Transcripts For CSPAN3 Daniel 20240704

Good morning and welcome, everyone. In the studio as well as the audience turning in virtually. Im connor savoy, senior fellow at the csis project on prosperity and development. Thank you for joining me today to discuss a new book published by my long time colleague and friend dan randy, whos a Senior Vice President and director of the project on prosperity and development and holds the schreier chair here at csis. His work is oriented around u. S. Leadership in building a more democratic and prosperous world. Among his many other contributions, he was an architect of the build act, helped contribute to the reauthorization of the us Exportimport Bank in 2018 and was an architect of prosper africa, a u. S. Government initiative to deepen the uss commercial and Development Engagement in africa. Hes been a leading voice on the role in future of the World Bank Group and u. S. Leadership in the multilateral system. Prior to csis, he held leadership roles at the u. S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank Group. Earlier in his career, he also worked in commercial banking at citibank in argentina and Investment Banking at what is now Deutsche Bank dans book, the american imperative reclaiming Global Leadership through soft power is the first decade, its first book in decades to look at americas nonmilitary power through the lens of Great Power Competition. It calls for supporting broad based economic growth, supporting Good Governance and anticorruption, long term training. Differentiating our approaches in middle Income Countries and fragile states. And stronger u. S. Leadership in the multilateral system. Dan i want to congratulate you on a great book. Its been a its been a long process. And im very proud to host you today. So welcome. And why dont we dive right in . Thanks. Thanks, connor. Thanks for having me. Im really pleased to be doing this. This has been a long time coming. Ive been in washington for 20 years. Ive been at caesars for 12. Ive watched the rise of china over the last 12 years, but ive also watched the rise and the progress in many developing countries. And so its not our grandparents developing world. And at the same time, were in a period of Great Power Competition with china and their sidekick, russia. And so i think that we have to offer an alternative, enable an alternative, because china, in partnership with russia, can fill voids that we leave behind. They can fill voids in vaccines. We saw this with covid. They can close the Digital Divide through weiwei and zte. They can build bridges, build ports and airports. So to the extent we dont want to do that, china will do that. To the extent that we dont want to provide and support the development of Reliable Energy such as gas. China will do that for them to the extent that we fill trade voids, china will fill that as well. So at the same time, russia, which is doesnt have the same kind of heft as china is a is a major global disrupter. To put it mildly, their illegal invasion of ukraine has has global implications. And its in our interest to make sure that ukraine wins the war, but also ukraine also is financially successful as a stable democracy and a full member of the European Union and nato. I want to come back to ukraine in a little bit, but maybe lets start out with, i think one of the things that strikes me about the book is there is this sort of cold war parallel. You talk a lot about how the Kennedy Administration saw a real challenge to our ability to engage and developing countries. In the early 1960s that led to the peace corps, that led to usaid using the cold war. You know, how do you kind of see this as a as a competition right now . Is it analogous . Is it a little bit different . How do you kind of where do you see the similarities, indifference and sort of dodged this b, and so i think in the book, i sort of edge up to the idea of saying this is potentially a second cold war. I did a radio interview last week where somebody said they disagreed with me in the book because i sort of hem and haw on this issue of whether its a second cold war or not. And i finished i submitted the manuscript for the book in march of 2010, february, march of 2020, to the world has also since evolved, i think. And fortunately in a not great way in the last 12 plus months. So i think we need to see this certainly as revisiting our soft power in an age of Great Power Competition and perhaps thats a safer place. I think what i worry about is if i say its a second cold war, some folks kind of bristle at that and sort of dont want us to kind of and i think the framing of that as perhaps creates a problem. But i do think that if you look at in history, if you look at the emergence of the marshall plan, that was the result of the coup in czechoslovakia in 1948, which was sort of the dawn of the cold war, and was a direct response to sort of National Security concerns and Foreign Policy concerns at the time. If you look at the reorganization of aid in that early 1961, the foreign assistance act of 1961, it was a reaction to our perceived shortcomings during sort of the the First Quarter or so of the of the cold war, where this book called the ugly american, which was published in 1958, which i cant think of, a book thats been more influential in Foreign Policy. And john kennedy bought a copy for every member of the senate. Kennedy bought 100 copies of the book and gave one to every member of the u. S. Senate. And that book caused a revolution in thinking in the United States about how we ought to engage with the developing world. It caused it. It brought about the reorganization of the for our foreign aid. It a rejiggering of u. S. The initiative called the alliance for progress for the americas. It created the peace corps and it created the green berets. So these were all things that were a direct result of the book the ugly american. I would say weve had several moments since since the 1960s. At the end of the cold war, there were some rejiggering of our instrumentation to respond to the fall of the berlin wall. And then i would say after 911, there have been some some adjustments as well. I would argue that were at a moment in this period of Great Power Competition or whatever we want to call it, if we want to call it a second cold war. And theres some baggage with that that the National Security imperatives of engaging a resurgent china and a a a disrupter in russia require us to go back to the drawing board on our soft power instruments to respond to this new challenge that were finding. So i think, you know, as were as im listening to you, dan, i mean, one of the things that really comes out is the imperative of us using our soft power tools and using them