essentially did. i have a lot of respect for rand paul. on a whole host of issues. i voted against that. but we did debate it. came to the floor. the main reason i voted against that was that -- i will give you an example. alaska has a group of incredibly young men and women going off. they are over there right now. it is the 425, the fourth brigade, 25th infantry. they are in anchorage right now. they are in afghanistan right now. i spoke at the deployment sermon. one thing i said to them before they left is i am going to do everything i can to make sure you're supported back at home matter of fact, this weekend i'm trying to go visit them in afghanistan and my wife is hosting a party in anchorage for the spouses of the deployed. we mean that seriously. and i thought having a debate on this where we might cut off the authorization of their mission, mid mission -- is not how we should be addressing this. so, there's elements of, it's an important topic but there's also realities on the ground. we have soldiers and marines and many others on the grounds now. the last thing i think we should be doing is having some kind of debate where we are saying we are not sure that you are authorized to do what you are doing right now as you risk your lives. that was a commitment i made directly to the soldiers at the deployment ceremony. that is why i voted no. now, on a much, in many ways related topic. north korea. i've been very involved in the senate but also with the administration. publicly but also privately because i have a lot of respect i think the president has put together a very strong national security team. i north korea. i think what they have been trying to do now. obviously this is a very tough issue. numerous administrations, i think -- this administration has really been faced with stark challenge. because it is very likely kim jong-un will have a capability for intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile. that catches range -- i think that diplomacy right now has, with sanctions, with the un security council resolution has been very strong. one element i've been trying to lead on and we have made progress in a conquest with the president and his team of our strategy with regard to north korea, we need a much more robust missile defense system. and by the way, that's another good news story. i had a bill that is now part of the ndaa. very bipartisan. 28 senators. democrats and republicans supporting a really strong missile defense system for america. that has never happened before. missile defense is always been partisan. now it is bipartisan. so that is important, a key element of our strategy.and i also support secretary mattis, hr mcmaster talked about it. the development of credible military options. everybody here knows we have serious credible military actions it actually makes you diplomacy more effective. what i have said publicly and privately, to them, is part of your credible military options as a preventative or preemptive ground for on the korean peninsula launched by the united states. they need the authorization from congress. to do that. so, matter of fact, a couple of centers, prominent senators. right now we are working on not the resolution for that but a senate resolution that says we are supportive of what they are doing but if they move forward, again, preemptive, preventative. kind of like the gulf war in 1990 or 2003. that is the article one power of congress. i do not think there is any -- there shouldn't be any debate about it. i've been asking during confirmation hearings. as members of the administration going to the department of defense. i probably asked this question a dozen times. do you believe you need to come to the congress to get authorization to do this? pretty much all of them, including the authorization for the reconfirmation of general dunford. in his reconfirmation hearing a couple of weeks ago, they have all said yes. to me, that is where i think the aumf issue will come -- distant great question i think in terms of north korea it is when i'm looking at from one angle versus the afghanistan deployments and other kind of war on terror or there is authorizations. it is just some ways different from a contextual standpoint. >> and i are busy but i think i have to ask a follow-up question. on such an important issue, north korea. twofold question. number one, and the merits of the issue. it seems that secretary tillerson and secretary mattis would like to move to maintain deterrence over north korea but possibly move it it can happen, to some kind of diplomatic negotiations that would involve the north koreans that would stop their program. but then there are other people in the administration believe you ought to think seriously about preemptive action. what you think is the right step for the united states? and to your point about congressional authorization. where is the republican party leadership and the senate on that? and what kind of signals are you getting from the white house from the president, from the national security advisor? >> well loved, neck, i think they're both questions. as i mentioned i think they're interrelated. i think that your diplomacy as i mentioned, is much more effective if your adversaries believe that it is a continuum. and the military, credible military options are part of that continuum. ... >> chick really given this regime how unpredictable they are. i think the focus of our diplomacy is not necessarily negotiations with north korea. who decade after decade proves to be a very unreliable partner to negotiate with and don't think they have ever kept one bargain ever they have agreed to with united states. you cannot trust them or the iranians. that is our focus with regard to diplomacy and private lead discussions with regard to china on how to solve this problem but i think making it all about north korea u.s. negotiations not a waste of time but a sideshow because they cannot be trusted they have never shown they can be trusted but china has hopefully converging interest with us they have the power and the ability to do it. so that is where i think our focus with regard to diplomacy but on the amf on the republican side, i have buoyed -- voice is publicly most senior administration officials believe a preemptive or preventative ground war needs the authorization of congress. is the republican senate completely unified? no they are not. there are those who i have the utmost respect for that don't believe article one requires the administration to get the authority from us i happen to think they are wrong and hopefully you will seeing we will have some very well-known senators who say we are being supportive we are not trying to do this aggressively there are those who say it is a disaster actually we are trying to be supportive of the au mf brings more credibility to the diplomacy but that would be a very serious debate in congress and if it comes to that he should have it. >> please join me to thank senator sullivan [applause]. >> my pleasure great to be here. >> thank you senator sullivan we will move this offstage. are we ready for the next session? we are. i will call up to the podium. >> looking at two issues this summer that are both important factors whether the united states will maintain its global leadership role the first is trade we have seen the most significant departure over the last half-century and that is a rejection of the tpp trade agreement and even some fundamental changes to nafta but the second is technology where united states needs to maintain so we have two people here to talk about those subjects the first is stephen biegun a veteran of several administrations most recently george w. bush where he was senior official chief of staff national security council now vice president of ford motor company we had an active debate this summer. the podium is yours. >> good morning thanks for coming today. i work for a major u.s. company the manufacturer in 25 countries around the world and trade enormous volumes of commodities of parts of automobiles so when i look at the trade issue it is more from the viewpoint of a practitioner than the ideologue or philosopher so much of our trade debate is actually about philosophy and ideology but honestly not enough is about the practice of trade reduced the simplest form it is the movement of goods and services across borders. with free-trade you are achieving a less constrained movement it is relatively simple that yet we find ourselves in these poisonous political debates that we see manifesting themselves even today. so i was done in watching one of the candidates from a major political party running for the presidency of the united states not only denounce the north american free trade agreement but also threatened to withdraw. like many of you i was surprised when then senator obama said that and equally surprised when senator clinton endorsed that. this being in the 2008 campaign in the primaries with the debate in cleveland moderated by tim russert. the first candidate that proposed to withdraw from nafta if the mexicans and canadians did not renegotiate the treaty. i think many thought that it was empty rhetoric and it was but to his credit he sought to make improvements over the course of the tpp but still it underlines the fact that the political expedience of the free-trade agreements predates the trump administration by a long time. it is interesting to study the politics of trade and they found some interesting results that exceed 7% of self identified voters believe the free trade agreements make america smaller interestingly 36% of republican voters endorsed the free trade agreement as making the united states stronger it is confounding because certainly inside the beltway they will not pass the united states congress unless they gain the support of everyone public and member and a small handful for the free-trade agreement but yet each of those is out of step with their own political base in fact the only political figure in step with their base is president trump among the self identified voters 27% believe free-trade agreements are good for america not only speaking with and for his political base but also a greater synergy and harmony with the american public as well. if all the issues among the establishment of foreign policy leaders free-trade may be one of the biggest but where the president really does reflect to a significant degree the sentiment of the country. i