[inaudible question] could you comment about aviation involved and how is that an what would that look like and how does that change things two [inaudible] there is a general at the federal Aviation Administration that would love the answer to that question because that is something, as im sure you know one of the big issues and hurdles for people is safety. And so there are lots of companies, the defense department, working on technologies to provide the uav and i think its a real question as to how expensive that technology tends to be. And without it there a definite limits for what we will be able to do with this technology because you cant describe how this will relate to other aircraft as it causes damage to buildings or whatever. So safety is a major hurdle. And having looked at this thoroughly and the book tells the story of how they came up with these observations involving a major problem that arose, i think that i am very hesitant to try to protect future because i dont think anyone wouldve predicted the you control this on the other side from the United States. And in fact all of the other experts are saying this cant be done. But i am reminded also of what i wrote this book and i loved the book about the 1930s and the dream that inspired this aircraft and we are still waiting for flying cars. The dream of flying cars. And i dont know how airtraffic controllers would work if all of a sudden the ability to decide, well, im sick of this, im going to buy over to the grocery store, there are some problems that may be. Yes, sir . [inaudible question] as you know we were able to talk about this. So how does this work with the way that they were chronic . Well, i think that it was interesting to me when they held this because from time to time there were these drones. One of the things about it was they had a flag or something draped across the front. And i had talked to people who knew more about these things than i would say it is unlikely that it was intact and it looked like a strange beast. Actually when they showed it at the news conference. But i dont know the answer to that question. I mean, it it was a classified aircraft. And i think it makes more sense to me than anything ill bet rather than taking it over odd. I think ive answered every question. Any additional comments and questions enact anyone who would like to chime in . You have written your previous book about this. Which i think is more of a characteristic program and its more incremental which is, as you say, a tremendous revolution and a great story as well. And especially on the horizon that could approximate something of this magnitude in terms of this. I think if i knew the answer to that i would be able to answer them more easily. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] you very much, thank you all for being here. For those who have not received the book, smith on the next washington journal, doctor ron waldman. On fighting the spread of the ebola virus in africa. And Bloomberg Government on the recent decline of gas and oil prices and its effect on the politics of the middle east and russia. Washington journal is live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Hour. Its been said that no one can lay claim to the policy over the past 50 years than the secretary Henry Kissinger. A vital presence in international and National Politics since the 1950s and named one of the foreignpolicy magazine top 100 global thinkers. Doctor kissinger served as the secretary of state under president nixon and ford and was the National Security adviser for six years. During that time the policy of detente with the soviet union orchestrated that relations with china and negotiated the paris peace accord which accomplished to withdraw of the forces from vietnam through which he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 and parenthetically the gratitude of this young lieutenant in the United States army. Thank you mistress. Other honors include the president ial medal of freedom, the middle of liberty and the National Book award for history for the first volume of his memoirs in the white house years. His new book world order is a comprehensive analysis of the challenges of Building International order in the world of differing perspectives, violent conflict, Urgent Technology and ideological extremism. You learn about the westphalian peace and be led on a fascinating exploration of european balance of power from charlemagne to the present time. Islam in the middle east, the u. S. And iran, the multiplicity of asia and the continuing development of u. S. Policy. They are often more important than the answers and secretary kissinger has some brilliant one such as what do we seek to prevent no matter how it happens and even if we have to do it alone what do we seek to achieve even if not supported by anyone what should we not engage in anything if urged by a Multilateral Group and i think most importantly what does the nature of the values that we seek to advance. You will be intrigued and challenged by this book. I cant finish without mentioning probably one of secretary kissingers least known but as a transplanted native new yorker i think the most wonderful honor. He was made at the first honorary the first honorary member of the harlem globetrotters. [laughter] doctor kissinger will be interviewed at this evening by Jeff Greenfield in the acclaimed acclaimed acclaimed apollo debate Television Commentator in his own right to lecture here last year about his book if kennedy lived. Its an honor and a privilege to have them with us and im sorry i wasnt able to arrange the playing of sweet georgia brown. Please join me in welcoming Henry Kissinger and Jeff Greenfield. [applause] when Henry Kissinger was named secretary of state, the press asked him what