better. I mean, what do you see as the importance now for soft power . And why do you think development and by extension, diplomacy are overlooked when the u. S. Is looking at how it engages in the world . So if you believe that were in an age of Great Power Competition, then most of our Great Power Competition is not going to play out in beijing or moscow. Its going to play out in tanzania. Its going to play out in guatemala. Its going to play out in the Pacific Island states. Its going to play out in central asia. Its going to play out in ukraine. These are developing countries with a series of hopes in aspirations and interests and to the extent we dont meet the hopes and aspiration missions of these countries, theyll take their business to china or theyll take their business to russia in some instances. And to the extent we dont engage in a number of different fields that are not in the nonmilitary sphere, they have the ability today because of their economic because of chinas economic heft, to be able to fill voids that we leave behind. So im all for peace through strength. Im all for a strong u. S. Military and a strong intelligence capacity. But i believe most of this competition is not a military competition. Its a nonmilitary competition. One of the things that i know has come up since you put out the book, since it was published last week, youve and youve done a lot of these discussions is this idea of, you know, implicit in the this discussion of uschina in the developing world and other regions is the idea that youre that you could be suggesting that they need to pick a side. How do you address that . How do you think about this interplay between the us and china and what how do we have to think about that . How do we have to frame it when were engaging in developing countries . So, i mean, in my heart, id like them to pick a side, but i think in reality, in most instances, thats going to be very, very difficult today. And that in that late nineties, Something Like 120 out of 200 countries, the number one trading partner was the United States. And about 60, the largest trading partner was china. Today, out of 200 or so developing countries, about 120 countries, their largest trading partner is china. And were the number one trading partner for about 60. So its going to be very difficult to say to some country where their number one trading partner is Mainland China, you have to pick a side and stop working with Mainland China. So i think its just not its not serious. And so i think we need to be realistic about that. At the same time, there are things we cant just say if countries dont take sinovac vaccines, if were not going to offer an alternative vaccine, dont take chinese made ventilators. If were not going to offer a ventilator, dont take chinese infrastructure or energy infrastructure. If were not going to enable long term, we dont have to meet china dollar for dollar, but its just not serious for us to say to countries that have developed beyond a certain level of development, have their own agency, have their own choices today, and can have a lot more freedom of action for us to say, dont take the vaccines, dont take the infrastructure, and dont close your Digital Divide with huawei. We have to enable an alternative. So let me go on that. So infrastructure is one of the ways that weve seen china really ramp up its presence in developing countries through the belt and road initiative. What do we need to do to offer a credible alternative to chinese infrastructure . My view is that to the extent that theyre building farm to market roads in the middle of nowhere, if they want to go knock themselves out and do that, thats fine. Then theres some areas where we ought to be competing with china on infrastructure, whether its us or through the Asian Development bank or japan or the australian, us or turkey or brazil. Thats fine. Then theres a subset of what might be described as commanding heights infrastructure, where we just dont want them to build it, where they has a dual use, say an airport or a port or lets certain kinds of Tech Technology like 5g and controlling 5g, we do. We should not want Mainland China to control the digital rails of the future in developing countries and the unholy trinity of huawei, zte and alipay. So thinking about digital in particular, you know, weve talked a lot over the years about how aid and Development Institutions did a lot to enable cell phone telephony in developing countries. And most countries had leapfrogged they people never had a landline. They only have a cell phone. So when youre thinking about closing the Digital Divide, what what do we need to do . What do you see as the opportunity on that . So the u. S. And the west helped create kind of version 1. 0 of the internet in many developing countries. And it was also an enabler through the series of obscure but important institutions called Development Finance institutions like the International Finance corporation, what was then called the overseas private investment corporation, the series of european Development Finance institute grants to enable the cell phone revolution thats happened over the last 20 years. And theres most people in the developing world, whether its afghanistan or african countries in africa or southeast asia, they all have access to to cell phone, telephony. And thats changed the world for the better. What youre seeing now is this next generation of high Speed Internet net, which has been accelerated because of covid. Everybody was in their basement for a year, whether they were in rural maryland, they were in moldova, malaysia or mali, and there was a realization that we all needed high Speed Internet. That high Speed Internet is the new electricity. And so this is this is going to happen. And so were either going there, either people are going to close this new Digital Divide of high Speed Internet, either through Mainland China or through weiwei, zte and alipay or some coalition or somebody else. I would strongly prefer that some coalition of somebody else that requires is getting our act a little bit more together. It means us working with allies like south korea, finland and sweden. It means having some sort of a strategy, how were going to use development, financing the oceans. It probably means having being a little bit more thoughtful and tangible how we use our aid agencies to kind of prime the pump for some of this stuff. Some of this is about making sure that various stakeholders show up and on bids for certain kinds of infrastructure. And then my hope is, is to the extent that countries pick weiwei, zte and zte for socalled 5g technology, which is sort of the latest technology thats being used that we can have to the extent we lose in some