Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160921 : c

i make this argument not based on theory or ideology that on facts. facts that all too often we forget in the immediacy of current events. here is the most important fact, the integration of the global economy has made life that are for billions of men, women, and children. over the past 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40% of humanity to under 10%. that is unprecedented. and it is not an abstraction. that means children have enough to eat. mothers do not in childbirth. meanwhile, cracking the genetic code promises to cure diseases that have plagued us for centuries. the internet can deliver the entirety of human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a single handheld device. and medicine and manufacturing and education and communication, we are experiencing a transformation of how human beings live. on a scale that recalls the innovations in agriculture. as a result, a person born today is more likely to be healthy, live longer and have access to opportunity than at any time in human history. moreover, the collapse of communism and colonialism have allowed people to live with the freedom to choose their lease. despite the real and troubling areas where freedom appears in retreat. the fact remains that the number of democracies have nearly doubled in the past 25 years. in remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for the dignity all people, no matter their gender or race or religion or disability or sexual orientation. and of those who deny others dignity are subject to public reproach. the explosion of social media has given ordinary people the andity to express himself, to those in power. indeed, our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given that the great powers no longer fight world wars. that the end of the cold war lifted the shadow nuclear armageddon. that the battlefields of europe have been replaced by peaceful unity. that china and india remain on a path of remarkable growth. i say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face or to suggest complacency, rather i believe that we need to acknowledge the achievements in order to summon the confidence to carry this effort forward, and to make sure that we do not abandon the very things that have delivered this progress. in order to move forward, we do have to acknowledge that the to globalath integration requires a course correction. because too often those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations. have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities. have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under resourced in order to handle transnational challenges. and as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward, both in the wealthiest countries and the poorest. religious fundamentalism, the politics of ethnicity or tribes. or sect. aggressive nationalism. a crude populism, sometimes from the far left. but more often, from the far resistwhich it seeks to outside contamination. we cannot dismiss these visions. they are powerful. they reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. i do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long-term, but i do believe the visions fail to recognize at a very basic level our common humanity. moreover, i believe that the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications, together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse the progress. today, a nation ringed by walls would only envision itself. so, the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration. instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits are broadly shared, and that the disruptions, economic, political, and cultural that are caused by integration are squarely addressed. this is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those areas where i believe we must do better together. it starts with making the global economy for all people, and not just for those at the top. markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress in thenology has also weekend ability of workers to make a decent wage. in advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers. in developing countries, labor organizations have often been suppressed and the growth of the middle class has been held back by corruption and underinvestment. policies pursued by governments with market-driven models threatened to undermine the consensus, export driven models direct to undermine the consensus of global trade. nearly a trillion dollars smashed away in tax savings. the shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of excessive oversight. a world in which 1% of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99% will never be stable. i understand the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as a child in the slum today can see a skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a smartphone to see how the privileged live, expectations rise faster than government can deliver. a basic sense of injustice undermines people's faith in the system. so, how do we fix this imbalance? we cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology in a box, nor can we look to failed models of the past. if we start resorting to trade wars, market distorting subsidies, overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation, these approaches will make us poor collectively, and they are more likely to lead to conflict. and the stark contrast between say the success of the republic of korea and the wasteland of that centralhows planned control of the economy is a dead end. but i do believe there is another path, one that fuels growth and innovation and offers the clearest root to individual opportunity and national success. it does not require succumbing to a soulless capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather, recognizes economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based, and that means respecting the rights of workers, so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage. in means investing in our people, their skills, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business. it means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardships, and allows them to take more risks to look for a new job, or start a new venture. these are the policies i pursued here in the united states and with clear results. american businesses have created now 15 million new jobs. after the recession the top 1% of americans were capturing more than 90% of income growth, but today, that is down to about half. last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. and with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and research, i am confident such processes will convene. so, just as i pursued the measures here at home, so have the united states work with many nations to curb the excess of capitalism, not to punish wealth , but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it. that is why we have worked to create higher and clearest and it's for banking and taxation, because a society that asks less of oligarchs than regular citizens will rot from within. that is why we push for transparency of cooperation when rooting out corruption. dollars,g illicit because markets create more jobs when they're fueled by hard work and not the capacity to extort a bribe. that is why we're work to reach trade agreement that raise labor standards and environmental standards, as we have done with the transpacific partnership, so the benefits are more broadly shared. and just as we benefit by combating inequality within our countries, i believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe. this is difficult, politically. it is difficult to spend on foreign assistance, but i do not believe this is charity. for the small fraction of what we spent at war in iraq, we could support institutions of fragile states, so they do not collapse in the first place. and invest in economies for our goods. it is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. and that is why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat climate change. if we do not act boldly, the bill that could come due would be mass migrations, cities submerged, food supply decimated and conflicts born of despair. the paris agreement gives us a framework to act, only if we scale up ambition, and there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement in force and helping poorer countries leapfrogged distractive forces of energy. so, for the wealthiest countries, a green climate fund should only be the beginning. we need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies and then make them accessible and affordable for poorer countries. and only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty, without condemning our children with a climate beyond their capacity to repair. so, we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable. and in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people. i recognize not every country in this hall will recognize the same model of governance. i do not think america can or should impose our system of government on other countries. but there appears to be a growing contest between authoritarianism and libertarianism right now. and i want everybody to understand, i am not neutral on that. i believe in the liberal political ordnance. an order built not through just elections and government but respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciary, and the rule of law. i know that some countries that now recognize the power of free markets, still reject model of free societies. and perhaps those of us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged since the end of the cold war, because we learned that liberal democracy will not just wash across the globe in a single wave. it turns out, building accountable institutions is hard work. the work of generations. the gains are often fragile. sometimes, we take one step forward, and two steps back. and countries held together by borders drawn by colonial powers , with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game. and so, given the difficulty and forging true democracy in the face of these pressures, it is no surprise some argue the future favors the strongman, a top-down model. rather than strong, democratic institutions. but i believe this thinking is wrong. i believe the road of true democracy remains the better path. i believe that in the 21st century, economies can only grow to a certain point until they need to open up because entrepreneurs need access to information in order to invest. young people need a global education, in order to thrive. independent media needs to check the abuses of power. without this evolution, ultimately, expectations of people will not be met. suppression and stagnation will set in, and history shows strong men are then left with two paths, permanent crackdown that sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad that can lead to war. now, i will admit, my believe that government serve the individual and not the other way around is shaped by american's story. our nation began with the promise of freedom that apply to only the few but because of our democratic constitution, because of our bill of rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize and march and protest. and, ultimately, the ideals one out. opening doors for women, minorities, workers, in ways that made our economy productive, turning our diversity into a string. it gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor. it made it possible for someone like me to be elected president of the united states. so, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of america, but i do not think this story is unique to america. look at the transformation that has taken place in countries as different as japan, chile, indonesia, botswana. the countries that have succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a stake. in europe, the progress of both countries and former soviet bloc that embrace democracies stand in clear contrast to those that have not. after all, the people of ukraine did not take to the streets oecause of some plot i imposedt abroad, they took to the streets because they had no recourse. they demanded change because they saw life get better for the people in the baltics, poland, societies that were more democratic, liberal, open than their own. for those of us that believe in democracy, we need to speak out forcefully, because both the facts and history, i believe, are on our side. that does not mean our democracy are without fault. it does mean the door for what ails our democracy is greater not less. yes, in america, there is too much money in politics, too much entrenched partisanship, and too little participation. in part, because of a patchwork of laws that make it too hard to vote. in europe, a well intentioned brussels often became isolated from the normal push and pull of national politics. too often in capitals, decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up. not governance by experts from the top down. and so, these are real problems. and as leaders of democratic government make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to make and set a better example at home. moreover, every country what organize the government and geography,tances of the deeply held beliefs of the people. i recognize a traditional society may offer unity and cohesion, more than a diverse country like my own, which was founded upon what was a radical idea at the time, the idea of the liberty of the individual human beings endowed with certain god-given rights. but that does not mean ordinary people in asia or africa or the east somehow prefer arbitrary rule that denies them a voice in decisions that can save their lives. i believe that spirit is universal. and if any of you doubt that universality of desire, listen to the voices of young people everywhere who call out for freedom and dignitary and the opportunity to control their own lives. this leads me to the third thing we need to do. we must reject any forms of or amentalism, or racism, belief in ethnic superiority that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with modernity. instead, we need to embrace the tolerance that results from respect for all human beings. truism, that global ization has led to a collision of cultures. trade migration, all of these things can challenge and unsettled the most cherished identities. we see liberal society as expressed opposition when women choose to cover themselves. we see protests responding to western newspaper cartoons that caricature