was asked in the course of the project this summer to do a diagnostic to analyze forecast some steps but i will say with the tpp i understand the distress that has caused many and confusion about america's role in the world and what role we will play but when president tromp signed it it did not die it did not have the support of congress or the american public and most definitely not the not long does unified support of the business community and i can attest to that it was too big and too ambitious and the return was too small to lock into place the status quo that is what it did so it fell victim to a geopolitical aim one of the things i have learned since i left government coming into the private sector is geopolitics makes for lousy free-trade agreements but they make for great geopolitics you have to get the economics right first over deep differences and competing views on trade you are embedding with the partners that will ultimately culminate in what we see today. whether china or u.s. korea free trade agreement or other issues of controversy. with nafta it is different. quite simply the economics don't work for the united states in terms of producing a trade balance that would excite political support actually nafta works quite well to build unity among that space but we have more than a 60 billion-dollar deficit with mexico this is like president trump is focused on but the problem with fixing nafta is you cannot fix 60 billion-dollar deficit by growing exports to mexico as beneficial as i believe it is the reality is that economics will prevent us from balancing trade on the revenue side so the only tool available our trade limiting which is antithetical to a free-trade agreement so i have an expectation of the ability of the trade representative to truly achieve the goal that they want to balance out trade many economist would argue that surpluses and deficits are not indicators of quality. and i tend to endorse that point of view but just as a caveat large trade deficits may indicate problems in the relationship as well that is why we see that with our trading partners in the asia-pacific. in the interest of time i will highlight very briefly the ten steps that i think we should consider as we look at trade and pick that in a constructive way. i completely agree with senator sullivan it is a holistic picture it isn't just trade or regulation or tax reform in fact i have to believe a couple of quarters of economic growth will go a long way to ameliorate the tensions in the trade debate but we don't have that yet. but that kind of growth will balloon the trade deficit but also at the same time shrink that dissatisfaction that has produced this political environment so my ten priorities is first pick your right partners to engage with partners who agree to support free trade at the same level we do that is the original premise of the tpp with a handful of countries that have high levels of support but in the course of that geopolitical ambitions those that don't support free-trade by any measure of their records and second we should pursue trade agreements but it should be on a bilateral basis so we can focus on the challenges and craft the necessary tools to force open those economies. third, we should be addressing currency manipulation according to the peterson institute is added between 250 and $500 billion to the deficit on an annual basis but yet it has not been addressed by the trade negotiators antitrust policy or corruption that undermines comparative advantage we have to use those tools and tie that to the trade agreement terminating to remove the cover and then enforcement enforcement enforcement. finally our trade negotiations unfortunately generate skepticism among the public and critics. there are some tools on how to do that better one that is bit of a stretch is free-trade negotiations in public would completely dismiss the notion anything is hidden i do think why they meet in private is because they are advocating positions that are not defensible to the public. the easiest way to get support. and trust in the market with a free-trade partner that is not willing, weighed them out or give them time. a country that is not willing to open its economy it is okay to say no. and finally, geopolitics have to be subordinate free-trade has to be driven by economics that is it if you went questions i will be happy either way b-17 lung -- [applause] >> but where our two parties but before we hear from richard it is only fair because i saw our friend walk in, there he is with our meeting in aspen this summer making the major presentations on trade it was one of the most interesting discussions but also differences so i will put you on the spot. you don't mind? we will give you the microphone you just heard the tail end of steve's presentation but you have both written papers on this. can i give you a two-minute reply? >> i only caught the last and of the speech i assume he has completely changed his view since he read my chapter and has finally seen the light. [laughter] i agree on a lot and disagree on certain things if you take the tpp as an example to bring countries in two free-trade area under a high set of rules. geopolitics versus economics economics to have to rule the day and what we see right now is if we did not announce the tpp others would move forward and they would carve up market access that is exactly what we are seeing. even since the time we spent in aspen together. and to have that digital economy chapter of tpp the non- taxability etc. or let the chinese write to the rules of the road? our retreat from asia in the long run be seen as the greatest or tedious blunders united states has engaged in. as we have seen as last week the rest of the world is not standing still. so the pork producers get the excess that we fought so hard for so that is happening in real time. we are losing market share and prefer to sit on the sideline and eliminate 90% of all tariffs. >> looking at 2018 is the the resumption of the nafta talk between u.s. canada and mexico. there is some speculation that the trump administration might even consider ending nafta then try to build up a bilateral arrangement. this would be a significant point of departure for republicans and democrats over the last 23 years. what what is your view or sense of the administration? >> i am clearly not a spokesman for the administration i don't pretend to have great insight so we should step back 95% on the table that is tpp. that sunset after five years or change the rules of origin. and so to determine to move forward or not. and to table of compromise that prepared to trigger the withdrawal notice. with the effects that would have. >> we do agree on quite a bit but to emphasize two issues that we do is it is absently critical united states plays a strong role in the asia-pacific through negotiations or other means but it is critical to the interest of the united states through the next century. something else that may surprise mike but he would have heard me say this that that we did not want united states to draw loan to withdraw from tpp we regret it didn't move forward but not in its current form. the reality from the perspective of the private sector is as good as the details were, it fundamentally failed to change the economic model that does not work for the united states in the asia-pacific region. the international trade commission did the exhaustive analysis of every free-trade agreement to understand the consequences of those that were impacting the flow of that asian-pacific region was negligible. with that independent body government agency, found a net loss in manufacturing employment in the united states as a consequence of tpp. but mike knows my heart lung -- hobbyhorse of currency manipulation this is used around the world today. currency manipulation is a simple supply and demand. if you have currency poured into the global marketplace and you put it in the reserve supply and demand there is more currency out there and a lot less so it is worth more. very simplistic within oversimplistic explanation but an automobile that cost 30,000 dollars a 25% manipulation is probably 400% of the product margin. you cannot produce when the japanese government is intervening as it has done 170 times. not in the last three or four years to have domestic consumption with massive quantitative easing that dwarfs quantitative easing during the great recession. i argued tpp was a good start i complemented the administration to make that part of the droid lung -- trade agenda. so as a consequence it would have been a source of irritation and friction in our trading relationships it would be better to separate out lung --dash separate out the sheep from the wolves to bring them on one at a time to deal with those issues subvert global trade because it is indisputable that global trade has been subverted by tactics like this that makes participant in the economy and doing everything right but yet we are falling behind and losing we cannot support them if they do everything right. >> this is one of the most important issues thinking about the future of our country watching on c-span this is a book called the world turned upside down. and to have complementary chapters with different points of view. so now turning to a conversation so i will give my friend richard eight minutes to tell us why the technologies tsunami should be something on our radar screens. >> i have a feeling we are falling behind. so in terms of limited time to stand with that classical analysis of those relations and alongside is the economic analysis but if this is not the most fundamental thing the technologies tsunami with the internet we are aware of the it revolution to underscore that we should treat it that is the technology of the moment as the end of technological history we are seeing dramatic innovations of robotics and manufacturing data analysis. i could go on but i suggest these are fundamentally affecting the notion of the liberal world order and it should not surprise us. look at the changes in history with the printing press and galileo and the telescope. and in the 19th century the effects of the state power and state control and more recently the invention of birth control is one of the most fundamental changes to undergird the dramatic revolution we call feminism. so we should recognize the technological change it fundamentally affects all realms but to switch metaphors is an underlying change in the tectonic plate that is disparate earthquakes with the proliferation of biology to north korea with the ability to see cell phones. i sketched three things i will not talk about now. the way this empowers groups and nonstate entities it is a familiar song but there are things that could be said in effect by those nonstate enterprises but the equivalent what is regarded as the intelligence agency. second the way this proliferation balances out power that we use to be preeminent and enables them and important ways. and the risk of accidents the complex systems that are developed and ways i cannot fully anticipate. there were great risks of unintended effects. and worthy of discussion. that is the way these technologies challenge our notions to restrict the individuals and the like. and how we all the trails of dna dust in this room when you depart also leaving trails of digital dust i doubt you are in a singular minority who did not bring a cell phone to this event. i can't anticipate in the united states dramatic issues associated how we manipulate our bodies and embryos use to the abortion debate so what happens to maximize their intelligence not simply to avoid diseases. so what happens when china makes the choice? in america makes a different decision? 