instances, we need to get ready for six g or the next generation so that we can supplant Mainland China because its just not in our interest because of either values, commerce and most importantly, sort of the valuing vacuuming up of data, information thats going directly to beijing. Thats being used for all sorts of bad purposes. So let me let me take this. You mentioned allies in your last answer. You know, your book is entitled the the american imperative. And, you know, i think some some not me may look at this and say, oh, this is a little bit of an America First argument that youre trying to make here. And i think its a its you know, how how do you kind of what do you say to that . Where do allies where how do you kind of think about the american role from that perspective in the world . Nothing significant the United States has ever done. Have we been able to do by ourselves. So we have needed friends and partners to accomplish anything of any significance. The cold war can fronting big challenges like hiv, aids, responding to covid aid thats required sort of leading a coalition to the extent that, you know, weve been able to do that. Sometimes were not a great friend. Sometimes were a little bit of a flaky ally and friend. We need to do a better job of that. I would say that one of our greatest strengths is the fact that weve got a big network of friends and allies. And so i think we need to make sure that were being a good friend and a reliable friend. Stuff you learned in kindergarten. But we also so we we anything we want to accomplish in sort of this responding to closing the Digital Divide, making sure that the next pandemic were not all sitting in our basins for a year, making sure that Mainland China doesnt control the email for the secretary general ship of the u. N. , or so the commanding heights of the multilateral system. We need to work with our friends. And so this is not an America First book. This is a book that says we need to this is an internationalist book that says we need to work with our friends, that we have a big challenge. I think i think theres a consensus in washington that we have a big problem with russia and we have a big problem with china. I dont believe theres a consensus yet in washington about what the heck to do about it. And so i wrote the book as a contribution to say, heres some thoughts about some things we could do if we could respond to china and russia. And if you believe that most of our competition is not about night vision goggles and battleships and missiles, those are all really important things. As i said, i believe in peace through strength. Then we need to come up with look at a variety of spheres. Think about what were going to do and how were going to burden, share. And in some ways, development is about helping countries become wealthy enough and hopefully free enough that they join the community of free market. You know, free, free nations that are market democracies that are willing to burden share on big challenges and also to join, you know, this is a big set of words, but the liberal international order, the and i dont mean liberal as thats a progressive sort of that the or the set of rules and arrangements that were set up after World War Two. We want countries to develop and then become burden sharers in the system that was set up after World War Two. The system has set up after World War Two is a great thing. And so i see development ultimately. If you say what my agenda is and i think what many people in washington would say is help countries to have freedom of action, be have their own, have their own agendas in the world, but also to decide on their own that its in their interest to ultimately participate in the existing liberal international order, not go off with china and try and set up some new, new arrangement that were not going to like. One of the things you said in the beginning was this isnt your grandparent developing world. Can you unpack that a little bit . What has changed in the last 20 years . Where do you sort of see the opportunity in regions or in countries . What does that look like for the United States and how do we have to think differently about it . Well, they all have cell phones. Theres been an incredible amount of Economic Development in the last 30 years. Theres been net net. Its largely a freer world in, say, 40 years ago. Theres been a lot of progress in democracy. Then theres been a little bit whats been called a democratic recession. But if you go back from, say, 40 years ago, its still freer than it was 40 years ago. If you go back from 40 years ago, its still wealthier than it was 40 years ago. Theres an Amazing Health progress. Theres been amazing metrics in progress and in education in terms of levels of literacy. Theres been major progress in terms of the status of women in the world, in terms of their levels of education and participation, the economy and their participation in the political spheres. These are all great things. So at the same time, theres also become as countries develop, they have an ability to as they described earlier, potentially burden share on big problems. And thats thats a good thing. They also a lot of countries as they develop they buy a lot more goods and services. We want them buying our goods and services as opposed to somebody elses goods and services. We also, you know, you have as countries develop, theres a greater demand for Higher Education and training and different kinds of Higher Education and training. And so 50 or 60 years ago, we didnt exactly have a lock on sort of the global Higher Education, but we had sort of kind of a lock on global Higher Education. Now, theres a lot more access to universities and schooling in developing countries. Thats for the good. But what were also finding is that for certain kinds of special training and education, were not the only game in town. Some of the some of that can be provided by our allies and partners. Thats great. Some of that can be provided by Mainland China there now a major Higher Education player. We want the global elites, the developing countries to study in the west, preferably the United States, because when they become finance minister or Central Bank President or Health Minister or ceo of a company, we want boston on their speed dial, not beijing on this. So you mentioned in the beginning that you submitted the manuscript for this around february, march of 2022. So obviously the russia invaded ukraine on february 24th, 2022. Were coming up on the Year Anniversary over the last several months, you and i have spent a lot of time thinking about economic reconstruction in ukraine. And in the interim, the us has appropriated over 100 billion and counting to support ukraine. How are you