that prophet muhammad. and a world that has left the age of empire behind. we see russia attempting to recover lost glory through force. asian powers debate competing claims of history. and in europe and the united states, you see people wrestled with concerns about migration and aging demographics and suggesting somehow people that look different are corrupting the character of our country. now, there is no easy answer for resolving all of the social forces, and we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own traditions, religion, ethnicity, from the sense of nationhood. but i do not believe progress is possible, if our desire to preserve our identity gives way to dominate another group. if our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of race or tribal or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of civilization will fray. the world is too small. we are too packed together for us to be able to resort to the old ways of thinking. tooee this mindset int many parts of the middle east. there, collapse has happened because leaders sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs, but by resorting to persecuting political opposition or demonizing other religious sects, by narrowing the public space to the mosque where in too many places perversions of a great faith were tolerated. and these forces built up for years, and are now at work for serious tragic civil war and the menace of isil. bloodlettingf retribution that has been taken place will not be quickly reversed. and if we are honest, we understand that no external power will be able to force different religious communities and ethnic communities to coexist for long. but i do believe we have to be honest about the nature of the conflicts. and our international community must continue to work with those who seek to build, not with those who seek to destroy. and there is a military component to that. it means being united in destroying networks like isil, to show no respect for human life. but it also means that in a place like syria, where there is no ultimate military victory to be won, we are going to have to pursue the artwork of diplomacy, aims to stop the violence, deliver aid to those in need, support those who pursue a political settlement, and concede that those were not like themselves are worthy of dignity and respect. region, we have to insist that all parties insist a common humanity. and that nations end proxy wars that fueled disorder. because until basic questions are answered about how communities coexist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer, most of all in that extremism will continue to be exported overseas. forthe world is too small ,.o build a wal . and what is true in the middle east is true for all of us. religious convictions to be upheld while teaching young people science and math, rather than intolerance. surely, we can sustain our unique traditions while giving, women the full rightful role in politics. surely, we can rally our nation's to solidarity. , whil recognizinge equal treatment for all communities, whether it is a religious minority in myanmar, ethnic minority in burundi, or right here in the united states. surely, israelis and palestinians will be better off if palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of israel, but israel recognizes it cannot permanently settle palestinian lands. all have to do better, as leaders in tamping down rather than encouraging the notion of identity that leads us to others. and this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do. sustain our commitment to international cooperation, rooted in the cooperation of nations. as president of the united states, i know that for most of human history power has not been unipolar. the end of the cold war may have left too many to forget this truth. i have noticed as president that is time, some of our allies believe that all problems were either caused by washington or could be solved by washington. too many in washington believe that, as well. [laughter] at i believe america has been rare superpower in human history, insofar as it has been willing to think beyond narrow self-interest. that while we have made our share of mistakes over the last 25 years, i have acknowledged strived, sometimes a great sacrifice, to align better actions with ideas. as a consequence, i believe we have been a force for good. we havesecured allies, acted to protect the vulnerable, we supported human rights, and welcomed scrutiny of our own actions. nded, where we made mistakes, we have tried to acknowledge them. we have worked to roll back poverty not just within our borders. that.roud of that we cannot do this alone. that if we are to meet the challenges of this century, we are all on to have to do more to build up international capacity. the nuclearcape war, unless we all commit to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a world without them. ran agrees to accept constraints on the nuclear program, that enhances global security and enhances iran's ability to work with other nations. on the other hand, when north korea tests a bomb that endangers all of us,, and any country that breaks this basic bargain must face consequences. and of those nations with these weapons, like the united states, have a unique response ability to pursue the path of reducing our stockpiles, and reaffirming basic norms like the commitment to never test them again. cannot combat a disease like zika the recognizes no borders. mosquitoes do not respect walls. unless we make permanent the same urgency we brought to bear against ebola. by strengthening our own system of the public health, by investing in cures and rolling back the root causes of disease, helping poor countries develop a public health infrastructure. we can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development goals that we have set our more than words on paper. human ingenuity now gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children, and including our girls, the education that is the foundation for opportunity in our world. but we have to put our money where our mouths are. realize thenly promise of this institution's founding, to replace the ravages of war with cooperation, if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. sometimes, i am criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions, but i am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom up ouron, not giving ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term enhances our security. and i think that is not just true for us. if russia continues to interfere in the affairs of his neighbors, it may be popular at home and fuel nationalist fervor for a time, but it will also diminish its stature and make its borders less secure. sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes, offered by law, will mean far greater stability than militarization of a few rocks and reefs. stakeholders in this international system, and it calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong. and the good news is that many nations have shown what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments. consider what we have done here, over the past few years. we mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for you in peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better compared to deal with emergencies. together, we established open government partnerships, so that increasingly transparency and power more around the globe. we have tor, now, open our hearts and do more to help refugees, who are desperate for a home. we should all welcome the pledges of increased assistance that have been made at this general assembly gathering. i will be discussing that more this afternoon, but we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard. because in the eyes of innocent men and women and children, who through no fault of their own have had to flee everything that they know, everything that they love, we have to have the empathy to see ourselves. we have to imagine what would be like for our family or our children, is the unspeakable happened to us. and we should all understand that ultimately, our world will be more secure, we are prepared to help those in need, and the nations who are caring the largest burden, with respect to accommodating these refugees. there are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right thing. but many nations, particularly those blessed with wealth and the benefits of geography, can do more to offer a hand. if they also insist that refugees who come to our countries have to do more to adopt the customs and conventions of the communities that are now providing them a home. let me conclude by saying that i recognize history tells a different story than the one i have talked about here today. there is a much darker and more cynical view of history that we can adopt. human beings are too often motivated by greed and by power. countries, for most of history, have pushed smaller ones around. groups andethnic nationstates have very often found it most convenient to define themselves by what they hate, and not just those ideas that bind them together. again, human beings have believed that they finally to a period of enlightenment, only to go back to suffering. perhaps that is our fate. remember that the choices of individual human beings led to repeated world wars. rememberso have to that the choices of individual human beings created a united nations so that a war like that would never happen again. us, as leaders, each nation, can choose to reject those who appeal to our worst impulses. and embrace those who appeal to our best. for we have shown that we can choose a better history. atting in a prison cell, young martin luther king jr. wrote that human progress never wrote on the wheels of inevitability, it comes to the tireless efforts of men, willing to be coworkers with god. and during the course of these eight years, as i have traveled to many of your nations, i have seen that spirit in our young people. who are more educated and more tolerant and more inclusive and more diverse and more creative, than our generation. empathetic, compassionate towards their fellow human beings, than previous generations. and yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth, but also come with young people's access to information about other people and places, and understanding unique human history that their future is bound with the fate of other human beings on the other side of the world. i think of the thousands of health care workers from around the world who volunteered to fight ebola. i remember the young entrepreneurs i met who are now starting new businesses in cuba, the parliamentarians that used to be just a few years ago political prisoners in myanmar. i think of the girls, who have violence just or to go to school in afghanistan. and the university students who started programs online to reject the extremism of zati like isisons. entrepreneurs, activists, soldiers, new citizens, who are remaking our nation, once again. who are unconstrained by old habits and conventions, unencumbered, but ready to seize what ought to be. of thefamily is made up flesh and blood and a traditions and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world. just as america's been built by s andants from every in my own lifehore. life, in this country, and as president, i have learned that our identities do not have to be defined by buting someone else down, can be enhanced by lifting somebody else up. defineddon't have to be in opposition to others, but rather by a belief in liberty, equality, justice, fairness. embrace of these principles does pride,ken my particular my particular love for america, but strengthens it. my belief that these ideals apply everywhere does not lessen my commitment to those who look like me or pray as i do or pledge allegiance to my flag, but my faith in those principles does force me to expand my moral imagination, and to recognize that i can best serve my own people, i can best look after my own daughters, by making sure that my actions seek what is right for all people, children, your daughters, your sons. this is what i believe that all of us can be, coworkers with god. and our leadership and our governments and this united nations should reflect the irreducible truth. thank you very much. [applause] >> on behalf of the general is simply, i wish to thank the president of the united states for the statement just made. there are representatives requesting to be made seated, after which the meeting will stand suspended for five minutes, before resuming to hear the next week or. speaker. announcer: national intelligence director james clapper on global security threats. then, cia director john brennan. later, a panel with foreign intelligence chiefs from afghanistan, australia, and the uk. >>'s washington journal live every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, california democratic caucus chair will discuss zika funding and campaign 2016. and pennsylvania republican congressman be with us to talk about government funding, campaign 2016, and pennsylvania's role as a battleground state. and the new atlantis contributor on wall science, should focus on real-world issues.be sure to watch washington journal summit onve eastern. join the discussion. gender, age of the electorate, who supporting donald trump or hillary clinton and why? ,en goldstein is the polling analyst for bloomberg politics also the director of the university of san francisco washington dc program, and a professor in the program at usf. we appreciate it. demographics, she is getting overwhelming support from african-americans, solid support from hispanics, and if you sort of at all the nonwhite relations together, hillary clinton has a margin of almost 50 percentage points over donald trump. she is winning folks with a college degree, and she is also winning women. marginsp, should the supporting him be less, but he is winning among men, he is winning among older voters, 65 plus, winning among white voters, and especially strong on average by all the polls, close to 30 points, with white noncollege degree people. host: based on that, which sector is in play of the electorate? ken: so, the sector in play is right?ollege-educated, we sent out clinton is doing well with college education, trump is doing well with noncollege education, so that white college, which is a real swing group, and then, the other age groups.it is a broader range , but younger voters are for clinton, but the 35-49 slightly for clinton. host: you are calling this the bloomberg politics poll decoder, what is the methodology, and