200 babies are born every day that were born in a chest tube tube. where do we go from here? but i put to you that liberal notion of individual choice to put together the majorities we tend to ascribe if the russian interference marveling at those attributes facebook takes 3 million as every day. don't be too simplistic but think of the data analysis. in terms of political persuasion. with those ten facebook like to use artificial intelligence can predict those more accurately in the workplace with 70 likes they can predict it more accurately than your friends what you choose to do. and can predict more accurately then your spouse. i am not amazed i can predict accurately than my spouse but think of political action because with that capability so now i can select your preference and target you individually. to create highly differentiated messages. with the dominant group of people spliced together from individuals speaking broadside to the group so this changes that premise of democracy what political speech is with the electoral process and what it means to be an individual. the one thing i understand is my time is up so i will stop b-17. >> thank you for your thoughts on technology. we began as a bipartisan national security group focusing on the arms race where we are trending of artificial intelligence and to have the balance of power in the terrorist groups to have access coming out of government will need a lot of help and the information technology group silicon valley. to be on this big challenge of the united states with a snapshot with the chapter two think steve and mike when i kindly ask secretary albright. [inaudible conversations] >> we are awaiting secretary collins arrival and i am the filibuster. since the c-span cameras are rolling. [laughter] first i will introduce sec. albright i have had the great pleasure to work for these individuals if anybody knows her with a career as a professor in georgetown university as a public servant and serve during the second term of president clinton one of the great pleasures was working for secretary albright somebody who has stood up for the values including democracy and human rights the whole life story is a commitment to the united states and to ask you to welcome secretary albright's b-17 spieth 17. >> also william : should be welcoming us because the chair is right upstairs i have the pleasure of being senior counsel but senator cohen or representative cohen came to washington in the 1970s and of the leadership crisis and to be one of the experts of foreign policy and then to become secretary of defense is part of the leadership team in the cabinet. america's future is a global power. migrating whether or not republicans and democrats can work together to preserve the leadership role we have had. this is your home turf but the first question together are you worried we are losing the leadership position from china to the changes of the global economy? are we still willing to be a leader as a consensus? be make the short answer is of course i am worried everybody in the country should be worried. so wondering what this new rule of order will be. at the presidential level there is no coherent philosophy that is guiding us in terms of so what can we be? so to be in a bipolar world. and the most dangerous of all but the concern is from international leadership at many different levels and to make america great again it seems to be transactional activities without a comprehensive plan how the spit into the pattern that is cohesive and continuous it is the impression of other countries have of us if you go to japan they would say they are fond of president trumpeter what he has said in saudi arabia and to check with the prime minister of australia who was worried the united states can no longer be counted on to carry the leadership role from freedom and democracy. it depends on where you go. to see a wrecking ball being taken to the institutions we are working hard to construct. for those and let's get some remodeling done so to tear down those institutions then tell me who the architects are and the masons and the carpenters and then try to construct. and that other countries like germany's chancellor to be counted upon. and with our relationship with germany. so go to the allied partners and to be worried there is no consistency. i like people on their heels are on their toes but the unpredictable but geopolitics doesn't work that way. the people that i talked to i returned from india and elsewhere. with more continuity. and also who will speak for the president other than the president. and look at what is happening 35 or 40 years. this is dramatic and transformational and admirable. and somewhat intimidating there is a country that has a strategic vision they know where they want to get to live how they are going to get there with congress to contend with there is no supreme court so you can see the goal with a capacity to carry that out. that is not necessarily true but the biggest criticism that i hear is there is no plan that is identifiable then to make a bilateral deal. >> i was remiss --dash remiss in one fashion that so we have to give equal time to her sister consulting firm in washington. i just returned from a trip last week from chuck was a block yeah and you know this space better than anybody in poland and now the czech republic we see populist forces taking over to governments maybe even the czech government but i come away listening to the europeans i don't think they think we are the leader of the west the way every eve resident has been deemed to be is it a fundamental point of departure how we understand our leadership? >> and to spend a lot of time together it is great to be here but with those contradictions in that historical context and as a functional human being the united was the winner of world war ii. with everything involved. so that saw us with a fight with the soviet union. and without defense policy and those financial of the world being divided into the red white and blue. and with the fall of the berlin wall. and i have to say i was privileged to be a part in the second term of the entirely new aspect that it no longer existed to become independent. but you pointed out the technology to play a large part in that. so what is the role of the united states in this construct? and to use the term indispensable. but there is nothing but it just means the u.s. needs to be engaged. and i am concerned that we are becoming a dispensable nation that if i were a president or others were in office than hitler looks pretty different than when we were there. but i think the bottom line is there is a question and i find it appalling that our president at the moment talks about that nobody wants to do anything now they take advantage of us that is not necessary at this point. so i do think that we need to figure out our role but specifically most of the things that have happened is a double edge toward. also globalization most of them in this room but the problem is it is faceless and people want the identity. the next year we will be celebrating the creation of world war i. so after the hungarian empire so with globalization and now into identity politics in so many ways but then i believe in patriotism but i don't believe in nationalism. if my group does not like your group then it is very dangerous. also a double edge sword to technology that we all like to talk about the farmer who hast walked a thousand miles can do it on the phone but technology is to disaggregate to the point it is difficult to figure out how we are in those echo chambers. which would make it stay out of my way at the bottom line is we need to do that. i apologize for plagiarizing but in silicon valley people are talking with the 21st century technology. and with 19th century responses but why is happening with that institutional structure and i fully agree personally i do teach. waiting for the national security strategy to come out. but we know how they made. you get those documents through the committee that he merges and you have a clue whoever the administration is going and we have absolutely no clue at one of our most dangerous moments. >> i think that national security strategy will be out momentarily from the trump administration but i want to ask about the autocratic powers we have to contend with that we will open to questions. starting with russia here is a country that has troops dividing ukraine from the other pressuring the baltic states so to intervene in the french and dutch german elections what do you advise they do to contain the more pernicious aspects but also by necessity and also have a channel open. so the cloud hanging over russia. so as long as the cloud continues to hang over the white house with these unresolved issues it would be difficult for the president to make a positive approach to say we need to have a better relationship with russia. with nuclear weapons to cause great instability. so it is important to have a positive relationship with russia. that cannot take place as long as the cloud of doubt was hanging over the white house. so as long as there was cynicism as a policy to