thinking about this, this crisis . Where does russia fit into this era of Great Power Competition . And how can we continue to use aid and other Development Instruments to support ukraine, not just during the war, but looking ahead to to reconstruction . Let me first start with the fact that china is financing the russian war machine. So when they buy oil and gas from the russians, theyre financing the the russian war machine. So i think we have to start with that. The chinese have been horrible all on ukraine. Theyve hemmed, theyve abstained when they should have voted the right way on ukraine, they voted the wrong way. Theyve fiddled with language and important communiques and things like the g20 to help to favor russia. China has not been ukraines friend. China has picked a side and theyre basically tacitly or explicitly an ally of the russians in this fight against ukraine. And everyone just needs to understand that. The second thing is that Vladimir Putin is not going to stop at if he gets a couple of pieces of ukraine, he wants to redraw the map in a whole bunch of places. Hed like the baltics back. Hed like a piece of poland back. Hed like a piece of kazakhstan. He probably thinks belarus is sort of a fake country, and hed like that, too. So if anyone thinks, well, this is whats just get him, you know, hell hell be see aided hell be satisfied with with bits and pieces of ukraine. Were fooling ourselves. Its in our interest for russia to be strategically defeated in ukraine that they break their back on ukraine and they say for 100 years they feel the way they feel about finland. So they invaded finland. It was a really bad experience for the russians. And the russians have said, oh my gosh, for the next hundred years, i dont want to. I dont want to think about invading finland ever again. What we want is for the russians to say, oh my gosh, that was the worst experience ever. Im never and im not invading ukraine for another 100 years. I dont want to do it. And im my my expansive grand ambitions for for a resurgent sort of neo soviet union. Yeah, were going to put that aside. Basically. We want them to we want them to have such a horrible military experience that that that is what happens. The other thing is china is watching what happens in ukraine. So to the extent that russia is able to, quote unquote, get away with invading ukraine and the costs are acceptable, that is going to give russia and china the temptation to think they can get away with invading taiwan. So if anyone thinks whats going to happen in ukraine stays in ukraine, theyre mistake. This is as as global implications. It absolutely has impacts on Asian Security and if youre taiwan, you should be doing everything you can to help ukraine win because a weaker russia means a weaker china and a weaker china means that theyre less likely to try and invade taiwan. In addition to all that, what we want is 15 years from now, we want to see ukraine fully win the war and be seen as winning the war. But from in addition to that, what we want is we want a ukraine thats wealthy. Its one fourth, and its the same size as poland and should be as rich as poland. And its one fourth as rich as poland, but theyre going to have to do a whole bunch of things to kind of fix that. Some of it will have to do with Economic Reforms and governance reforms. We want them to have the agricultural potential of canada. They could totally do that. They ought to have the tech sector of estonia. They ought to have the kind of great infrastructure japan has and they ought to have the military Industrial Base of israel. What we want is at the end of this, a really strong, free and rich ukraine thats a full on card carrying member of the European Union and a full on card carrying member of nato and a full on card carrying member of the oecd, which is the club of market democracies. So i think a lot of us didnt necessarily think wed be back looking in europe the way we are now. But that said, we still have a lot of problems in the regions that, you know, our traditional focus for global development. Can you think about how our youth when you when you look at your book, where where do fragile and failing states come in and what do we need to kind of do that to ensure that theyre not do better in those areas, to ensure that theyre not going to be the problems of the future . We have a hard time with fragile states. We dont have enough folks who speak very obscure but important languages and some of these places we dont have enough people whove lived in these countries and understand the the really complicated what might be described as political economy issues of sort of the sum of its tribal, some of its political, some of its about whos, you know, whos, you know, theres douglas north, whos an important economist, talks about open access orders and limited access orders, and that most of the world are limited access orders, which are basically sort of, you know, autocratic, poorly governed places that and its hard for limited access orders to become open access orders, which are basically think of them as market democracies for making that leap. And so we need people who can speak what might be described as im going to call them, non strategic, important languages that are not spanish or french or portuguese. Were not kind of romance languages and also folks who make long term commitments to some of these places. General petraeus talked about maybe a seven year commitment and we ought to maybe even have a special track in the Foreign Service for folks who are willing to make a 14 year commitment and have some sort of an accelerated process by which if you do 14 years, two seven year tours of duty and really difficult places, you can get early retirement. Now, i think a lot of people in washington brains will explode if i say that, because i think including i think, you know, but i just think that after 20 years of sort of having a series of sort of one year tours of duty in afghanistan, and it seems to me that we need to have deeper expertise and make it. Were unfortunately for good or for a lot of developments going to happen in this in whats described as the bottom billion in tough poor places. And so were just going to need folks who have regional expertise to make significant commitments. And im my belief is that in a country of 330 Million People and a country of immigrants, we should be able to attract people some folks from the diaspora, some folks who just understand the importance of this, to say were going to make theyre going to make this the part of their career. And that this is a this is an attractive career for folks. And so it may be folks we may also want to think about drawing upon people who are former military, who are, you