with some indifferent surveys, for example the l.a. times has donald trump ahead, the latest, from nbc news shows and requested of the head so how do you make sense of all this? ken: so, i think when you hear from a lot of folks is not paid attention to any one poll. i agree with that. there is lots of great sites that aggregate all the polls, p ollster.com, real clear politics, a bunch of other news positions in aggregate as well. basically, why don't we do the same thing, but for the demographics of the survey, for what people in politics will sometimes called the internal. you know, winning elections is about maximizing shared performance, and getting polls right is about getting shared performance right, but whenever a poll came out, i say never pay attention to a single pool, but they do, and i want to know how many dems, republicans, whites, and nonwhites? did they have sometimes it was impossible to find. so i wanted to build a tool that will build on that in the open, so that you cannot only see what the assumptions were on the individual poll, but in the same way we advertise the top number, we should have a something about the demographics of a survey, as well. host: how do you measure each of the groups? elections in 2012, older americans tend to vote, one issue with the millennium vote supporting the clinton, but will they go to the poll? ken: exactly. most of the polls we have are likely voters in the decoder. and different pollsters have different secret sauces for figuring out who is likely to vote. some just cast people that are likely to vote, some use pretty sophisticated multi-question models, and do it in different ways. so, what we said is each of these goals has an assumption not only about who men and women will vote for, who young people will vote for, but how many there will be. what proportion of the electorate they will comprise? and that portion is a function of both how many there are and exactly as you said, whether or not they turn out. so, the are also able to provide an average assumption about the shape of the electorate, and we found is that we averaged all the assumptions, all the measures of partisanship, the democrats have about a five percentage point advantage in party id, which is just a little bit left them at democrats enjoyed in 2012, when at a six percentage point advantage according to the exit polls, and 2008 when they had a seven percentage point advantage according to the exit polls. host: i saw these three numbers, which are available online at bloomberg politics, particularly interesting. eligibleon, number of voters in 2012. 153 million registered and only 130 million actually voted for years ago. so, that is actually right. there is a really big difference between the total number of people who could vote, the number who are registered, in the number and ask that came out the vote. in the last couple of elections, we have between 55 and 56% of the voting electorate cannot devote, so if you are a survey, the key thing is actually figuring out and talking to those 55 or 60% who represent that 130 million, who are actually going to vote, because of the people who say they're going to vote but do not have different attitudes than the people who actually are going to vote, than your survey could be biased. host: so let me conclude with a question, you propose, what is the shape of the american electorate? ken: i will tell you on november 9. , liste that is the big question.. , that i said before we ever pretty good idea of what particular groups are going to do. the key question is, are african-americans going to come out at the same levels that they did for barack obama? will they support donald trump? highly, highly unlikely. argentina is going to support donald trump in high numbers? highly unlikely. but what proportion are they going to comprise? goldstein,ork of ken professor at the university of san francisco, director of the washington program, the work is available a bloomberg politics. thank you for being with us. ken: a pleasure. thank you. wednesday, we are covering a hearing on counterterrorism efforts by local jurisdictions. officials from local law enforcement agencies, including new york city's deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, testified before the house homeland security committee at 10 a.m. eastern live on c-span3. you can also watch a live at c-span.org or listen live on the c-span radio app. the smithsonian national museum of african american history and culture opens to the public for the first time saturday, and c-span will be live from the national mall starting at 10 a.m. eastern for the outdoor dedication ceremony. speakers include president obama and founding museum director. also in attendance will be first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush and mrs. laura bush, u.s. supreme court justice john roberts,, congressman john lewis and smithsonian secretary. watch the opening secretary for the national museum of african american history and culture, live saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org. >> next, james clapper, director of national intelligence on national security threats and intelligence gathering. this interview with washington post associate editor david ignatius is 50 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. so, thank you very much to rick boss.and fred ryan, my welcome to cocktails with the director of national intelligence. i apologize -- you are cutting into my martini our. >> i apologize. it will go quickly. we are very pleased to have director cleveapper here. just to expand on what fred ryan said, he is a rare person in our government, and intelligence officer for 50 years. he has served, running the intelligence agency, directed intelligence and the defense department, and now, dni, basically the nation's top intelligence officer. i have a chance over the last few years to come visit director clapper and talk to him on the record, asking questions, and he has been, as you know if you read some of my articles, direct, blonde sometimes, undiplomatic. but, he either gives an honest answer, i just cannot talk about that. so, really a pleasure to have you here. there are a lot of issues obviously in the news, and i want to start off with newsworthy subjects. there is a report that has been moving this afternoon on cnn, that says this really dreadful .n. aid convoyu to the west of aleppo on monday may have been a result of a russian airstrike or other russian attack. is saying thatrr is the glittery inclusion by u.s. officials, as they study this. i just went to ask you, director, as a starter, is there anything you can share about this, or just in general how you are looking at this kind of issue, this very complex tug of war battlefield? mr. clapper: i think you have a few phrases that characterize the john we have. you know, the classical situation there is always the fog of war, which this is not. syria is unbelievably complex. and to be specific and directly respond to your question, i have not myself gotten into the specifics of whatever evidence you may or may not have about who was responsible. that is being worked as we speak, but i cannot speak to it here right now. david: so, the other issue that is obviously in the news and on our minds -- mr. clapper: per your introduction. david: exactly. it is the terrorist attacks on ew york city, the area, by khan. and i think we are all looking at that, asking a couple of questions. the first one i put to you, is whether there is any evidence you found of connections that he had to terrorist networks, directions or inspirations, anything like that that would connect him more broadly to isis or any other group? mr. clapper: again, very fast breaking situation. fbi is all over this, under active investigation. i spoke with senior fbi officer just before i came down here, and i think there is probably more to come. but again, i cannot say one way or the other that we have found any definitive evidence of a connection yet. there is a lot of evidence to look at. i cannot point to external direction, at this point. david: one thing that has surfaced at this point today, the possibility that his father might have notified law enforcement, who then in turn notified the fbi, that he was concerned about his son. i want to ask whether that report is a credible one, and more generally, ask about this question of getting muslim communities, other communities from which extremist might come, to talk about people in those james clapper: a couple of issues that this brings up. regrettably, this will not be the last such issue in this country that is regrettable. i think that is just the situation we are in. undoubtedly do, when this is over with, as we always do, critique. noticed in the six years that i have been in this year job, bostonhis marathon case in point. it was decided that we should have been more invasive. broadly of the law enforcement community. this pendulum swings back and forth. iss is an issue that i think something that requires some discussion and debate in this country. this line that we are supposed to thread between keep in the nation safe and secure, and not invading anyone's privacy. that is something we agonize over a lot. i am sure that we will have a reprise of that discussion after all of the information on this in's -- incident is in. david ignatius: -- james clapper: one more thing, i do engage in muslim community leadership. personally learn a lot when i listen to them because a lot of in thelogy that we use intelligence and law enforcement community is great sensitivity on their part. it is a dilemma for them. most of them are loyal, patriotic americans and this is a bad time for them. they are under siege right now. i have to be mindful of that as well. david ignatius: since you raise the sense in the muslim community of being under siege, i need to ask you, there is out there in the political campaign, some polarizing rhetoric about muslims. it is sometimes argued that makes the job of our intelligence, law enforcement, fbi officers harder because it may close the doors that we may need to have open. strictly from an intelligent standpoint, is that true? james clapper: i think in general, some of this heated eitherc is not helpful, in this country. i have been doing some traveling and it is striking to me how people overseas hanged on every word that is uttered in the hyper heateds campaign. the many countries around the world, at least with my intelligent -- intelligence are very concerned about it. does it help? probably not. not -- it does not encourage freedom dialogue that we have. i worry about a inhibiting that and the concerns that people have about the commitments we have made. david ignatius: you mentioned earlier that there is a here.ult trade-off the country wants to be more secure in a time of lone wolf attacks and a lot of these things that are hard to track. law enforcement agencies would have to be more intrusive. as director ofou national intelligence whether you think that is wise, what would your answer be? james clapper: i think we have to be very careful about that. we are very sensitive about infringing on privacies. hard in clamp down very this country if we wanted to. i just do not think there is the political will, or the societal will to want to live like that. compromise that we have to shrike. -- strike. a couple years ago, i meant it only half jokingly, the expert nations for intelligence, we collect accurate intelligence and do it in such a way that there is no risk, don't do it in such a way that it is discovered , and do it in such a way that jeopardy and someone's privacy. we call that a macula collection. [laughter] so you are not confident -- it was taken: humorously. it does create the limit of challenge that we have. my civil liberties and privacy just like anyone else. as does everyone else in the intelligence committee. we are mindful about. let me ask you about the series of issues that will confront the next president, whoever she or he is. there are issues that i am sure -- in your waning days happen to know that director clapper keeps on his desk a clock. james clapper: it counts minutes and seconds. david ignatius: you will be asked about in issue that has caused deep concern, which is the appearance of attempts to interfere in our political process from outside. it has been widely reported that and the department of homeland security are conducting an investigation of rushing -- russian hacking. not simply the collection of information i russians, but the dissemination of that information -- cement nation of that information. speak about that process -- problem and help all of us get a sense of what we know, how we should think about it, what the dangers are and what we should do about it. james clapper: first of all, there is a long history of the , orians trying to interfere influence elections. that is going back to the 60's in the heyday of the cold war. her have been documentations that would appear that they were trying to, somehow influence the election. in the united states. .here is a history there there is a tradition in russia in interfering with elections. their own, and others. it should not come as a big shock to people. i think it is more dramatic, maybe, because now they have the taking to bear with the same effort. it is still going on. i will say that it is probably not really clear on if there is influence. what i worry about, more frankly, is the sewing seeds of doubt. where doubt is cast on the whole process. what are we doing about it? well apart from what you talked about, certainly the hs. secretary johnson has been very active with the state election officials. services to secure that we are appropriate. in particularly, if there is any dependence on the internet in the course of the conduct of the election. voter registration, databases and the election. we have a strength in that we do not have a strength and eyes -- centralized system. we have a decentralized system, that works to be a monumental undertaking to try to affect the election naturally -- nationally. i think the more likely objective would be to sow seeds of doubt about the intricacy, viability and think the tea of the whole system. david ignatius: you mentioned that there were passed instances where russia, in this case where the soviet union had tried to interfere in our election process. i probably should know what those are, but i don't. what comes to mind in terms of past history of this? had sentpper: they money to opposition candidates, or try to feed information. the way it was done in the cold war, which preceded with what we .ow know