do both things namely and with the attack upon the united states so they cannot do that unless the cloud is removed. so to take actions to remove that so what do you all and to whom do you know that? but this is a time of russian money in the trump real estate. and of the private enterprise so why have any inhibition about disclosing that? that is something that doesn't quite fit to criticize the british prime minister the chancellor of germany and never once say the word of criticism to putin so i think that will be hard. i would deny them what they want most and wants russia to be respected. and to act respectfully that were contrary to the established to have that status of the modification of behavior. >> it would be nice if the cloud was lifted but that will just go deeper but we have to be very concerned. but i do believe that putin has played his hand brilliantly. he was a kgb officer to play us in the unbelievable way and they are trying to contain democracy. and evidently as they are doing this throughout europe and they have made a very strong play with those assessments of what is going on in the middle east the foreign minister was about asserting russian power in the middle east and be very proud what is going on now. because they are equal partners on syria, and have help to support assad and also very much played the game generally with israel so they have played the week and well and are concerned systematically making it more and more difficult to carry out and putin has made clear he will run forever and one thing that he has done that is brilliant about and i will never forget the focus group i am so embarrassed and now we are bangladesh with missiles if they managed to keep the russian people in the weakened economy to do what he has done to contain democracy. >> i will ask a follow-up question of how we conduct in th that surreal environment when two weeks ago the british prime minister in the archbishop of canterbury felt compelled to criticize the president and similarly over the weekend there is a situation where the president went after angela merkel and having just returned from europe to see the sensitivity to this criticism what has produced this and what is the consequence as a result? >> you have a president elected to have very little if any experience in the world. he came with no serious level of curiosity of the geopolitical situation. steve said trade first in geopolitics will follow i don't know if that is right i think it is inseparable talking about tpp i was in beijing the day after the election meeting with a high level chinese official having dinner at his office and he asked me now that president trump has been elected tpp is dead? i said regrettably yes. he said good. it is good from the chinese perspective but not from our allies but to a person who comes here in the spring with csi asked to give a presentation to indicate we wasted seven years with you. we wasted negotiating this deal you undermined our credibility with her own situations that was felt beyond the trade issue where we are the leaders of the architecture. [inaudible conversations] we are determined to set up the economics so that means they will take the leadership role so trade has a interconnection that cannot be separated. so the president has yet to decide what the role will be you have mr. bannon less engaged on the part of the united states but the europeans take care of europe by the way it is not wrong to suggest those nato countries have not paid out in terms of making a contribution i made that argument secretary albright has made the same argument bob gates including secretary mattis that the way in which you do that is more than what you are asking so if you insult people or criticize them publicly versus privately that tends to create friction the europeans feel we have disengaged from their affairs that started during the obama administration and pivot from the focus on europe to the pacific with the signal that was sent was not positive so the europeans started to feel we were distancing ourselves so we have to decide we are suffering that is clear people say we have been out that -- at this a long time it is time to take care of nationbuilding at home so with that justification you cannot do that at the expense of disengaging from global affairs. when you do other countries fill the gap and to establish influence in the middle east and working on north korea. when we pulled back they moved in. >> i do know the president wants to be remembered he will have been the one to say this is more than any single president this is not a record that we should be proud of because i do not believe the world works if the united states is not engaged and we see that. the bill keeps getting bigger and bigger they are more interested to take place. i was just to argentina with discussion with the chinese are doing with investing through latin america they are everywhere we are not. this is the time to be very concerned but what i don't understand is the contradiction from sporting events we always have to be number one. and america first is not number one it is isolationist. or to try to determine where to protect our people the best. and i am stunned by the contradiction to overturn that liberal order. that is why the book i am writing is called fascism a warning and we have to be very careful about the things going on for those working-class people who are very angry don't want regulation from washington or a strong leader. we need to look at history and i have tried to be polite because we do have to say what is going on? we thought this would go away but with the hand of tpp that is a great concern what is happening with our budget, the fact they are dismantling that diplomatic service is stunning to me and secretary tillerson does not have the respect he needs to talk to the european or anybody. so they need to say enough is enough people ask me to describe myself i came here at 11 years old nothing was more important to become an american citizen and the respect that people had for america i don't want to end my life not being a strong and respected as we need to be to make america a better place. >> i agree. in fact claim victory could not have happened without sec. albright taking a leadership role to push for power in that conflict. want to come back on having a philosophy with that geo strategy so there was a speech about a month ago and i was quite impressed sitting next to the indian ambassador that secretary tillerson laid out but what really caught my ear was to go out of the way to say that china is an important country but it is in the united states look to as the future with a strategic partner so when you make that a very definitive point it is interesting would be that forward leaning then i thought it is good cop or bad cough and by the way we are looking to india but that laid out the blueprint for u.s. india and japan and u.s. japan and india and australia that is a relationship between u.s. india and japan and australia so willing to think in the trilateral they have been more reluctant on u.s. australia component because if you start looking at the quad it looks like a containment strategy. the indians do not want to have united states think we play the india card so we have to be careful in that respect but it gets back to the notion what is in our interest to establish relationships with democratic countries share our interest and ideals to the extent we can do that we try to send a signal you are growing but to go into the international system not only for aggressive or destabilizing purposes to build a relationship with all the countries that share interest to make sure we hold those relationships close. the danger i see is we are pushing away some of those allies not paid the respect they deserve that is the danger we are not nurturing those who share interest and ideals and opportunities that is one of the great problems to face in the future. >> we are focused on bipartisanship but i would say to ask about china and north korea there has been a consensus what you were talking about the military partnership joined by the alliance with japan will not contain china but manage them with those ambition running representative chemung --dash rush shot but the problem is going back to the observation give credit on china? he prioritize that relationship and he is gotten more out of the chinese with their sanctions against north korea than previous present -- previous presidents but now they are engaged to initiate military action are we close? is there a high probability? or is this more kabuki driving this negotiation? >> i am not sure that i agree we have developed or have gotten something out of the chinese i am not sure they are doing everything they could as far as north three a is concerned that you cut off some of those major aspects of the chinese economy and in the meantime in the south china sea taking over climate change but i do think those celebration put him into a greater role and you think he has gotten something out of the chinese so that is worrisome. i am worried about north korea i am still the highest level sitting official to go to pyongyang. and i am very glad united nations has sent over the envoy and that will be useful life laugh. >> he is a very smart person and the un is more interested but what makes me nervous is an accident and part of the problem you need to have some type of connection. it is worrisome and not clear where the chinese are. but if there is some hydrogen test already radioactive fallout but they don't see that affect their people but the votes at the un are nice but not with the sanction. >> i agree with secretary albright because the north korean have had the policy to develop with the russians and the chinese and if you look at the economic situation economy has been improving and is actually growing there is entrepreneurship taking place things to what they were given from the chinese and the russians and others so they could be in a position to do much more. and they constantly say they fear the collapse of the north korean regime all the people flooding into china but i asked the question all of those trying to get into south korea if i was there i would head south but nonetheless from the defector he was headed south towards china but i am speculating that they feel the long game alternately by having divided korea with kim jong who still in power not military