know, whove lived in some, you know, ambiguous security, ambiguous places to, you know, to draw upon that as a as a as a talent pool for Something Like this. Yeah. So one one thing that i really like about the book, dan, is you you, you do a great job of using examples of countries, you know, where that are either transitioning toward, you know, upper middle income status. You know, you really do a good job of highlighting their strategic importance and how we can do engage better. One country you talk quite a bit about is bangladesh. You know, bangladesh has gone from what was seen as kind of a basket case, which i think, you know, during the nixon administration, there were some very it was the term that was the term used, i believe, by a Senior State Department undersecretary of state. Im trying to remember his name right now. It was you. Was it you, alexis . Yes, it was. It was alexis johnson. So you, alexis. Exactly. It was urals. Urals, yeah, exactly. Thats good. So its but its come a long way. And a lot of that has been because of the growth of the textile industry. Yeah. Thats lifted a lot of people out of poverty, including a lot of women. Theres still a lot of issues within that, but talk to me a little bit. Tell me more about bangladesh. How does this how does that serve as an example of these countries and how we can kind of help them move further along their Development Journey . Im pretty high on bangladesh. Yes. Yeah. I take it as an example. I think that if most people of a certain age im im im in my early fifties. So if youre in your if youre a baby boomer, you are a member of the concert for bangladesh, hosted by George Harrison in 1971. Right. And so your the last time you probably thought about bangladesh was the concert for bangladesh in 1971. My theres a story in my family that one of my family members instead of giving christmas presents one year, said they had made ten or 20 donations at the benefit of have for bangladesh. Some of my family members took that well some of my families didnt take that well, but that is how they associate when they think about bangladesh, they think about right there, the christmas present. They didnt get. And so anyways, i think the if you look at the gnp per capita of bangladesh, it is a higher gnp per capita of any country in south asia today. Its higher than india, its higher than pakistan, its higher than sri lanka. Its certainly higher than afghanistan. And i think one of the reasons is, is theyve invested so much in women. Now, some of it is women and girls. And so theyve said, okay, were going to make sure that women, girls get access to basic education. Theyve had a series of the recently in the last 30 years, theyve had two female leaders whove led the country. Now, theres some people who will criticize the government. And i wouldnt necessarily say that the two female leaders have a great relationship, but theyve had, you know, theyre a Muslim Country thats invested a lot in women and girls that have made sure that women girls have access to education. Theyve also been open minded in terms of bringing technology. So south korea brought the Garment Industry in the early eighties. Right now, 5 million women are employed in bangladesh. So women leave the village, come to work in a factory, a chain that has also changed the society. You have women working and joining the labor force, having having money. And the studies show that, you know, if women have control of money, their the the overall i dont want to, you know, generalize generalize. But its generally its a very positive thing that studies show that women are have a more careful with money than men. They have a proclivity to invest it in in things like education for their children. And and so as a result, you have this virtuous circle in bangladesh of employment and saving things and education. So theres been investment in people. Theres been and theres been an openness to bringing Foreign Direct Investment thats changed the society. And now they have the aspiration to become an upper middle income country. Thats a lot of words, but basically theyre not theyre not a grindingly poor country anymore. Theyre not a basket case anymore. Theyre a middle income country. There are a country that has cars. Theyve got aspirations. They would like to join the oecd, which i described earlier, sort of the club of market democracies and so thats not a crazy goal. And so 20 years from now, todays, you know, 2023, theres no reason that bangladesh couldnt be a member of the oecd. 20 years from today and they fought a war more than 50 years ago with pakistan, and theyre wealthier than pakistan in terms on a on a per capita basis. And theyre in a much better place than if they were still with pakistan. And and so i think you have to ask yourself, okay, well, why is it that if this a country thats a you know, that you know, this is an example for others to emulate people ought to say, okay, well, if you invest in women and girls, this is you can have this kind of amazing outcome. And if you are open to having certain kinds of Foreign Direct Investment and be friendly to Foreign Direct Investment, there are certain kinds of benefits for your society. So i think these are all to the good. Theres lots of things that not bangladesh isnt perfect. There are a number of criticisms leveled against pakistan excuse me, bangladesh, including a variety of different things, whether its in their political realm or its in the labor and sort of labor rights. I understand that. But in the big picture, bangladesh is in enormous Success Story and Enormous Development Success Story. One thing thats come up a lot today, as weve been talking about the book is, is education. And i think this is another area where you really highlight in the book in particular, really highlight the value that education can play in advancing development. You also go further and really think that suggests that the us really needs to fundamentally rethink how its approaching in support of education as one of the ways in which were engaging across the world, you know, what do you what do you see . What do we need to do differently . What are the what are the what are the benefits for us from an education perspective . So theres both theres the Higher Education world. Theres sort of the vocational Technical Training world, and theres the education world. And so in the case of basic education, theres been an amazing global progress in basic education the last four years, 40 years. But since seats, i think thats the technical term, levels of attendance are much higher. There is some discussion about world quality of education, but if you look at levels of literacy, if you look at levels of numerous see youve seen major improvement