as the cyber era records show influences in bc europe and that sort of thing. europe and that sort of thing. they have a history of that. david ignatius: to turn to the question of what we should do about this, what the united , thereshould do about it is an official dod cyber strategy that talks about deterrence. set oflook at that response, denial, resilience are the three words that are used in the strategy, it is hard to now know how they would help us in establishing the rules of this game. i want to ask you to think with us director, about ways that we could send a message. some people in the government have argued that we need a high level message from somebody just to say that this is something we know and it is not acceptable. is that a good idea? james clapper: it is certainly a good idea. -- you arein in getting into policy now, i am not into policy. think, in the context of how do you generate deterrence. deterrence has both a substance and a psychology about it. if you think about deterrence in a nuclear sense, which works because there are physical things you can see. , 1945,m clouds, twice has not been used since. you can see field measure gauge, subs, that sort of thing. difficult in the cyber domain because you cannot render it physically. , despitethe challenge the issues and strategies, how do you generate the substances and the psychology of deterrence? deterrence is principally focused on nationstates. to detertes are easier the non-nationstate groups or individuals. this is what we have confront it with here. thatther thing is deterrence is hard in the absence of international norms. at some point, in order to make and as a partw, of that deterrence and work in the cyber domain, there has to be international understanding of what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. then you will be in a much better position to generate deterrence. but deterrence in the absence of that is hard to do unilaterally. david ignatius: in the real , ond that we all grew up in the parade ground, -- on the playground, you learn that if somebody bumps you you should probably bump them back or you will get picked on. peopleat establish how will behave? does that apply in the cyber world? james clapper: it could if you think that the way to respond to cyberr assault is by meetings. what we have actually done is to react in other ways. again, this is why deterrence is up when, inure fact, the exchange may be in a completely different mode. cyber attack of some sort, a sanction of some sort. that is why it is very hard to develop deterrence, and why we need to develop what i call a body of wall. we have to develop an experiential base for what works and what doesn't. unfortunately, we will have to indoor -- endure hacks before we reach that point. i think there has to be an international recognition and acknowledgment. the u.n. has been very preliminary and trying to develop it. before it is recognized importantly to adhere to, we are a ways away from that. thed ignatius: officials in -- obama administration have pointed to china as an example actionessful messaging that has the effect of changing behavior. after our threat of sanction and naming some , and thectors numeration for rules at the summit last september, the chinese behavior has changed. i want to ask you as our top intelligence officer, you see a change in chinese? james clapper: there has been a decrease, and we hear that from well, at least from what has been detected. we have to be the skeptics in the crowd, in intel well, at let from what has been. theirave actually reduced exultation, or they just got more secure. that not enough experience has elapsed to make that call. the other thing is, what they agreed to was not to use what they do for economic gain. it all turns out to be a high bar from an evidentiary standpoint to make that relationship. been, over all a decline, at least in what we have detected. we will have to see. david ignatius: you turn to another issue that i am sure will be high on the inbox for the next president and that is north korea. north korea's ability soon, based on the reporting that we have in the public media, its have a nuclear warhead that it could put on top of a missile that has sufficient range to shrike targets in japan -- strike targets in japan and the u.s. territory. the u.s. territory in the pacific. i want to ask you about the intelligence officers a side of this question. not the policy issue, but what you can tell us as you look at 'se evidence about north korea intelligence. asthe leader of north korea volatile, as much as a risk taker as he seems, or is that for public consumption? do see a different picture? james clapper: we had long assessed that the north koreans had the capability to sit a nuclear weapon on a warhead and a missile. can 08, which would include alaska, hawaii and part of the west coast. oft depends on a lot factors. having said that, neither the north koreans nor we know if these will actually work. they have never actually tested a full missile system within rv and all that. we kind of had to assume the worst. exposure tobrief north korea when i went there th, it is interesting to sit and try to talk to them because from their vantage, they are under siege. everywhere they look, there are enemies. is probably frustrated and mystified about north koreans as we are. for them, this is their ticket to survival. qaddafi andchool on that sort of thing. our are deathly afraid of capabilities. if it came up once, it came up five or six times about b-52s. they do not like b-52s. for them, this is all about face, their ticket to survival. i think even kim jong-un realizes that if you were to launch one that would be the end of north korea. for them, it is more of a psychological thing, rather than the likelihood of them actually using it. i cannot predict, i cannot read his mind. although some people expect we can. i just do not think that is logical. a slightlyius: different way to ask this is whether kim jong-un can be deterred? , ies clapper: he can be believe. and has been. one of the great vulnerabilities of north korea, which i do not think we exploit as much as we , is information. they are deathly afraid of information and they are fighting a losing battle trying to keep outside information from coming into their people. that to me is there great vulnerability. to leaks that are dropped over north korea by nongovernmental groups. to theeaction loudspeakers along the dnc and actually turning them on. i think it says a lot about what they are really concerned about and where they are most honorable. david ignatius: i want to ask you briefly about china. so many questions, but just focus on one director. and is the south china sea chinese behavior after this very strong arbitration ruling in the in the case involving the philippines. initially, the chinese seem to be fairly cautious. they did not announce an air defense, although some people had feared. they seem to have stepped up their activity in the east china japaneseh is where the claim the islands. there have been reports in the last couple of weeks that the chinese maybe active again in trying to reclaim the area we call the scarborough show near the philippines. that would be a worrying sign that they are resuming the activity that the arbitration panel said was contrary to international law. how does that evidence look to you? how do you in general see the south china sea? james clapper: the chinese has embarked on a very ambitious campaign in the south china sea to erect military facilities, runways, hangers and other that sticksipment out their claim. i don't know why there is not more of an outcome by environmentalists because of the tremendous damage they are doing to the environment in the .outh china she -- sea i think it did take the chinese back. i do not think they expected it to be as far-reaching as it was. chinese rebuttal and their excitement and claims. , quitecial thing to me frankly, i in getting out of my lane here a little bit, but i think it is to the extent that there is consensus among countries and that they are willing to speak in a single voice to push back. it would have a great impact on the chinese. talkednese have themselves into believing that this is a legitimate plane upon their part. that is why it is important that the u.s. continue what we have been doing, which is to reaffirm withom of navigation maritime and air. david ignatius: i want to turn of whatdiscussion intelligence does to the middle east. i thought i might start by remembering a conversation that isis,d i had after the isil breakout that they mosullly took multiple -- . you thought the united states underestimated the fighting will, and overestimated the wheel of our allies and the iraqi security forces. it was a wonderful moment i thought for speaking troops to power. i want to ask you, two years , do you see any significant sign of change on either side? the united states allies have been going hard at islamic and whatounding it signed you see, if any, that begin to beay affected by that? we have put a lot of effort in training, work. aretraining bases in iraq trying to create a stock or iraqi force. how is that going? --each's side of that dots on each side of that how would you estimate that? james clapper: the iraqi security forces with our training have made headway. significant reduction in the territory that is held by isil, the territory is shrieking. shrinking. we have taken thousands of fighters off of the data field. -- off of the battlefield. we are seeing insertion rates go up. they are having to move forces around from place to place. attrition is affecting them, their revenue streams are not what they were. the foreign fighter flow has declined for lots of reasons. great, except i --nk what this will do isolate is resilient and adaptable. it can reserve -- resort to its roots. able report -- they will resort to iraq. there has been an improvement in the iraqi security forces. they still have many systemic morale, in terms of leadership, attrition, logistics, command control, etc. if you look at the map, it is better. david that this issue of will to fight has always been a challenge for us in intelligence to gauge. it is a very subjective thing. i did a couple tors in southeast asia, it was always an issue of how to gauge the will to fight in the republic of vietnam. we have gained a lot of experience on how to try to train a military while it is under attack. that is sort of a common thing with vietnam, with afghanistan and with the rock -- iraq. i was chief intelligence officer in desert storm, we did not do a very good job at that. iraqis willated the to fight. that is why the war ended so quickly. david ignatius: to close this question out. what the country would want to ask the top intelligence officers, and i have the chance to ask you, is whether the u.s. strategy for dealing with isis is working? james clapper: it is working in the sense that, if i can use the metricalical -- a territory has been use. we have taken a lot of their key leadership off of the battlefield. we have reduced their revenue. i think there has been great progress made in foreign revenue. what has been a challenge is the ideology and the appeal to people around the world, and they are very sophisticated, and very slick with the use of social media whether it is for recruiting or command-and-control. that has been more problematic. to look mores: broadly at the middle east as you and i did in another recently, i more was asking you for your judgment this whether, through strategy of dealing with isis if we will see a turn of the corner with the problem of instability. you have basically said, no, that we should not expect that. the words you used were, we cannot fix this. meaning, it is not in our power to reorder this. likedclapper: i always tom friedman's line. [laughter] james clapper: we do in the intelligence business, will be in business for some time to come. when you think about it, where we are involved, to late. fundamentall the issues that give rise to these --ements -- you know ,conomies that are strained places awash with weapons. large populations of frustrated young men, etc. until those conditions are addressed, people in my profession in the military are going to be doing this for some time to come. >> so when we think about this, we should think about this in generational terms and not look for an instate that is like the endings of most wars they've we fought. this just ain't like that, if i understand you. >> no, it isn't the ease of looking at the daily line of contact, the foreign line of troops kind of thing that you're used to in a conventional set peas. it is not like that. this is a very amorphous thing. it is a global challenge. that is why engaging with partners is so important. i would say at least from an i doligence respective, not know a time in my experience where we have shared more with friends and allies that are similarly confronted. as a way of bonding people. i expect that will continue as well. >> there's a younger generation of leaders that's beginning to emerge in the sunni world. the deputy crown prince in saudi arabia is 30 years old. there are other younger leaders who are beginning to surface after 70 decades, as i remember, of basically frozen leadership. could make at difference as you do your assessments for the region? clapper: i do. there's a lot of controversy, but i think he is, you know -- has a vision for the future of saudi arabia, and i think he's committed to reforming its economy, so it's not so dependent on one source of revenue. i think he has in mind a lot of other reforms he'd like to make in saudi -- and he's an example of this younger generation that's not without controversy. there's controversy about him certainly in saudi arabia, but the last time i met with him i was genuinely impressed with his vision and his commitment to it. >> if anyone in the audience doesn't know who director clapper is talking about, this is the deputy crown prince, this 30-year-old. so we invited people to submit questions online. there's still to do it. -- there is still time to do it. tomorrow." uring i just want to turn to one or two of these, mr. director, and ask you. doesn't the u.s. and its intelligence to do more about exposed corruption around the world because it is increasingly strangling governments and in some instances, the ability to trade free. why don't we do more about that? dir. clapper: first of all, i think we look at that as an individual country issue, getting into people's internal business and their own sovereignty. there are ways to do this kind of