action at this point that as north get stronger the south gets weaker because there is less and less competent by virtue of that perception then eventually they can unify the peninsula. i don't know what changes that calculus for them to ratchet up the pressure but there is always a danger when you start using words like fire and eliminate you from the map henry kissinger in his white house years said something i have not forgotten that the idle threat is taken seriously can be helpful but a serious threat treated as idle could be catastrophic. so that issue becomes if the president makes idle threats that get the attention and positive response that is good but if we continue to make threats that are idle and in fact serious, we could find ourselves in the situation where something takes place very quickly and escalates quickly so my own recommendation is we need to go back to the south koreans the chinese have come down hard to slow the process down it would be helpful if the president did not go to south korea to say not only will we take that but you will pay for it that didn't build confidence but to press upon to have one battery or two batteries whether ce -based or land-based and increase the missile capability in japan and south korea to say if it is a threat to the japanese or north and south korea, you will be put at risk if that causes anything that is uncomfortable with the chinese they will do more to bring a solution rather than kicking it down forever. >> no matter who is elected this will be incredibly complicated without a lot of questions and how they need refurbishing in the bottom line there is many issues to be worked on that require the subtlety of the situation that seems to be missing no matter what that will be hard it is very complex to require the understanding of not just get reaction so i hope as a team to become increasingly stronger to figure out how we live in post-world war ii. >> there are reports to be nominated to be the american ambassador and i think that is a very fine choice he is knowledgeable and strong this is a good sign. we are just about out of time but probably the most important question for america is how close are we to war? i have been assuming watching secretary tillerson the extended deterrence and the bow to protect ourselves and our allies might be enough to maneuver the north koreans toward some type of diplomatic conversation as you have pointed out madalyn you are the only other senior official that has been to pyongyang. but that is a necessary event before the preemptive attack but we hear consistently there are some who think they ought to consider those preemptive attacks how close are we to war in 2018? >> i am often asked if i am an optimist who worries a lot. and there is no reason to go to war. i teach at georgetown foreign policy is getting them to get what you want it is called the national security toolbox. with the actual use of force but like what you said that is important but also we need to figure out how to use those other tools to restore our credibility that that will not be an easy story so how to work with congress to restore our credibility so we don't have work because otherwise it is a disaster. >> we should activate the information warfare campaign and try to have korea free radio korea to saturate those airwaves to say that president putin that the north koreans will eat grass with more sanctions i said let them but also offer texas beef. that we now export to south korea so they can see. life is good in south korea. i would create as much instability as i could on the part of the people but in terms of going to war i don't think anybody would advocate to take preemptive action. the reason i can has been kicked down the road since nixon is the consequences are so horrific. so talking about hundreds of thousands of people that is the reason why so the president is correct i have a mess i have inherited. yes. but as you said to the widow you knew what you were getting into. and problems come with this job so now what will you do with it? with the show of military force that we are preparing for a storm coupled with general mcmaster who said we are closer to war than ever before but then it gets into the round could restart something by accident? because he really feels we are coming with the aircraft carriers coupled with the language we are using if we continue but don't do anything once again it is that credibility a fourth the president has in mind. so i think we are closer than those experts who said 20%. i put it higher closer at 35 or 40% just% just because i think we have ratcheted up the language, putting more troops and resources into the region and it accentuates the possibility there could be miss calculation i don't think any literary leader will recommended preemptive basis. >> i wish we had another hour but thanks to the secretaries to be with us and thank you for your service to the united states b-17's b-17 [applause]. [inaudible conversations] >> without further do we will go to the last panel members of the strategy group former members of the cabinet national security visor i will turn this over to our moderator. >> as you have seen all morning the reason the strategy group is unusual is it does bring together an unusually high level that is genuinely nonpartisan. t4 t4 . . . . from thoughtful leader to thoughtful leader through the years. so i thought we might begin by asking if each of you were to write a memo at your end, at the end of this year turned upside down, to take the title of our session this summer, write a memo to your successor a charm master looking at where we are and what we have come through this first year of the trump presidency and where we are going. what would be the bullet points in that i'm up to h.r. mcmaster susan? >> thank you david. i think that begin with a little bit of humility recognizing it's a tough job that h.r. mcmaster has an arguably more difficult in the current context than even i faced. i would say several things free first of all i would encourage him to do with a most as i imagine he is trying to do that in particular difficult context to effect a higher degree of message discipline within the administration. i think one of the challenges we have seen is we have different members of the senior leadership team at different times saying quite divergent things on their important and sensitive issues. that's not only a function of the president and his tweeting that sometimes seems divorced from what i believe has been considered policy but also even within the cabinet at times we hear different things for example from the u.n. ambassador then we hear from perhaps the secretary of state and the secretary of defense and i think in a time when our leadership is being questioned and when our stability and consistency is being questioned, having greater message discipline would be very helpful. secondly i would encourage general mcmaster to work with secretary tillerson and others in the administration to staff up the department with urgency and to cease efforts to reduce the budget by 30% and to reassure our career diplomats and in fact the work they do is valued in necessary payday think we have a huge crisis of confidence within the state department which is not a short-term problem but with the exodus that the senior and and the lack of recruits at the jr. ranks i fear we are facing a generational deficit and it's one that undermines our efficacy across every region of the world world. i would also urge general mcmaster to give very careful thought apropos to the conversation we were just having on north korea to the public assertion that there is a viable military solution to the problem in north korea for all the reasons that were just discussed previously. i fear while publicly no administration should take any option off the table that we are locking ourselves in to a narrower set of options on a very complex problem that could leave us in a corner where we don't want to be and where the outcomes can only be counterproductive. and then finally i think the list could go on but i would also encourage a renewed effort in 2018 to reinforce and reinvigorate our alliances, our traditional alliances in europe, also our relationships in asia. i think we are at different places with different allies but each of them at different times has been buffeted by ambiguity if not downright confusion as to the constancy of our commitment and i think in this very difficult and uncertain time that is not helpful to any number of our larger. >> and i will stop there. >> steve, bullet points for a chart. >> i would start by telling him he is doing some things right. when you're in the job everyone is telling you you are doing things wrong so it's nice to start out by saying he's doing things right. i would say he's at the policies pretty well. i'm still spent some time in the middle east and asia. people are feeling pretty good. he is connected pretty well with our traditional allies and certainly has a good relationship with japan. a lot of the concerns people had from the rhetoric in the election had been mitigated because the policies actually adopted had strayed considerably from some of that rhetoric so i would start by saying you have set the table pretty well for set of policies and strategies. now you got to put the food on it and eat the meal. they will start doing that with a national security strategy. i would probably say the reception from the outside is not working as smoothly as it needs to at any level. definitely seems to not been to a bad rhythm and that's the course and issue for the national security advisers in an issue for the president. they don't seem to be working together as a team and a corrugated way particularly at the senior level and that's worrisome. i would say to them that one thing they need to figure out our roles and responsibilities. this sounds a little silly and i may be wrong. i need to say i was not part of the trump campaign or the transition or the administration and i have never met mr. trump so you can decide how much weight to give on what i'm about to say but you know this is a man who is now president of the united states who has never been in government at any level even for single day. he doesn't know how it works. i think there's a problem of figuring out helping the president understand what his role is, what he needs to do and what he needs other people to do and getting