around the world. There are some unfortunately, some exceptions. And oftentimes its around like holding girls back for a variety of reasons. And so we need to kind of keep pushing on that. But youre also seeing that what youre also seeing as people as people get more education and as economies evolve, theres also greater demand for skilling and Higher Education. And some of that has been met by the creation of universities and Training Institutes in developing countries. So 50 or 60 years ago, a lot of of the world had to come to the United States or the developed world to get Higher Education. Thats so the Higher Education landscape has changed at the same time. And we were a big financier, 50 or 60 years ago, as many as 20,000 students came to the United States every year on the federal governments dime to study in the United States, something around different depending on what all different buckets of funding. Its maybe a little under 2000, Something Like that. Now again, covids thrown all this off. There was sort of a two year period where we you know, we werent doing that or it was, you know, it got it got disrupted. But but my point is, is that today china is funding enormous amounts of scholarships. The Chinese Government is financing tens of thousands and is even more than that. Scholarships in developing countries of future leaders who are going to go back and become Central Bank President or prime minister, ceo of companies in developing countries. We they are going to have beijing on their speed dial, not boston on their speed dial. And thats not going to be in our interest. So we need to think about Higher Education. Theres some problems in the us Higher Education system. You could argue, and were not going to have we dont have to provide Education Training to every developing country leader in the world. And like i said earlier, i think its a win if if somebody in a developing country goes and studies in the or australia or canada or germany, i think thats great. Free, you know, market democracies, if they get exposed to market democracies, i think thats for japan for that matter. But if theyre studying in russia or china, i think thats bad and we should worry about that. So i think we should make we should be strategic and think about how we use our federal dollars to attract people from developing countries to come to the United States in certain sectors. Could be public health, could be economic it, could be urban planning. Im not saying finance, mbas and law degrees. I think that im less interested in that. But the economists certain kinds of train the technocrats of the future, the technocrats, the future. We should we should be strategic about that. I also think we have a the largest number of foreign students right now in the United States are from Mainland China. Im not against that. So some folks would say we ought to just turn off the spigots on that for having a large number of mainland Chinese Students. The United States. I do think we have to police several things. If theyre ganging up on other mainland Chinese Students because theyve now gotten a taste of freedom. And theyre theyre sort of expressing their views. And so then some other Chinese Students beat them up or bully them or narc on them. I think thats the young people, what the young people say. The kids say these days on them, we shouldnt allow that this Confucius Institute stuff, this these institutes funded by china thats pushing a certain kind of a line we either out of there to straighten up or way to close them this soft and hard intel stuff. Were like, were sending, you know, people to get phds in theoretical physics and then stealing our intel or doing medical studies and then taking medical specimens back. You know, theres been way the hack, too many bad examples of that. And so id much rather have them go study comparative literature and comparative religion or english lit and go quantum computing. So i think a lot of want to do the the quantum computing stuff and so pays better i think. Yeah, i think it pays better. But i think the point is i actually think in the long run we want to have as many people from Mainland China exposed to the west as possible like i actually think the argument that we engaged china for 40 years and we failed, im not sure thats totally fair. And so i have a slightly different view than many people in the sense that i think that we dont know yet. I think the jury is still out. Like if you look at how many members of the politburo has lived abroad or studied abroad, i think the number is about one. Yeah. My hope is, is that 15 years from now, you may have as many as 12 or 15 who lived or studied abroad. So i think you also see the elites in china, they they have money overseas. They send their kids overseas to study. Thats thats a revealing preference that says something about how theyre thinking about themselves and how they think about us. So we should want, to the extent that not stealing our stuff, bullying others, pushing some, propagate and we ought to have im open to us having a lot of them, the whole idea of saying were going to cut them off completely, i think is an error. Yeah, weve talked a lot about market democracies here. I mean, and i know from our Long Association that your preferences on democracy. But let me talk about the markets for a psych. I mean, one thing thats come through in your book is the the importance of the private sector. And we dont always think about that from a development perspective. How how have in youve done a lot on over year over the years how do you think about the role of the private sector in development . Its a big question, but where does it fit within your thesis . So a lot of the theory of change to kind of use term of the last. So think tank its a think tank diagram or yeah, its a think tank. And so the theory of change has been, well, it seems to kind of forget that nine out of ten jobs in the developing world are in the private sector, that most of the financing and most financing of basic human needs of health and education isnt from foreign aid, its from the taxes collected in developing countries. Theres been a quick toppling of taxes collected in africa in the last 20 years. What that says is that most even some of the except for a hand, maybe 20 or so developing countries, the poorest of the poor, most of the rest have an ability to finance a lot of their own development. They have they have the ability to finance a lot of own infrastructure, finance a lot of their own education and a lot of their own health and a lot of their own security. And so i think we have a little bit of a of simplistic notion that were the largest wallet in the room or whatever were allocating from the world, or usaid is giving