sub-rosa rather than making a public display of it in the hopes that the country in question, if that's what it is, will take that on itself, but the other thing is frankly, you know, to the extent to which corruption or crime poses a national security threat to this country, i think that has a lot of influence on how much time, attention, and resource we pay to this as opposed to all the other requirements that are levied on us. david ignatius: there's an interesting question here that raises another issue that i'll add to the question. the twitter version says given the intelligence committees reliance on private sector technology and the tech communities suspicion, the u.s. government post-snowden snowden, what can you do to repair that relationship and then i have to ask you, because it's now a public issue that is getting a lot of debate, what your view is about pardoning edward snowden. clapper: first, we do need to repair the relationship with them and we are working on that. there are many commercial firms that are still willing to work with the government. that's a case where time wounds all heels. get better. will i think in the dialogue i have had with this industry, there's still -- there is generally support for, you know, the safety and security of the country and those elements of the government that try to do that. as far as edward snowden is concerned, you know, i could understand what he did if it were limited to so-called domestic surveillance. i use air quotes intentionally. but, he exposed so much else that had absolutely nothing to do with domestic surveillance where he has damaged our capability against foreign threats. he has taken away capabilities that were used to protect our troops in afghanistan. so, questions never been posed to me officially, but if it were, i don't think i would concur is offering him a pardon. -- in the offering him a burden. david: but what about if you were asked as the director of national intelligence about some sort of negotiated plea agreement? not a pardon, but an agreement in which snowden undertook to tell us more about what he knows about what he may have taken we might not know about on your inventory, can tacts he may have had over the last couple years in moscow. does that sort of negotiated settlement of this through our legal system, does that make sense to you? director clapper: no. [laughter] david: and why not? clapper: i just don't think that -- first of all, the damage he's done, which we are dealing with, ages off over time. it's like all previous spies that have done damage to us. over time, we recover, technology changes. especially at the rate of change of today. so, the more time that goes on, there's actually in my mind less and less incentive for a negotiated agreement. so, at least as far as the intelligence community is concerned, we are not in that camp. by the way, ultimately, that won't be a determination we would make. that's up to the department of justice. david: understood. but i'm sure you would be asked for a recommendation. you have touched on this question earlier in our conversation but it's been asked in an interesting way so i'll throw this one at you. russia spends millions of rubles on misinformation campaigns online and on tv in the u.s. and europe. i mean, if you look at russian tv, you do see an account of what's going on in the world that's a variance from what's on u.s. networks or u.s. wire services. so, the questioner asked, is this effort working? are they getting their money's worth? dir. clapper: well, you would have to ask them. i tell you, that is a big feature, a big aspect of their approach and whenever i travel, particularly in europe, i like to surf the tv channel and turn on rt. and it is pretty slick stuff that the angle that, the perspective they take to paint the united states always in a bad light and russia always in a good light. they are very aggressive about that. they tailor these information operations, these campaigns, particularly in europe. seeking to drive wedges between the european nations and between europe and us. i worry sometimes we are not keeping pace. david: so, we are going to turn back to my own question list. we have only five minutes remaining. i know that you were hoping to do this for another hour, but it's not possible. [laughter] david: so, i want to ask you in your remaining 122 days and however many minutes, what you worry about in terms of the future and the intelligence community, the system that you are going to hand on to your successor, whoever that person is. in particular, i'm going to ask about areas where you have concern about weakness, things you think aren't working the way they need to. threats we may not see but they bother you. dir. clapper: so, what we try to do in the intelligence community and certainly i have in the last six years is make investments and those capabilities that give us the greatest agility and adaptability. there's no way to predict all of the potential threats that we face. if you contemplate on russia technology as it always has in our history. it has double edged swords. artificial intelligence, some people are concerned about that if it's abused. it is a tremendous tool for us. genetic research and genetic manipulation with ethical and moral considerations. russians and the chinese are doing research in this area. the next great leap in how we compute, which has huge implications for cryptology. all these challenges we will face always as we always have, as i look back on my 50 plus years in the intel business. there is one constant. lots has changed. we are better today. we have more capability. we have many more accesses. we can move data around much quicker than when i first came in this business. my first tour in vietnam, automated intelligence was -- acetate, grease pencils, and two corporals. that's a far we was. [laughter] we are a far cry from nine now. so, with all the change, the one constant i will tell you, this may sound risky, but i believe it is the quality of the people that for whatever reason we continue to be able to attract to service and the intelligence community. it is a constant and going to stand in the future. david: why, to focus on that, why would a smart young person put up with all the intrusion, control, all the limitations that go along with getting your security clearances and being in the ic. do you worry about that? people are going to say the heck with that. dir. clapper: i have an unusual experience. i have a grandchild in the business. so it's about a 52-53 year age difference. he works at cia. we have a lot of interesting discussions about that very thing. the millenial generation and what appeals to them and what doesn't and what he finds frustrating. what i find with him, and i think he's representative of young people today that are in the intelligence committee is they are very interested, they are patriotic, they are dedicated. they are not, however, as committed to an institution as i was when i was his age, 22. that was when i was first commissioned in the air force. that's a big difference. we, in the intelligence committee need to be sensitive to that, meaning, we need to be able to promote mobility for our young people so they are able to move around, not only within the intelligence committee, but move out and come back to us. we need to build our systems in such a way to accommodate that. david so, with that, it's a : wonderful way, i think, to end our conversation. i want to offer my personal thanks to director clapper for taking time at the end of a long day to do this. the name of the series is "securing tomorrow." there are a lot of ways we are going to secure tomorrow, but one of the most important, obviously, is to have a good intelligence agency that operates within the law and have good oversight and experienced people running them. so i think we all want to thank , you very much for coming and sharing this time with us. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. [ applause ] ♪ announcer: coming up on c-span, cia director john brennan on national security. then, a panel with foreign intelligence chiefs. later, president obama gives his final speech to the u.n. assembly. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and ulis issues that impact you will stop coming up wednesday morning, democratic chair will discuss the zika funding in campaign 2016. also, pennsylvania republican charles will be with us to talk about campaign 2016 in pennsylvania possible role as a battleground state. daniel sera wits on why science should focus on real-world issues falls join the discussion. >> wednesday, we are covering a hearing on counterterrorism efforts by local jurisdictions. officials from local law enforcement agencies including foryork deputy commissioner counterterrorism will testify before the house homeland security committee. you can also watch it live at online or listen on the c-span radio app. announcer: between 2000 7-2015, the price for epipen the anti-flux six medications rose is medicationx rose. time, the same compensation of the ceo rose from approximately $2 million to approximately $19 million. live at 2 p.m. on the house oversight committee, you can also watch live at c-span.org or listen live on the seas and radio app. -- on the c-span radio app. campaign bus is on the road in ohio this week and asking voters what is the most important issue to you and why? after a very long campaign of shifting opinions and shifting info back and forth and flip-flopping to college, honestly, why should we trust you to be the next president of the united states? >> high, my question is what do you plan on doing to help education funding? >> i am natalie, a senior american university and a science major. what youon would be, plan on doing to improve our care forre system and patients going through chemotherapy and things like that because many of them do not have access to health care coverage and things they need for the end of their lives. my question is, as president of the united states, what would you do to help alleviate racial tensions in the country? >> my name is john. my question -- i am a criminology major -- my question is, what is the most important topic and knee election of getting money out of politics. i ask it because officials are supposed to represent the people. >> voices from the road on c-span. >> next, cia director john brennan speaks about challenges facing the u.s. intelligence. followed by a panel on russia and president vladimir putin. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> my name is john brennan and i have the great honor of being the director of the central intelligence agency and it is an absolute pleasure to be here and kick off the day of discussion and examination of the ethos and profession of intelligence. iq for being here and supporting this important endeavor. i want to thank president stephen now and associate vice president frank phillippe out for the outstanding hospitality. thank you to all of the staff in support here at gw university. george washington is a true center of excellence, particularly in the realm of national security and cyber studies. i am thrilled to have so many people with ties to gw following today's proceedings. i promise you it will be a fascinating day of debate. setting, it is nice to return to one's roots. i would'veas much as enjoyed being an alumni of this illustrious institution. i'm talking about the organization i've had the honor of leading for 3.5 years, the central intelligence agency. we are a few blocks from the former headquarters of the office of the tjx services. says her during world war ii. it was later cia headquarters in 1961. we have a sign in our museum, one must of you will never get to see. initially, the buildings only marker read "governor printing until a members of president dwight d. eisenhower staff had repeated problems finding the building. an annoyed president called the end a better sign one up immediately. this is not surprising and i can tell you firsthand you do not want to be on the receiving side from an annoyed president, let alone to phone calls. welcome to the third annual at those and practice of intelligence conference. it has only been two years since our first conference. we have established a lasting tradition. looking at the agenda, i'm excited about the topics and what our analysts will bring to dais. highlight the role of intelligence in addressing humanitarian disasters in debate right balance between secrecy and public accountability. you can see our focus is narrow. i cannotriousness, become another said he was such a wide range of deeply sonificant issues being coherent. each panel addresses and a sessional element of what the cia and intelligence community have to deal with day in and day out. it is both regional and functional, technical and strategic. the agenda puts the global nature of cia and intelligence agency mission on display. the first panel, is proof that although our responsibilities of evolved over time, some elements of our mission never change. the topic is rivalries and to their future. the potential for conflict involving the most powerful countries in the world has always been a focus of cia briefs,back at the documents we recently released to the public, these issues were at the forefront of our times.on and analytical they remained so for the duration of the cold war and remain sound today. with the surge of activity by the terrorists, most importantly or notably with the activities 15 years ago, it shifted from nonstate actors and all the while strong nations such as china and pressured did not -- and russia did not dampen their vision. their efforts to project power beyond their borders are provoking trouble in the south china sea and eastern europe. today's panel poses the question, have we directed to much of our attention away from politics?y issues of where the flashpoints that can turn local conflict into something more serious? what can officials and organizations due to better understand these rivalries and best equipped policymakers to address them. lessecond panel is no evocative. it is entitled, destructive technology into digital dilemmas. take a look at how groundbreaking technology is a double-edged sword. u.s. government and the community in particular are at the forefront of the challenge. intelligence community have been slow at times to embrace aspects of the digital revolution. concerns about security caution in and restrain our enthusiasm. aremost recently, they catching up and shaping the technological off moment. ! moment. have loved to stretch my technological muscles. i find the