some kind of roles and responsibilities clarified. everybody seems to be trampling over each other and that's not going to work. another thing i would say is that there is a military caste of their policies in yet some of the people who are armor military who are in cabinet level positions no very well from their own experience that the problems we have with terrorism and the problems we have the middle east cannot be solved by military means alone. my worry is that i have not seen them rolling out an integrated strategy that you need that in iraq and in syria against isis to break basically the caliphate and exclude those forces. you now need to come in behind with a set of policies that help those victimized communities reestablish good governance, economic prosperity and security and you know people say there shouldn't be any nation-building. we aren't nation-building. those people need to build it themselves and they need help. 10 artists to help them because if we don't there won't be long term stability in that there's not long-term stability we will be back with isis 2.0. i would say they are not giving evidence to develop a full set of strategies integrated political economic security and military to achieve stability. that is an important thing that needs to be done. >> one big theme of this world turned upside down in my judgment has been the rise and the validation of the rise of china as a global power. that was symbolized in xi jinping's extraordinary performance party plenum which is probably followed by president trump's visit to aging which seems to me to be an american validation of this new chinese role. and i want to ask you to reflect on china and the united states and then susan let me ask you to begin that. president trump's disruptive style putting people on edge was on display during the transition when he mentioned in a phonecall with the leader of taiwan but that's been followed by an extraordinary embrace and all the nice things donald trump's said it does xi jinping it would go on for pages in particular the administration seems to have decided that china is the key to successful outcomes with north korea. i ask you to assess that judgment. a good relationship with china is essential but threatening them with trade sanctions etc. but an extraordinary embrace in the last few months. >> david i think the challenge is as follows. first of all in my estimation bilateral relationships with china is the most consequential that we have in the world. it's also one of the most complex and difficult because we have a mix of competition and the potential and indeed in some instances the reality of cooperation. i think what we have seen from the trump administration is sorted pivoting two extremes. on the one hand as you mentioned he came in during the transition putting not just china but many on edge with his statements on taiwan that suggested a radical recalibration of our historic balancing of taiwan and china and also some very hot rhetoric about the potential for a trade war. now particularly culminating in his visit in november we have seen up to that too as you said i think extraordinarily a warm embrace of xi jinping with more accolades for xi with than any other leader with the exception of vladimir putin and yet xi is governing in a very iron handed way. we have said nothing at all publicly about human rights or the rule of law. we said very little about our very real economic concerns and the necessity of protecting our intellectual property and our industries that are under threat threat. so i think what we need to do is try to balance not one extreme and not the other. china is a country with which we must find avenues for cooperation where interest overlap and we have done so in the past on everything from nuclear security to pandemic disease and not to mention climate change. we also have to recognize that china is substantially diverse and where competitors in many important rounds from the asia-pacific region broadly in the south china sea to various other areas. we can't phone over china. we can't brush it under the rug and that various practices. on the other hand we can't create a mortal enemy where we didn't have one so that balance is one that i think we have to strike and i think we haven't quite found their footing there. north korea is a very important issue with which we have to work with china but i think we have to be realistic. yes china has the capacity to continue to tighten the economic screws on north korea and we have seen it incrementally do so over the years including in recent months. want to encourage that. we want to be able to continue to work with china to ratchet up the pressure in united nations and that remains a necessity but also to have a productive dialogue with china about future scenarios that might unfold on the korean peninsula. we are not surprising one another but you expect china to go as far as we might like it to go to put the regime threatening destabilizing pressure on north korea that american administrations have sought for many years. i think it has been and is increasingly unrealistic to expect it will be manifest by china. you can expect it to solve this problem for us. it is a country with which we must work on the problem of north korea but with a recognition that china's interests and ours while it be converged on the goal of denuclearization do not converge on the means of achieving it. >> what is your judgment? is the trump administration being too accommodating and optimistic about what's this china rhythm the way i describe it, can do to help the united states to frame an order in a world that is congenial for us? >> i think we are not really appreciating the magnitude of what china represents. you know people said there are people that emphasize the competitive aspects, competitive and cooperative aspects. they say well we have another global rival like the soviet union to the soviet union had great military power but was fairly weak in terms of influence. china is a formidable competitor and when we talk about the change and the disruption of the international order we have had since world war ii one of the big factors is the reemergence of competition in china is that the forefront of that in some sense it's not just china. we are actually seeing a merging or have emerged to major world powers china and india so becomes a very complicated geometry. i think china's significance is enormous. the initiative he talked about is probably in my view the most remarkable story t. chick initiative soap war in the century. it's basically saying to the united states and others you think you can box me in on my pacific coast? i have been in land land-based access is going to take me all the way to europe and i'm going to build them for structure and i'm going to get support for those countries pretty good look at the impact the chinese economy has had in southeast asia the extent to which countries are dependent on china and that they are using that influence that is what is potentially happening when you look west as china builds out its infrastructure. this is an enormous challenge for the united states and the international order and i think to manage if it's going to take us all working together. i was very troubled by the withdrawal from the transpacific partnership not just because the economic significance of it but from the strategic significance. looks like we are not playing in the region when we have to do just the opposite. we need to be active in the world and in that heart of the region and every region diplomatic economic military you name it. and we need to not look at it as northeast asia, southeast asia, south asia. saleh said we are going to have to work with japan, south korea australia india all these countries in a coordinate its way not to draw new lines, not to contain china but to engage china and try to shape its policies because it's going to have a decisive influence on the region of the world and it's our job to try to shape it in productive ways and to engage them and to design a revised international order that the stable that serves their interests and preserves as much as we can of the democratic foundation. that is really the challenge so yeah we have to deal with north korea but i don't think we really appreciate and have taken into account the magnitude of the challenge we face. >> i just want to note that we are going to be turning to the audience in about 10 minutes for your question so please do be thinking of what you would like to ask steve and susan rice. i turn now to discussion of the subject that dominates our headlines, our cable news coverage of that as russia. i want to ask you to focus, looking forward and asks susan to begin. susan as i remember president obama's policies toward russia after the crimea invasion, after ukraine, after syria and i would say to some extent after russian meddling in the election, i remember the phrase exit ramp kept being repeated. we want to leave vladimir putin and exit ramp you want to allow him to stop this policy that is damaging and distract this and there seemed to be some optimism that given the sanctions we were applying against russia that at some point this would become too costly for putin and he would take one of these exit ramps. i haven't seen that and so i want to ask you as you look toward 2018 whether you think it's still time to keep those exit ramps open or whether you as you look at the policy would think maybe it's time for it different strategic view toward russia. >> by me just clarify how i understood the term exit ramp and it was initially applied with respect to ukraine. we had organized the european union and ourselves and our g7 partners to implement increasingly stringent sanctions on russia with the aim of trying to get them to roll back their interference in involvement in ukraine and crimea. we were also engaged with our partners in europe on an effort to negotiate the minsk agreements which france and germany played a leading role in which if implemented would ever solve at least the issue of eastern ukraine in a fashion consistent with international law consistent with the interest of -- and we did that as we were substantially increasing our support financial economic political and military to the government of ukraine. the notion was that the pressure in the sanctions were not meant purely to punish. they work to create an opportunity for a diplomatic