should we call you, professor kissinger, doctor kissinger, secretary kissinger he replied your excellency will do. This isnt my plan for tonight. This covers 400 years of diplomatic military history and four or five continents. We have a little less than an hour. When we finish dealing with the book we will talk about the tax policy. But what i want to do is take doctor kissinger what you have written and see its application today. Dont interfere. Look at isis which crosses the National Boundaries and if you look at the United States on them in serious. Its less than a country as a group of tribes whose central out of power is resentment and vengeance. Can you look at the world today and actually Say Something like a world order is possible or is that an old concept that is simply not applicable today . First of all i agree with you that it is no world order today. And perhaps if i tell you what induced me to write the book i was having dinner with a friend, professor at yale and i was discussing various ideas i had for writing a book most of which had to do with the personalities and he said youve written a lot of literacy. Why dont you write about something that concerns you most what concerns me most at the moment is the absence. The different regions of the world interacting with each other. The roman empire and the chinese empire existed without any significant knowledge and acted without any difference. So the reality of the present period is different societies with different histories are now integrate concept of the world order so i began for two reasons because that was the only system of world order that has ever been devised and because of the dominance in europe and because the europeans were part of the problem around the world as a concept and in every part of the world whatever order existed as part of an entire. In the islamic world that doesnt exist. Europe is the only society where the sovereignty of states and the balance of their actions with each other was believed to produce International Order so thats why it started with that and then attempted to apply to many circumstances. But this wasnt a book you could read to see what the order will be. Its to tell you this is what we are up against now. This is the challenge we have but it does not say that i know what the end result of all these conflicts and ambiguities some of which you describe will be. Im getting the westphalian peace which is 1648 after a 30 year war. Either way you like to be the district repeats itself. Remember the fight over the paris peace accord table. 1648, the sensibility of the various diplomats headed up the number of doors so that everybody could enter by the same importance and i believe you describe they had to walk the same moment. Somethings dont change but i think the more relevant part is is it folly to look at a 360yearold set of conferences involving one small part of the globe and it somehow has applicability to what we need in the 21st century where you have an islamist power to believe that is destined to rule the world and you may not have a chinese empire did you have a china that is reaching across the globe from resources and you have an International Banking system that knows no national borders. In this age the question for me is that even a model for thinking about as relevant . The reason i started this system is a third year war very similar to now what is going on in the middle east of every faction fighting every other and some of them using their religious convictions for the geopolitical purposes. And at the end of the period which may be a third maybe a third of the population of Central Europe with conventional weapons they got together on a number of principles which was the basic unit of International Relations should be the state. The state that countries shouldnt intervene in the Domestic Affairs of other states and that the borders of the International Affairs began by attempting to have an impact on and that some kind of International Law should be created and that diplomats should be called into acceptance into the never happened before. And so the interesting thing is none of these people were overwhelming statesmen, but out of the suffering they still have a number of principles which then put several hundred years covered european relations and were brought by the europeans and by us throughout the world. Now some of them still of great consequence mainly the basic unit of International Relations should be the state and that if you conduct Foreign Policy on the purely ideological basis and try to undermine the state that it could be created disappears. Now, of course non intervention , the set of principles of conduct, these were useful instruments. The dilemma of the present period is that several things are happening simultaneously. It is attacked in many parts of the world and the nonstate or as are appearing that have covered used to be associated with the state. And in the Political Organization of the world of the Economic Organization of the world attempts to achieve which means it transcends. I am attempting to do in the book is to say here is where this idea of the order started. Sooner or later we will come to the concept of order because without it there will be no principles to govern and there will be no restraint on the exercise of power. How we get there is the big challenge because for us in america, we believe that our principles are the universal principles that everybody must accept. And i as an individual believed in the universal principles. But how do we relate to other societies, that is one of the great challenges we face. But as you point out in the book there are some forces that reject fundamentally the premise that you outlined. The one that viewpoint to which most alarm is