fields to be endlessly fascinating and i know provide usts will with a discussion of the trends. they will go over crucial questions such as how to best leverage these technologies to optimize our nation's security as well as our civil the birdies and privacy. what should we -- civil liberties and privacy. when should we keep an eye out for? what is the government role? alsoanel i am moderating has three of my colleagues. we discuss the role of technology, liaison partnerships, and espionage. analysis, covered actions. it dominates the public discourse. what is missing, is understanding how important these relationships are two the cia's mission. despite the size in the breath university -- intelligence community, there are places we cannot go without immense risk and complications. which is why we rely so heavily on our liaison relationships. been with uss have throughout our 69 --year-old history. and the global network of partners in the fight against al qaeda. these relationships across the world are forced multipliers. i do not see how the cia could fully carry out our responsibilities without those foreign intelligence relationships that supply not only operational manners -- matters but a host of other activities. i am sure my dear colleagues from united kingdom, afghanistan, and a story. i look forward to what they have to say. i know those from london, cabrera, and could all -- and kabul will provide more. our fourth panel will focus on generallythe public does not associate with intelligence organizations. assessing the potential total of humanitarian disasters. this fascinating discussion will shed light on an aspect of intelligence work that rarely receives the recognition it deserves. instability is a defining feature of the international landscape today. it foments some of the greatest challenges we face. specifically, what was once a refugee say haven is a significant source of massive refugee displacement. there is a country that has lost at least 35 years worth of development in terms of income, education, intel health. more than 13 million syrians need some form of humanitarian assistance. you might not think this humanitarian plight and similar ones can see much of my time as cia director, but as i have stressed before, cia and intelligence community mission is global in scale and scope. have offices devoted to covering these issues as well as the hurdles that lie ahead is our government tries to mitigate the effects of its fast destruction and displacement. for example, cia has a role of the atrocities prevention board with the utmost gravity as the office collects, sauces, and shares intelligence related to threats of genocide. we at the cia and intelligence community on her to contribute to this crucial mission and our government many other humanitarian efforts. our panelists will tell you, they're are absolutely critical to our national security interest. one way, the last panel moderated by my deputy david cohen, will look at the provocative and essential issues of intelligence oversight, accountability, and openness. people wish wee could return to darwin and essay stood for no such agency. -- we could return to a time when nsa stood for no such agency. a feasiblelonger option, so at least for it is aies but reasonable one. the american people of the right to know the types of activities their federal government performs on their half. history has shown that blind trust is a false currency. the cia and the rest of the intelligence community have to maintain the requisite level of public confidence in order to do our job effectively. we have seen the consequences when that faith is lost. not mean opening our doors wide without regard for repercussions. secrecy is a necessary element of what we as intelligence professionals seek to do. but not secrecy for secrecy's sake. secrecy for the sake of security and safety. in our profession, concepts such as compartment tatian and need to know our -- compartmentalization and "need to know" are necessary. people have lost their lives when national security is harmed. the topic of national security and public trust is complicated. different people will have reasonable disagreements. as you can see from the panels not-i -- make-night, we're shying away. there is a need for public debate facing our great nation and the world we live in. deeply complex emotional issues such as cyber and surveillance. these are difficult topics. once where differences are to be a expected. while there are legitimate disagreements to be had,1 i know with certainty that there is a role for government [laughter] [laughter] to play. [laughter] [laughter] the threats and adversaries we toe are far too dangerous simply stand back and admire the problem. the cia tells the community we have a better place in this debate and a larger one about the role of intelligence in our democracy. we cannot return to the passive posture of years ago. we cannot cloak ourselves in secrecy and hope for the best. we have an obligation to earn the sacred trust the american people have placed in us. otherwise, without such debate, misperceptions rather than the reality of the intelligence profession and up driving discourse. once again, thank you for joining us today. your participation, comments, and perspectives, are the reasons why we put this conference together. at cia, with tried to instill a sense that our employees should be intelligence officers first. excelling at the individual craft, but always known how their personal skill set nest within the larger goals of the agency in our national security establishment. we have ay i hope better understanding of where the cia and the rest of the intelligence community fits within our own security apparatus in how we can strengthen it going forward. from my perspective, the profession of intelligence has never been important more than it is today. after 36 years in this profession, the success of our intelligence practice hopefully comes down to the women and men who join our ranks and selflessly serve their fellow citizens. officers with intelligence and courage, thated teammates, who know the stories of this profession or what we can't they are all about. i hope many of these students are today will think about the cia into intelligence community is a future place for them to pursue their professional ambitions. those selfless qualities or what the core of what the cia is all about and the defining characteristics of the intelligence we constantly strive to hold day in and day out. it is my great pleasure to introduce the former assistant secretary of the navy, trustee apparatus of george washington university, and the individual who served at the national ceremonies. >> thank you. good morning. i would like to welcome you to the campus of the george washington university. georgeeased that washington university is able to partner with the cia and host their third national security conference. i have privileged to be your host. i echoed the director's comments. he is just really great. in my humble opinion. i share his excitement. we have a very aggressive schedule today. the world has changed since my initial exposure to the intelligence community. as with many of you, my initial on targets. threats sitting on an aircraft carrier night, we saw the aaa firing. it really gained credibility. we started listening to them deeply and hard. wonderful schedule going today and there are a lot of people here who will be mentioned later in the program. our goal is to look over the horizon and get a glimpse of the issues that will shake the world today and in the future. myant to express appreciation to the staff. george washington center for cyber and homeland security and the cia for planning this conference. it is a lot of work. i also want to thank our panelists for sharing their experiences and expertise. before we get started, some housekeeping. mobilesilence your devices and your cell phones. photos allowed to take of the speakers on stage but not the members of the audience. permittedrink are not in the auditorium. but you are welcome to bring in bottled water. the conference is open to the press. permitted init is being webcast live and recorded. the comments of the conference speakers, panelist, and moderators are all on the record for direct attribution. each panel will have a portion.n in q&a during this phase, please use the microphone throughout the auditorium. of speakerstion time in time of those attending the conference, please ask precise, specific questions related to the panel topic. let us get started. tensions with russia and china rise, the first panel will ask whether the great power rivalry is an enduring danger or a thing of the past. we havess the topic, the following experts with years of experience on china and russia. there by rose are in your program. -- their biographies are in your program. moderator is the director at the school of media and public affairs. panel members, cia deputy assistant director at the eurasian center. former deputy director of cia and current distinguished inspector general at john's hopkins, john maclachlan. georgetown professor and former cia and national security council east asia expert dennis wilder. please welcome them to the stage. [applause] well, good morning everybody. i want to make sure, we will have interactivity later. i am frank and it is a tremendous pleasure and challenge to engage this topic of great power rivalry. as we mentioned, we will come around with microphones later to take your questions and i would ask if you are in the middle or towards the aisles, some will have a microphone. give a short name if you can and ask your questions in macon as the sink as possible so we can cover as much terrain as possible. our discussion revolves around the notion of great power rivalries which we spend a lot of time studying at institutions like this and institutions like where you are. we want to look at a couple key questions. had we look at the potential for these great powers and great power rivalries today. do we underestimate that potential? what are the risks and opportunities to leverage those rivalries should they exist going forward? and, how should the intelligence community calculate this and ensure it is well-positioned to navigate where these rivalries may take us? perhaps, john maclachlan, you can get us started with this in terms of giving us a frame for this conversation. we chatted the other day as i was dashing through and airport. this remarkable century we have been through and how it has defined the experience of these rivalries. perhaps you can share for the group. john: looking at the issues in a larger context, that is what we are trying to do. it is important to look at the century we have been through which has been in many ways and a historic one. 70 years of cold war. following the soviet union, wallowing that, 17 years between 1991 when the soviet union fell to the 2008 financial crisis when the united states had a kind of unchallenged position in the world. that ended to a degree in 2008 position ine in our the world was shaken a little bit around the world and in that time, we had the luxury of dealing with issues that looked to us, preps artificially, but looked to us like black and white. a clear mission, world war i, world war ii, the cold war. yearsen the moment of 17 when there was not great powers but it great power. we are back at a moment when a lot of the issue start to .ook gray when our relationships, first off let me say, i think great power rivalries are here to stay at least for the foreseeable future. it is not a thing of the past it it is different the end used to be. we do not have a lot of practice with this type of world. might have thing you might be the interwar. between the two world war wars when there was a kind of balance of power situation but at that time we did not see ourselves as greater power. remember, 1929, the secretary of state basically eliminated budget for cryptographic work. that's how much interest there was an intelligence that then. but then world war ii, we see ourselves as a world power in then we have the unusual time of the cold war. these relationships are all complex. on one hand, we are disturbed with russia. on the other hand, it would be hard to settle syria without it. we probably could not of gotten an agreement with iran without it. we are disturbed with china, but it would be hard to manage the north korean problem without it. with economic interdependence. this is an environment where the united states is not very practiced at the kind of great power rivalry we are starting to see. and the interwar time led to the second world war, germany going in the direction it did. john: the munich analogy is ever used of course but nonetheless the lessons of that apply today to a degree, but in a very different world. you have a big factor that has changed hair. great powers now share the stage state actors.non- terrorists, and she'll cause, multinational corporations and also the fact that social media has empowered small groups of people individuals in a way that modernralleled in history. frank: peter, dennis, what are your takes? >> i completely concur. the great power war is not ever going to go away. there will always be a struggle among great powers. andtant competing to get to equilibrium. someone totally bent on being a dominant force, don't know if i see that right now. maybe china. chinesenk from the point of view, the world changed in 2008 with the asia financial crisis. before that, the chinese sort of believed the world order was in the ascendancy and you remember they talked about a high of the chinese. there was a term we used but the chinese say it is much more complicated and they would say the bottom part was narda's nefarious -- was not as nefarious as some had considered. strong needed to get before taking a place in the world. the flaws of the western system showed itself. while china is still growing at a remarkable rate. the other thing that happened was a new chinese leader comes on the scene. deng xiaoping made china economically strong. the leader who came to power in 2012 is a man who believes he will take china forward as a great power now. china is not going to hide anymore in the world order. china has the desire to be the second world power and so one of the things he did almost immediately when it came to washington -- when he came to washington in february of 2012, he talked about a new great power relationship with the united states. what does that say? it says that for the first time, china is a great power. in the great power relationship, china wants to be our year. we