solution to be found. the off-ramp idea was you don't close off the opportunity for your policies to succeed if in the event the pressure you have applied having the desired impact you want to be able to capitalize on that with a diplomatic opening. in the same theory applied in the context of syria that was not practiced in the context of russian interference in the election so i'd think those are different circumstances. in the case of ukraine and in the case of syria, russia -- on its policies and they think in recent months we have seen not the opportunity for them to take an off-ramp but frankly a superhighway where there is no constraint to what they might do because not only have we not increased the sanctions even though congress mandated that we must, the sanctions have not been forthcoming from the administration. not only that but we have talked about rolling back existing sanctions and we have essentially left diplomacy both in ukraine and to a lesser extent ukraine but particularly in syria to others. so i think we are in a place now where the question is what are our tools to address both the ukrainian challenge in the syrian challenge? he without the broader question is it time for radical readjustment to our approach to rush a? i think it's at least time for clarity and understanding across party lines on a national and bipartisan basis. we face a russia that is pursuing policies that are antithetical to our interest. russia is not our friend. putin is not worthy of the nobel prize. he is acting in a way that is in violation of international law and in violation of the norms of humanity particularly in syria and we need to be united in clear in pushing back on that. think we need to implement the sanctions and consider additional sanctions. there are steps we could take which would in fact be more complex than the sanctions we have imposed today because they would implicate not only european interest buts in some instances hours as well but they would implicate russia even more civic should consider that balance. we need to continue to build up our support for the eastern flank of nato and not open the door to russian meddling in nato through our rhetoric or through any ambiguity about the constancy toward nato ally and in places like syria and elsewhere in the middle east where russia is running around eating our lunch in places like egypt, we need to be very clear about where we are with our partners in different regions and make clear that we are not leaving open doors for russia who as i said whose interests are manifestly in opposition to ours. >> steve, president trump has been remarkably consistent through the campaign, through all the turmoil that surrounds the question of russia and saying he believes interest in the united states served by a better relationship with russia and with putin and he can solve major problems unless you have that. is he wrong and how would you assess the question i put to susan? is it time for a change in how we deal with this powerful rush a? i would tag along a comment i shared with you before. a friend of mine recently said to me, thinking about all these issues we need to give russia a punch in the nose. we need to find someone in the world and give him up punch in the nose. what do you think about punching in the nose and more generally about this interesting paradox of trump's russian policy? >> well look i think we can all agree that an improved relationship with russia would be a good thing. russia is active in a lot of theaters. my worry is that putin in some sense has decided his role is to be the spoiler in some sense. the united states is 40 to get and spend the night of states do something he will take the opposite side. investor kislyak before you left at one point said you americans have decided that rush is the enemy and putin is going to start to show you what it's like to have russia as an enemy. it's not a good place to be on. the question is can we change russian behavior so in a way that's consistent with our terms so it became a part of a? we have a long way to go but how do you get there? a couple of things it seems to me and you see a lot of that in terms of ukraine. my view for what it's worth is putin is not a great strategist and he is not particularly reckless but he is saved really and opportunist, and he sees an opportunity and he steps then. you saw it in syria and you see it in other instances. he will make a move and then he will see whether his intervention is resisted and if it starts to flounder and if he is resisted he will pull back. he is not resisted he will up his objectives. we saw that in georgia and i think we have seated elsewhere. you need to do two things. one you need to take things off the table and deny him opportunities. in central and eastern europe to strengthen nato's presence to put troops on the ground and to make it clear that the baltic states are off the table. the baltics are off the table. they are not going to be an opportunity for him to do what he did in ukraine. second of all where he does act i don't know whether it's to punch him in the nose that he needs to act in such a way so he pays tactically and cannot achieve his tactical objective and see that he is strategically defeated. his aspirations refrained were much more ambitious in terms of basic retaking a large swath of the country on the eastern side and having it very much pro russia. you know he is now got -- and he's paying a price in terms of sanctions and isolation. at some point it will come time to test and see whether he's willing to have a settlement of the ukraine to reduce an investment and do it on terms that are acceptable to the ukrainians and acceptable to the rest of us. .. i think it's a combination of hardening opportunities cannot make mischief and then confronting him when he does act. finally, the things still have not figured out is the campaign he is using to so division within our society and you see it here in the united states and in europe and not figure out how to counter that in any way and we are not doing that actively. this is part of the ideological struggle we have with president xi and authoritarian state capitalism is an alternative to the western democratic free-market model and farmer seems to believe the same and they are actively trying to convince the world that theirs is us. model were on her back foot. we are not responding in a sensible way. >> before i turn this to the audience for questions i want to ask one last question on my own and i want to pull that camera back if you will to the basic question that we were struggling with last august. iin aspen. every member of the group grew up in the shadow of the world that was created after world war ii and the idea of american power that was embodied in the work of president truman and george marshall and of the liberal american order, liberal international order as we describe it. so i want to ask as a final question how lasting each of you think the damage to that order is and what is the best way to defend that broad idea. susan, maybe you can start. is the damage here going to be lasting or will this revert to its previous shape this period of default and the presidency of donald? >> i think we have to distinguish between various forces pulling at the liberal world order and some of them might be considered a prominently [inaudible] coming from outside and we considered a number of those in aspen in the direction of europe and the rise of china in the new economy and precious role in each of those has an origin and the momentum of its own which i think we need to be very realistic about and i think the point about how significant this prison china is is a very valid one and i don't think it represents a mortal threat to the united states and if you manage it carefully. then there are the endogenous origins or causes of the brain of the liberal world order and those are the things i would argue come from within ourselves as a leader. these things are relatively new. these are shocks that have been added to the exogenous factors and i think we can work to manage in temper and accommodate and limit the exogenous aspects of this but obviously we have the greatest control over the endogenous aspects and i don't know that we have fully grasped significance of what i would term the application of american leadership internationally which we see in take on new forms as we walk out of agreements that we ourselves committed to whether it's paris or to pretty the area deal or now take decisions on things like jerusalem which leave a substantially isolated internationally and there are many different ways in which we have ceded the state and left a vacuum of american leadership which only accelerates the opportunity of china and others to fill the void. we also have our own domestic internal divisions which are so debilitating which facilitate the kind of destructive efforts that the russians engaged in during an arguably since the election. when we ourselves are so polarized and unable to agree even on the fact that we are debating much less on where we are going. we are starting our own ability to come back in the answer to your question if we were playing with all of our cards on the table with a degree of national unity and strength and clarity of our roles in the leader of the world peace exogenous challenges can be managed and we can see the evolution of the liberal world order and it will not be identical to what it was in 45 or 90 but it can be a 21st century version that substantially upholds our interest in values but if we don't get our domestic house in order and decide what leader we want to be and do it from a position of national unity i think that's might be a. >> steve, you always say to me in our conversations that we need to remember this president is an insurgent and i've grown to understand and think about that point so with that in mind let me just ask you directly. is the old order finished? is it over? and if it is possible that is so what might be coming to replace it? >> well, you know, there will be always be in order of some sort that is to say there will be a relationship among states the question is whether it will be the border that we had with people for two which is the creation of the united states and our allies based on democratic principles and open economies. it has been very successful not just for the united states but the world in terms of providing