or the aid community, which is, you know, about 130, 150 billion a year. That thats the biggest chunk of money financing, development. Its not true. And it hasnt been true for at least 30 or 40 years. But have sort of this old cassette tape to date myself . We have an old cassette tape in our head about how heck Development Gets funded. And so ambassador jim michael, whos a Senior Advisor here, has done some thoughtful thinking on this. He used to run the Major League Baseball commission of foreign aid. Its called the dac, the Development Assistance committee, which brings all the aid agencies together. And he wrote a paper looking at this so dont believe dan, you know, believe somebody like ambassador jim michael who is you know much more sort of been part of the International Development conversation for 50 years and is said that the the the kind of financing for development and even the United Nations system talks about it through its the financing for Development Track is called foreign aid to be a catalyst so its think of it like yeast its not the main not the big show but we think of as as the big show. And so if the private sector is where all the jobs are and if the private sector is where all the are, theyre are going to finance development, then you probably have to have a certain kind of a relationship with the private sector. You got to make sure that theyre following environmental rules and labor rules and weve got to make sure theres not corruption. But the kind of and we need to make sure people are paying their fair share of taxes. And i think thats a thats a decision for each society to come up with. But i think that we need to see them as a really central partner in and the other thing is our foreign aid is were a supporting actor in someone movie. Were not were not the star of the movie. Were a supporting actor in someone elses drama. So and i think its like, how do we work with them . How do we think about enabling, making it easy for them to operate in a country . These are all things that that are relevant and appropriate for, for the uses of foreign aid and diplomacy let me shift gears a little bit. So it comes through in the book is the opportunity and the need and the y for for for for for american soft power. But when you look at our bureaucracy, when you look at usaid, for example, what do we need to do differently from an organizational perspective . And i know youre famous in washington for saying you dont like to do org chart discussions, dan, but when you think of what do we need to do differently, i think as were talking and as and when you read the book, it comes through that we may not be our system may not be fit for purpose for what were trying to achieve. So what would you you know, what are some quick wins . What are harder things that we have to do . So i havent met anybody in washington. Has said theyre happy and satisfied with the arrangement of sort of like the state department and aid and there are 20 agencies. So that have some that touch of the kinds of things ive talked about in the book. Now when John F Kennedy reorganized the foreign aid architecture if you can use that term in 1961, there were four agencies and he said that was too many. Theres 21. So no ones really wanted to kind of take this on because whatever rubiks cube permutation come up with, not everyones going to be satisfied. So youre going to you create various people will will go and its its its an important topic, but its still obscure enough that its sort of at the whim of kind of Interest Group politics. If i describe it that way. And so the only time weve ever had big shifts because there are some geo strategic thing that overrides some of these Interest Group politics. And thats why i would say the reason i wrote the book is i think that were at a geostrategic moment where we need to kind of make some decisions about how we allocate things. I would like to have a id have a lot of this leadership and agency. I would i would put a lot of stuff at usaid. Id say theres too many things and other places. I think theres some things that we need to do in terms of allocating people time and money to some things that we could we could revisit how where were putting our people time. Id like us to we dont have to dollar for dollar, close the Digital Divide, but i think were probably going have to put some money into this Digital Space in a way that we havent necessarily. I dont want to spend a year in my basement again because of another covid. Were going to have other pandemics, and i dont think were fully prepared for the next one either. Early Warning Systems or we need to have swing capacity in the developing world to make vaccines. Because if we have that, if someday im going to have to wait for get in line and wait six months because the factory in baltimore has got to take care of pittsburgh over paraguay in the political leaders are always going to pick pittsburgh over paraguay. So we need to have additional swing capacity of vaccine production. And so we need to figure out a way to deal with that. I dont want them building dual use airports, ports and in developing countries. And so we need to probably ride herd on the multilateral system and defis to do a better job of being a financier of choice and a partner of choice. And, you know, as countries develop, as i said, this is a different developing world. We need to meet folks where theyre at. And so kind of offer needs to be updated. If were still offering bags of rice and they can grow their own food, then perhaps we need to kind of look at that and say maybe, maybe thats not what we should be doing. Or if they can finance their own basic education, maybe we need to look at that. If they can pay for their own basic health, maybe we need to look at that. So i just say, you know, theres lots of places where we still need to do that. But i think that we, i think need to have a take a hard look at all this. I also think we need to think about how we do this in partnership with others. I was talking earlier, this is not an america alone conversation and this is about ultimately about burden sharing. So ive got two final questions for you. First, dan, i think everyone anyone who knows you knows youre a. Yeah. Not outing you. Yeah. Dont help me. Im not outing you. How do you make the argument to other republicans that this is an important issue to invest in . There are and i, i dont love to do both sides, but you know, there are always voices on the left to who see who think that we need to invest in domestic priorities over perhaps international priorities, but how do you make the argument to your two other republican folks . Yeah, that american internationalism, which was a bipartisan thing, that arose at the end of World