have struggled with that since 2012. we do not really consider china yet ap or of the united dates. in of course, china in this great new power relationship with us to back out of situations they believe are they are business. they do not see the far china sea as our business. i do not see as the east china sea is our business. greata new wants sort of power rivalry. a need united states on the economic side, but they also want the united states to recognize there are now two great powers in the world and china is one of them. frank: since you are the russia expert here, it if let them your pigeon wants to be asserted, he has to deal with something the soviet union did not have to deal with before, china. it is a different alliance than it was once upon a time. that: it is interesting vladimir putin and china has a budding relationship. vladimir putin has been there several times in the last couple years. the chinese president has been to russia. there is an and the 1970's when there is a triangular balance between russia, china, it that .issinger frequently focused on i want to go to the clear effort role in therussia's world. there are two things driving vladimir putin. one is to restore the rightful role as a great power. given where the russians were after the yeltsin years. you see this and 70 ways. i instructed in some ways he would like to restore the world in which he grew up. if you think about vladimir pridgen's coming-of-age in the 1960's and 1970's, his early years in the kgb. the soviet union was the other great power. it was a bipolar world in the world knew it. to makeimir putin seeks sure the world understands there is very little you can do these days in many areas without that russian role. the famous adage, there's no issue that cannot we resolved without a soviet handle or a soviet role. mostly, the middle east. the interventionist areas exactly about that and partly about shoring up the severely beleaguered client state with whom we had a relationship for 30-50 years. as much as a it gave vladimir putin a chance to show we had a role to play. they inserted themselves in this which forced the united states took knowledge that role and here we are negotiating cessation of hostilities, which is touch and go right now. frank: i would like to spend a few minutes on russia and putin and then a few minutes on china. and then to do things together in the context of the questions we pose as we discussed great power rivalry. we should think about this. vladimir putinnk is up to? what is his objective to let the world know russia is a great power, but more than that reasonably. >> two things, and they are intertwined. first, russia's status in the world and that particularly applies to the very clearly in ukraine. it will be interesting to see what happens as we have secession challenges in central asia where china begins to play an increasingly important role in the other thing, and i'm struck by this, there is a domestic portion to vladimir putin's agenda. when people ask me what he is is not just, it about fulfilling russia's greatness of the world, it is also about defending his regime and specifically legitimizing his brand of authoritarian rule. we kiddingly collect managed democracy. they just had in election, preferably world to see the have election, multiple parties. but in other ways, he is in my view a little defensive. more than a little defensive. in what we are seeing domestically is to legitimize constantlyhe is attacking the west and the u.s. which in his view is hypocritical. so for example, if you look at the links that came out. on the dnc. veryussians media was quick to pick on the fact that, see, the west is always blustering us and look at the system. playing the level field, which is something the americans always question the russians about. we see this sensitivity in the other links from the world's other agencies. anti-doping agency. the russian media was very quick to pick on the fact that this is very interesting after the russians, many of the athletes were banned from the olympics, that a lot ofut other athletes in the world, including americans supposedly were legally given a pass because they had attention deficit disorder. if you watch the rest of the media closely, this comes through loud and clear and to me it highlights sensitivity. the other thing vladimir putin itks to do and this is where is intertwined, one of the main arguments for defending his system is we promised the people order and stability and we so frequently cite, look what happened in libya. look what happened in syria. o other parts of the world, and we cannot have that in russia. particularly what he saw in 2011 which was a wake-up call to him unexpectedly a large number of people protested. the elections. an also important thinking about russia to step back and ask ourselves, what have they been through? hundreds of years of having a czar. of history.rtion then the yeltsin area from 1991-1999. war,hn: at the end the actually an apology after the time of great instability and turmoil. in some ways good for russia because they opened up the media and so far. in vladimir putin comes in and has to stabilize the place which for hisis the reason initial into enduring popularity. whatever the downside, it has become predictable in russia once again. they have a very different view of recent history then we do and it is easy to refute but you have to listen to them. the first thing with your adversary is to understand where their coming from. it is different than our history when you look at libya, look at syria. >> look at poland, ukraine. >> nato enlargement. >> absolutely. >> they endorse that. they have the feeling, i don't know if it is true, but they will tell you that you promise not to enlarge nato beyond inclusion of germany after germany's unification -- i don't know, i don't think we did that but that is their perception. >> peter, will become back to and ask you about something you said in -- the headline in today's new york times. .ladimir putin tightens grip there is a lot of suspense run this, i know. -- president vladimir putin leverage his popularity to assert greater control over the malibu parliament with results released monday showing the party gaining a majority. the live five was made possible in some part by voter turnout just under 48% on election sunday for the 450 seat. what is going on? in totally, politically and pretends russia? -- in vladimir putin's russia? 60%.11 turnout was one of the challenges in trying rightage democracy is the balance. i think the russians, the early polling results show was around 40%. they were worried it needed to be closer to 50. at the same time, i think they too big of athat turnout might actually give an edge to some of the other parties to work competing although that admittedly they are not that into regime. the true opposition parties are miniscule. it is hard to run a candidate and get them on the ballot. i wanted to get back to the issue of what vladimir putin is really worried about. by the way, he publicly said he the reelection bid. i do not know if he said he is formally running in 2018 for up most of us believe he is going to run for reelection but he has got to be thinking about what will happen between now and 2018. after the, the day election, one of the major russian newspapers reported there may be a major restructuring of the russian intelligence services to put it together with another agency and most would agree the one is the dominant domestic force in russia. what i see is potentially a continuation of tightening up on society for a number of reasons. i think flooding your putin generally fears instability and disorder. after he was elected in 2000, he described the scene when he was a kgb office there and the civil war collapsed in germany and there was a large mob that approached the facility where his people were located, the kgb. he said, i called my stuff for guidance and got told, we do not have any guidance and he was shocked and i think it was also a little afraid and of course, 2011, we see these protests. pretty spontaneously erupting from pretty angry they recognize the sham democracy being pressed on them. he wants to ensure that will not happen again. >> so all this being said, russia wanting to reassert itself and wanting to lock things down politically at home, doing with plenty of economic and domestic challenges. what does he want? confrontation with the united states? what is the point of the cyber meddling? what is his endgame? these are my views and not necessarily those of my colleagues at the agency. i want to be clear about that. we have a range of views. i am very much struck that putin has grown and matured in his time in office. if you hear the millennial speech in 2000, this is a man russia wasd how weak and that it needed to be more integrated in the world. it was a very interesting and fascinating document. it's burnt a lot of analysis. kgbe are seeing more of the putin we knew from his early years. of what isittle bit going on is he is thinking about his legacy. the agitation in crimea, bringing back to russia what he also -- always believed was russia's. in his own view now, he feels like he has done something that will mark his place in russian history. he would also like to be the man who restored russia's greatness. he definitely believes russia needs to be a strong, competitive military power. upswing every an year since 2000, and there have been huge jumps every year. this year, there is a public debate going on with finance ministry officials about having a cut in the next three years. overall, i see them taking a little bit about the future and his role in russian history. he is constantly talking about russian history. mr. sesno: had you see him looking at his future with united states and the west, which has become nonproductive for him because of sanctions? he accesst: i think the reality that there has to be some kind of relationship. in syria, it was clearly about bucking up a, and russia needed to protect their interests in the region. he forced the u.s. to come to the table and acknowledge him, essentially not just as an actor but an equal at the table. we cannot resolve syria without russia. mr. sesno: what about russian meddling in the baltic states and romania and other emerging but still unstable states of eastern europe? mr. clement: i think it has to do with their obsession with nato. the nato expansion, white as nato insist on moving further? thesecond part is missile-defense bees. -- peace. they think they need to be positioned to counter that. mr. sesno: how worried should the world be about their military arsenal and steps they are taking? we have to acknowledge that russia is the primary power in the world it could destroy our city. a nuclear arsenal is important for putin. importanticularly with the weakness that russia has. he is playing a we can't very well. nd very well. by that i mean that in terms of wastingomy, russia is a asset. it is based primarily on exporting natural resources. if you look at the price of energy and the fundamental restructuring of the national energy market, that is a personal view, will prices hovering between $40-$50 per barrel, it will probably not be going much over that. russia historically has needed $100 per barrel because it is their principal export, they need that to make their budget. sanctions plus the price pressure puts him under a great deal of pressure to probably austerity, and he will need additional power. talk about the shape and origins of the chinese assertiveness. you talked about a moment ago, but there are so many different fascinating things happening. if putin is playing a weekend, the chinese are playing a strong hand. >> but they are not playing it as well. we are not going to talk about and we are playing. [laughter] don't carry a diplomatic passport anymore. mr. sesno: professors don't get them. thewilder: to go back to construct of looking at the long-term, i once had a chinese mao said say to me, china has stood. the professor said he is lying. we were crawling in 1949. we were the fifth man in asia. the member that term? he said now, today, we are standing up. we are reaching our destiny. the last central -- century is yours, the century is ours. there is a chinese thinking that this is the inevitability of history. gdpou look at gdb, china -- , china will be the largest economy within a few decades. they will pass us at some point as the world greatest economy. gdp per capita is a different question, but overall gdp. is somewhatt similar to putin, which is why i think you see them having common thinking, what they see is that we are trying to keep them from achieving this goal. they talk about containment all the time, and american say, containment, we by your goods, how can we be containing you? they mean strategic containment. they believe that we want to create a revolution in china the in,hted -- way that we did in their eyes, in ukraine. they see as trying to keep taiwan out. equivalent to the chinese of nato. it says to them we will put a lot more force in your area of the world because we don't trust you. we prefer our structure of the past in east asia. our close relationship with japan, south korea, with soucy -- southeast asians. one of the things that's interesting is the expansion in the south china sea occurs in the same year that putin takes crimea. mr. sesno: you see it as their crimea? mr. sesno: -- mr. wilder: it is an assertion, yes. mr. sesno:mr. sesno: how did the u.s. response? mr. wilder: i think they were disturbed. effectively used the bring the arts closer to us. china lost ground. people who would been there good friends like malaysia, indonesia. these countries were confused by why china all of a sudden was being aggressive toward them. of lays the chinese threat issue in a way -- i know the chinese diplomats were uncomfortable. but mystically, he got huge points for this. -- but domestically, he got huge points for this. china is also economicallyelf around the world in ways that russia has not. where they are spending money. mr. mclauglin: i don't know if dennis would agree with this, but one of my themes is that we are in a competitive world. if you look at what china has done with the asian infrastructure, about 60 countries have joined. most of our allies. what they are beginning to do with their one belt, one road proposal connecting china with middle eastern europe, these are big changes. big transformation, ideas that rival anything the united states is come up with in terms of changing the dynamic. one point, what these two countries are doing now, there is