an unprecedented prosperity and security. the alternative to that is a different kind of order and you can have and it's one of the answers to the question that is not fated that that order will fade away but it depends on our policies. if you try to exclude and not adapt that order to the changes we have seen it is more likely to fade away. if we do not embrace china and try to incorporate china in an effort to adapt that international order, by for example, not standing aside when they create the asia infrastructure investment bank. we should have embraced it and should've been a part of it we should've tried to influence our influence to make sure it met international standards of transparency and accountability and helping those who received funds and integrated it into the international order. we should be doing the same thing with the one belt, one wrote. if we do that i think china would be preferred to be inside at the table adapting the existing order and we can preserve it. if on the other hand we do not retry to stiff our china the risk is that china, russia and others will form in some sense an alternative international order based on authoritarian schools, not on wind wind but zero-sum in competition and that, i think, potentially becomes a safe haven for all the bad actors of the world want to get out from under the international order that makes them subject to things like sanctions. a space for the north koreans and iranians in the money launderers and the and the alternative structure, if you will which will not be the place anyone or any of us want to live in will be competitive with the international order that we've seen. it depends on her policy. one of the things i would add to the mcmaster is everyone thanks because you have withdrawn from certain agreements you are withdrawn from the world and i don't think that is their intention and they have to come up with an explanation of an area of engagement that they can sell to the american people. last point, one of the things we made at the strategy group we can say always want about reconstituting and adapting the international order but it's also lost supported of the american people in this group of people gave expressions last election feel victimized by globalization, threatened by immigration, abandoned by their political leaders and this trade by people like us and those people are the ones who say the international order should go away. we've got to address their grievances and there are ways to do that. i wish it had a tax-cut that really helped the middle-class and infrastructure program that would give people in their 50s and 60s who only have 20th century skills, job and the real job training to adapt to the new economy written around that and i thank you could've gotten bipartisan support for it. got to address those grievances to make people comfortable to continue to be a platform and supportive of american engagement in the world and then we need to adapt international order. have to address as susan said the exogenous factors in the endogenous factors, whatever the ones involved in domestic -- we have to do both or will not save this international order. >> so, let's turn to members of the audience questions, please identify yourself. >> [inaudible]. what advice would you give pressure drop on the east in jerusalem? >> i think it's a little late on jerusalem. so, i think they are off to a pretty good start and they've embraced our traditional allies both arab and israel, as well, and made clear we are on their side and we have their back. i think that's a good thing. they have focused effort and builds on what was done in the obama administration to go after isis and we had great success in iraq and syria. a lot of rhetoric about checking iran a lot more radical it that reality of the problems with iran and it's a relatively underdressed problem that we haven't really got a strategy for. i think there are off to a fairly good start and i think the other thing we really need to do -- madeleine and i did a study and talked about bottom-up activity in terms of young people and women informing businesses informing social organizations and we need to be supporting them and we need to support those governments that the them as allies in building a better future for their people and we see that in places like tunisia and uae and you see the conference in saudi arabia is trying to do with his country and for his country vision 2030. we should support those efforts. madeleine and i the story we did the council we came away optimistic in the sense that there are things to work with in the middle east that often the prospect of a more peaceful and prosperous middle east we've got to help them line down the civil wars and then we got to support to those governments that are making positive steps to reform their economies engage their people in developing a common future. we do those and have a little luck in the middle east over time can turn in a positive direction. >> susan, any thoughts on jerusalem or the larger questi question? >> yeah, i would say the following is where we need to be going. first of all, i will address the broader middle east and it would be folly to offend iran deal which is working and created a degree of stability and we ought to sustain it in not threaten its viability because we will be the ones isolated and iranians will be the ones free to pursue a program unfettered and we will be isolated from our european allies. secondly, i would say we need to continue and not take our eye off the ball of sustaining the games that we are made against isis. i think we are much better generally speaking and executing military campaigns that we are dealing with post- conflict political and economic and social reconstruction. i think steve's point earlier about staying engaged in iraq and syria and building behind the military victory so that we don't see isis 2.0 is vital and it is not clear to me that we have a theory of what the post- conflict outcome will be in syria. i would also suggest that with respect to the peace process or potential peace process that the move in jerusalem while it may be done was not helpful obviously. if the aim was, in fact, to put on the table a peace plan that results in the potential for two state outcome i think what it has done is make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the palestinians to approach the proposal with anything like a positive attitude and maybe that was the point. but it wasn't i think it is had the inadvertent or the consequence of making that effort more remote. finally, here steve and i may take a different point of view i think we definitely need to continue and sustain our efforts and not intensify them to counter iran's various activities in the region. but not with blind carte blanche support with the studies and those of the region. we have underestimated of the young saudi conference to engage in behavior outside of his borders with our detrimental to our interest and to saudi interests ultimately. i think we are risking exacerbating the fishers in the region by our unqualified and untempered a men's choir for comes out of the odd including it's very destructive policies in yemen. i think we need to be clear to our good friends and partners in saudi in the gulf that we share their concerns about security and the threat that iran imposes in the region but there is a smart way in a dangerous way to deal with that. and the way that ultimately the iranian problem may be more dangerous over time even if it gives us some short-term sense of gratification. we need to be a little smarter about how we calibrate our support because i think it is overcooked at the moment. >> time for one more quick question if there are any hands, not seen any. so, let me turn this back to our director, nick, this conversation makes me look forward to next summer in aspen and reporting back to you after that. >> let me thank david and susan and steve and madeleine and bill cohen and steve and those of the people left from this morning. thank you for a really good conversation. i hope you will consult our book because it's nonperson were trying to part of. provide solutions country. thank you to our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. coming up saturday morning author in law professor frank buckley will join us to talk about his book the republic of virtue, how we try to plan corruption but failed and what we can do about it. also look at global conflict that experts are watching in 18 with the atlantic. watch it live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday on c-span's q&a. heritage foundation distinguished fellow lee edwards chronicles his 60 year involvement in the conservative movement. >> i met joe mccarthy for my father and it was something of a conflict to him and he was a hill fellow well met if you like the party and he liked a drink or two and as long as you didn't talk about communism you could ask for more fun guy to be with but it was very serious about that and he was also someone who did not take advice very well. he consequently said things and even did things that hurt because of anti- communism for some time. >> q&a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> at house hearing for down syndrome research members of congress testified about their experiences as parents of children with the genetic disorder. other witnesses discuss how research on

Related Keywords

Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Australia , Taiwan , Afghanistan , United States , Paris , France General , France , Alaska , Brazil , China , Yemen , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Anchorage , Syria , Russia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Ukraine , Mexico , India , Netherlands , South Korea , Poland , Pyongyang , P Yongyang Si , North Korea , Georgia , Japan , Texas , Argentina , Iran , Washington , Togo , Germany , Bangladesh , Kislyak , Vinnyts Ka Oblast , Hungary , China Sea , Colorado , Saudi Arabia , As Susan , Lab , Americans , Mexicans , America , Saudi , Chinese , Russian , North Koreans , Iranians , Soviet , Dutch , Russians , Japanese , Hungarian , American , Angela Merkel , Chuck Schumer , Catherine Cortez Masto , Madeleine Albright , Vladimir Putin , Joe Mccarthy , David Ignatius , Chris Murphy , Tim Russert , Baltic States , Asia Saleh , Richard Danzig , Ross Perot , Jim Resch , Steve Hadley , Aspen Joe Kennedy ,