particularly as the folks in charge practice that. If i read your book correctly, the people whove who really run around, the theocrat how many believe that its the only legitimate ways to the idea of saying if i read your book right you wont interfere here and we wont dare. At a basic level that is on islamic. Doesnt that pose a rather difficult challenge . Speck that is the internal debate that is now going on. And the point im making is at this moment there are three stories models in its own history. The experience of being a nationstate and pursuing normal or traditional nationstates which is more or less what they did. The second model they have is that of an empire. Iran was a great empire extending from the borders today and well into what we cover the middle east extending to the end of africa and you have correctly described which is the view of the present which is that of the islamic face and it should be the governing guide and therefore it is permanent and the view i expressed here is that iran has to make a choice. It doesnt have to announce the choice but it has to make a perceptible choice which of these three models it follows. One other thing iran is the only one that is in the middle east nor its culture and that it maintains the culture and language so its always a distinct feeling of Something Special about iran so at the end of november we are going to be confronting the end of the culmination of the negotiations about the nuclear weapons. And they have to be judged by the settlement and about what the alternate purpose of the air indian government. Heres an argument that ive heard. They seem to change theyve seen the change in you mention in your book forgotten part of history the 1957 mount saint goes to moscow and the fear of a nuclear war would lose several hundred Million People and if we end up with the communist a communist world, so be it. I gather that it was unimpressed by this argument. 14 years later during the regime the question is when you hear them talk as they do is it useful to point to an example like the evolution of china. Its now at peace with each other that even in Northern Ireland 800 years of violence is in the east. Should we take those examples and say all right. Maybe they will evolve out of their current series theories and come to a more salient view of the world. This section was only to describe what came to be boasted of things you cannot play exactly. You can apply the database and what message should there be in touch with each other and how do they communicate with each other and how do they try to achieve together . Perhaps this evolution occurs but it is not possible that as an american leader you say because everything revolves. Why dont we just sit back and let it evolve and we will see what happens. With respect to some issues, in the case of china the transformation that started out to be built as a model of resolution for the rest of the world that hasnt continued until it was the conflict with caused the soviet union to move 42 divisions to the chinese border, and then mao looked at this as a practical problem of states, how do i protect my state against this . And the United States was the only available partner. I dont know whether i put this in the book or not. The persistence of traditional ways of thinking is shown by this episode. Nixon and to some extent i, from the first day in office, had concluded that an attempt must be made to bring china into the international system. Is a recall he wrote a peace for posterior Foreign Affairs that behind end ibeg youre pardon. Nixon wrote a piece called asia after vietnam and it was a hint this was on his mind. Absolutely. And thousand was in the middle of a cultural revolution, so it was very hard to know at what door to knock, even to get a to get a dialogue started, but the incident i want to mention, the cia wrote periodic reports about what china might do. And they published a report in early july, 1971, while i was on my way to china, and they didnt know, which said which listed all the arguments that was made of why china should look to the United States but the concluded with saying, this cannot happen while mao is alive. So, one has to wait until mao is dead. Today we know it could not have happened so fast unless he was alive. Thats reassuring the cia has not changed all that much. [laughter] well, it was understandable. At any rate, then china and United States had to deal with each other as great powers, and if you read theyre all available now these conversations on my trip to china, chou enlai and i were talking like two college professors, discussing abstract concepts of International Relations. We didnt go through any of the technical issues of that divided us. Why . Because both of us decided independently that at this point, the most important quality to be achieved was, can we understand what the other side is doing . So as we go into this world of three countries, china, russia, and the United States, cooperating with each other, so we were building a kind of international system, and i would say it was about three years before we really got to discuss the daytoday. So many areas to cover and so little timeout. Raise one of the areas i want to the critical step was to understand what the other person was how the other person was thinking. A point that was made, i know, during the cuban missile crisis, the opinions given to john kennedy were that, against the impulses of some of his advisers, he kept trying to put himself in khrushchevs shoes. So the question this raises is, it seems to me that some of the United States biggest missteps ill use a plight word polite word comes from the fact we have not a understood the terrain and people in which we were trying to act. Most recently im not trying to be partisan becau