broader meaning. they are essentially challenging what we consider the global order. there is a certain several that putin has broken in ukraine crimea, at least two treaties that we consider sacred. the chinese in the south china sea and east china sea are challenging vegetables we have relied on for maritime domains for global order. the global order that came out of world war ii. from the united states perspective, that is what is at issue. mr. sesno: some of what i was talking about with the incredible economic dominance that china is playing, takes superpower rivalries and takes it to a place we did not see issue with our last this with the soviet union. what does that say? how do you view that rivalry, threat, relationship? mr. wilder: i remember in the bush administration, we were talking about how do we create a vertical line to central asia, how do we connected in a impactful way down to pakistan and the oceans? we experiment with it and really did not go anywhere. the chinese come in with this one belt, one road, and they said they are connecting everything. ability of huge building railroad infrastructure. they're building what these countries desperately need. they have an overcapacity right now. their industries are way overproducing for their domestic. mr. sesno: is that a rivalry with the united states? a challenge,t is absolutely. they are challenging us. are the newing we power and we will connect these other areas only will connect europe. they want to connect between shanghai and brussels. .r. sesno: a larger issue here mr. mclauglin: it feels like the chinese are starting to tiptoe into the political realm, not quite taking global responsibilities but showing up in port visits. they have had a large peacekeeping -- the chinese the years, every time i met with them, they would say we are better because we do not station our troops in foreign countries. that certainly has gone away as a talking point on the chinese side, and they are now the biggest contributor and peacekeeping force around the world. they are offering a great deal of money, and i would also say -- it is overlooked -- chinese enterprise eared all the investment -- enterprise. all of the investment around the world. alibaba. out callednew book "the house that jack built." alibaba is all over the world. jackmoll has a vision -- ma has a vision of a global commerce. the idea being that there is no borders for e-commerce anymore. big, visionary ideas you not here in the united states these days. mr. sesno: let me put this to you. how do great power rivalry's when we move into the digital domain? ma'swe moved into the jack and cyber attacks and invisible transactions that happen in real time, instantaneously, globally? that is a different kind of power robbery, isn't it? -- rivalry, isn't it? mr. wilder: china has the opportunity to reach people now in other parts of the world that it never had before. one of the things we will struggle with on the traits i is what is the new trading order, what are the rules for data flow? there are a huge numbers of issues on the commerce i that we are only beginning to touch. mr. sesno: other panels will get into cyber business, but your take? i can't say a lot about the russians been particularly innovative, they are stocked in the -- stuck in the mono economy. if i look at what is going on in the future, and this is why i not necessarily the strongest guy and what i think he is concerned about the strength of his political position, the economy is a huge weakness. i am struck again, looking at the russian press, they are talking about increasing the retirement age because they have a budget crunch. they're going to move the from 60nt age for men to 60.and women i'm thinking you will not have a big retirement plan. the point is, they are starting to count nickels and dimes. they're talking about cutting the defense budget, they recognize that they have a big problem, they are still suffering from sanctions. there is no idea of growth. there is a huge problem with corruption, stolen money and money that is going abroad. mr. wilder: national and mr. china,in: with regard to the economic model is beginning to sputter. mr. wilder: we can overstate what is happening in china today. one of the problems they have is the export led economy that was effective for them, south korea, japan. with the world financial crisis and slowing growth in the world, china has to move away from that model because there are not the markets there used to be. this markets are not going the way they were. the chinese, though, are reluctant to move too fast away from that because what comes next is hard. real reform of the chinese economy, moving upscale in the manufacturing area, and singin paying has an election next year. this will be where he selects his public bureau standing committee. they need the chinese economy to be stable between now and then, but there are cracked showing. -- cracks showing. they have been running up debt, because they have been doing very large stimulus packages. they have been successful, but they lead to the kind of overcapacity in things like steel and the rest of the work gets angry about it, and president obama had to talk about it when he went to china. the question is, can china make that leap? from themake the leap command economy and has today, the half command, half market, to a much more competitive economy? and that is an open question. mr. sesno: that also involves political dimension in that one party rule is based on command. economy does well. it is a social contract. i want to put this one to you before we do that. -- we areways accused always accused of fighting the last war, think back and said looking forward. minute, maybe a we are thinking wrong. andhe 21st century, robbery -- rivalry and threats will be completely different. is there something to that? what is the playing field? mr. mclauglin: i think there is something to that. the way it would summarize it is that the united states is still the most powerful country in the world, but the margins of our lead are contracting. what that means in terms of policy is that the problems in the world cannot be sold without the united states, but the united states can no longer be solving them alone or be dictating to others exactly how they get solved. premium in these coming years for united states, i think, as the leading power in the world, will be coalition building and aligns management. mr. sesno: when we think about terrorism and cyber terrorism and the chinese able to make big investments -- mr. mclauglin: i think our leadership is changing and it has to change. u.s.written a lot about power, and at the end of the day when you added up, all of the factors in power, the united states still comes out ahead in almost everything. innovation, demographics, support. of our military. -- strength of our military. it is a different model that we will be faced with given that we are now working in a world that is a kind of allen's of power world was rivals that do not agree with us, but with whom we share important interests, both russia and china. we look at our traditional partners in europe, for example, or we have always been able to turn and have a reliable -- someone has our back them up following us. we also have some central focal -- central focal pressures building. take the brexit, for example. you can drive straight line between the problems in syria and the brexit. immigration was a principal driver of brexit. if brexit stimulate similar movements in europe, and you thet see the eu, part, -- c apart, it will be a very different world that the united states have does -- has dealt with for the last 80 years. a different leadership that is more agile, coalition building, alliancenagement -- management. we don't have a lot of practice about. mr. sesno: let me go to questions for each of you and then out to the audience for questions. i want each of you very briefly to name one or two flashpoints that you are looking to with concern, potential flashpoints, looking to the future in this superpower rivalry or this great power rivalry we are talking about. for me, it would be ukraine. some people still wonder about putin's real agenda, is he intent on slicing off the east of ukraine, or is this part of a tactical -- mr. sesno: he is not done yet, you think. mr. clement: people debate this. we are watching it closely. it has an impact on the baltic states and nato, and is energizing the alliance to recognize there may be a problem here and we can no longer take it for granted. think -- lin: i mr. wilder: i think north korea and how the chinese handle that. in our view, we would like to get rid of north korea, that is why it is hard to get the chinese on board with that concept. they still believe that is where we are going. north korea is going to have a soon.r tipped program how do we deal with that problem? i think the next president has got to address it quickly. the second one is taiwan, which is that of the scope for a while. they no longer have the independence party in power. the president has done a good job of being careful, but chinese patients -- patience can run out and i worry that they will want a new understanding of the taiwan question. mr. mclauglin: if i had to pick a couple, leaving aside terrorism, one would be an extension of what peter said, not moven tempted to physically into one of the provoke someto ukraine like uprising in the ethnic russian population, which would confront nato with a difficult circumstance. the second would be, not in the headlines every day, but maybe the most dangerous spot in the sea ors the east china south china sea, where i don't know how many times the japanese have scrambled aircraft the last year, i think it is close to 100 times. there, where we allies,least 2-3 treaty could confront the president with a very difficult situation. mr. sesno: let's move to your questions. i think we have a couple of microphone runners. if you have a question, there is one in the front row. let's start here. just ask your question. go ahead. question for you. we've heard a lot of chatter in the press about the russian hackers wanting to interview the election -- interfere with the election. hester's link you take it? -- how seriously do you take it? mr. clement: that is the million-dollar question. don't talkhat i about publicly because there is an ongoing investigation. clearlyill say, i think the russians have taken advantage of disclosures became out of these hacks. i think putin sees this as a way of trying to legitimize his own people, we are not different to anybody else, everybody dues -- does these things. mr. sesno: the cold war is over and the cyber war has begun. are these the opening sell those -- salvos? mr. mclauglin: i think they are experimenting to see what they can get away with. the whole problem with the cyber war talk is that it is like the talk in the 1950's. we did not know then what we would do with nuclear weapons or what would mean to the world, it took some years of negotiations to develop an arms control regime. we've not even begun to approach and understanding like that with cyber, and probably never we'll -- will, because it is not a uniquely state problem, you cannot get everyone's intent. we will have to feel our way forward. mr. sesno: there is a big difference between this and nuclear. this thing is subversive and invisible and meddling. to what end? what do they want to do with this? i see it as an extension, if we are talking -- an mclauglin: i see it as extension, if we are talking about russia, as an extension of what russia has always done. always --ussians have japan makes cars, we innovate things, the russians to operations like this. [laughter] mr. mclauglin: this is what they do. they're very good at influence operations. gray war,w call hybrid war. that is not something that fits neatly into our deck of cards. and so i think they have a new tool to do what they have always done. if you go back and look at their activities during world war ii and their activities during the cold war, they did not have cyber, but they had a kind of attempt to interfere in politics of others. mr. sesno: another question from the audience. one here. thank you very much. sorry for inconveniencing your seatmates. student, and i have an article here from nbc news and they say that the relationship between china, the u.s. and russia can be compared to the high levels of tension in the cold war times. do you think this is an accurate statement? do you want to start, john? mr. mclauglin: it can be compared to the cold war times. people increasingly are talking about the russia-u.s. relationship is starting to feel like a cold war relationship because we are going to a higher level of tension. the main thought i have when i ,ead that sort of thing is that again, thinking of the next president. one of the first questions we have to answer is where do we want this to end? what is our vision of where this ultimately ought to settle out? the cold war, there is a difference. in the cold war, we knew where we wanted it to end. we did not necessarily want the breakup of the soviet union, in fact, 41 bush tried to prevent that.

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Australia , Shanghai , China , Paris , France General , France , Alaska , United States , Burundi , California , Syria , Aleppo , Lab , Russia , Kabul , Kabol , Afghanistan , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Ukraine , San Francisco , India , Botswana , Libya , South Korea , Poland , Cuba , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Malaysia , East China Sea , Japan General , Japan , Philippines , American University , District Of Columbia , Munich , Bayern , Germany , Argentina , Iran , Washington , Boston , Massachusetts , Indonesia , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Taiwan , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Pakistan , Iraq , China Sea , Israel , Saudi Arabia , North Korea , Pennsylvania , Chile , Ohio , Romania , Hawaii , Americans , America , Saudi , North Koreans , Israelis , Iraqi , Russians , Japanese , American , Chinese , Russian , Iraqis , Syrians , North Korean , Soviet , Palestinian , Barbara Starr , John Roberts , Frank Phillippe , Jack Ma , John Brennan , Allie Obama Alibaba , John Hopkins , Ken Goldstein , Vladimir Putin , Dennis Wilder , David Ignatius , David Cohen , George Washington , Martin Luther King Jr , Deng Xiaoping , Baltic States , Edward Snowden , Barack Obama , Dwight D Eisenhower , Al Qaeda , Michelle Obama , George W Bush , John Lewis , Kim Jong , Fred Ryan , Laura Bush , Hillary Clinton , Tom Friedman ,