War Two, how do you the argument to your folks that this is an important investment . So i have yet to meet somebody in washington that says i am really excited about turning over the reins of Global Leadership to the Chinese Communist party. So whether its in the interest lecture space or the Digital Space, the vaccine space or even multilateralism and what ive posited the question of were either going to do about this or the Chinese Communist party is going to fill this void. I very no yet as ive challenged, i welcome someone to make the argument to me that, oh, that is awesome, thats great. Im ready to hand over the reins to, to red china to, to put it, to use a being slightly correct right that i think i havent heard anybody say that. And so i and im not trying to be tricky or clever by it that way. Im just saying that thats serious, that there they are wealthy enough and capable enough and have that ability. Look at the vaccine, the conversation and look at the infrastructure conversation. Look at the theyre able to deal with Higher Education or the multilateral system in issue in issue, across issue. And this is not in the military world theyre able to fill voids that we leave behind. Look at trade and, look. And so i think we have to decide, are we going to cede the space to china or not . Because over time, in the sum total of that, that means theyre going to have the ability over time to rewrite the rules of the road. Were not our kids and our grandkids are not are going to be angry with us and will will suffer if we have a world thats led by the Chinese Communist party, its going to be a world that where corruption is a lot more common. Its going to be a world where pollution is a lot more common. Its going to be a world where people, the governments get into your business on like your most intimate. These are folks, these are the one child policy people. These are people that arent super open to religious freedom. So if you care about that. Theyre not super open to kind of freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. So if you like all those things, youre not going to like a world led by by the Chinese Communist party. And so what im saying is, is if we let this go and we dont provide a response and push back, and im not and i across a number of nonmuslim theories, fears that the sum total of that is going to mean that theyre going to ultimately supersede us and theyre going to get to rewrite the rules, the road. And were not going to like it now. I think we id rather be us than them that i think if we get our act together, we have a strategy and we work with our partners, we can we can push back against this. The other thing is because of their horrible one child policy and their selective sex abortion of girls, where theres Something Like 40 Million Girls have been aborted in china, something people dont like talking about is kind of taboo topic. They are inheriting the whirlwind. Theyre going to have the demographic shift and and energy of portugal, which i dont wish them well. I actually think what if so if we dont get in a shooting war with them, theyve got a rickety political system. Theyve got a rickety economic system. Thats, if you ask me, is built on a house of cards. Theyve got horrible democrat ethics. Id rather be us than them so. If we just wait them out, theyre going to you. Theyre going to run out of demographic gas. Yeah. And theyll, you know, still be part of the global furniture, but in many ways theyre going to go away. And so we need to but we need to have a strategy for the next 30 to 40 years. And if we dont get a shooting war and i want to get in a shooting war with them, and i dont want to call it a full on cold war. And to the extent we can work with them in stuff. Yes, but i think we need to go into this with our eyes really wide open. Last question for you. Youre generally an optimistic guy. Youre very hopeful. I know that. What gives you hope and optimism for the future . So i think that i do that science and technology will help us solve a lot of problems. I think a lot of original research in science and technology happens in the United States. So im hopeful about that i think to the extent that people want legally migrate to the United States, thats a good thing. I dont see a lot of people trying to cross some border from myanmar to enter illegally into mainland. How many people, you know, banging on there . Are there lines out the door of the Chinese Embassy saying, i want to migrate to beijing . There are very few people, like capable people from other societies that want to move to china. There are very few people i know that are like, oh my gosh, i want to i want to cross i want to illegally enter russia. Im so desperate to get to russia because its so awesome so to the extent that people want to legally come to the United States and we have, i dont know, a million or so people come to the United States legally every year. Thats a market signal that were were still ongoing attractive enterprise. So i think were still an attractive place. Weve got some problems. Sure. But i think i still im optimistic about the science. And, you know, to the extent that we remain a leader in science, technology, and weve got to keep an eye on that and then id say to the extent we have, you know, some level of entrepreneurship and the strength of our kind of our of our capitalist system and people are able to start up. Theres lots of problems of stratification in our society. And other things, but theres still a lot of entrepreneurs worship here, and you can still you can still make a go of things. And so i think that im optimistic about about the United States. Like i said, id rather be us than them. And yeah, i we just need to be a better friend, need get our act together a little bit more. We need to understand, like i said, i think theres a consensus in washington. Weve a problem with the Chinese Communist party and and the russians under putin. But i think the reason i wrote this book is to say we need to have a strategy and a plan for pushing back against them. And i dont think theres been a full consensus on that because as i said, and the reason i wrote the american imperative is to say that most of this Great Power Competition isnt going to happen in the military sphere. Its going to happen in all these nonmilitary places and way and in developing countries and nonmilitary ways. And so we need to have a strategy in the nonmilitary sphere to push back against it. Thanks. Down. Thats great. So thank you, everyone, for coming today and joining us online. Dans new book is the american imperative reclaiming Global Leadership through soft power. I encourage everyone to buy it on amazon, buy it at your local bookstore. Dan, its been won