And Niall Ferguson to discuss desfinned for war. Can america and china escape the trap. The book is available for purchase outside and graham will stay and sign a few copies imhope at the end of the talk so you cant escape the the trap of the book store. Graham allisn is founding dean of hard railroad venezuela Kennedy School of government. I vividly remember my first time walking into the Kennedy School for my first forum event. Back in 1986. It was an intoxicate is police and you can feel the brain power working and the policy being changed in the room, and Graham Allison has been me merlin behind the magic for a very long time. Setting the standard of policy level of scholarship since i think the time he was ten years old, back in 1986. Ultimate triple threat, serving in a enemy orr distinguished positions in academia, the government and private sector has an special adviser to the secretary of difference under president s reagan and assistant secretary of defense for policy planned under president clinton elm lets has been a trusted adviser to seven secretaries of defense. Both democrat and republican. He currently serves to the advisory boarded to the secretary of state, the secretary of defers, and the director of the Central Intelligence agency. He has the sole distinct of having been award the wished Public Service medal, first by cap weinberg exertion then by bill perry who is here with us today. Graham allison has written extensively about Nuclear Weapons, terrorism and decision making, his his first book explained the cuban missile cries is one of the most influential books in polite sal science and has become required reading for the vast majority of students. Youre a political scientist there have been so many articles and books written be the cuban missile crisis, even been a per reviewed article about why we should stop writing articles and books about the cuban missile crisis. Graham allisons book has stood the tennessee of time. That book has sold more than 450,000 copies, which makes you the tom clancy or our field. He has a number after other books including the 2000 book about the grandmasters insights on china, the u. S. And the world, coauthored with blackwell, and a book called nuclearer to jim think ultimate preventible catastrophe, now in the first printing and selects be New York Times as one of the 100 most notable books of their year when it came out. This book destined for war is is no different. Type in best selling Political Science books on amazon. Com and the three authores at the top were, ken follett, al franken and Graham Allison. He never saw he light as his colleague Niall Ferguson did to move from harvard to stanford but its not too late for you. We hope youll come visit is for a longer period of time. Joining him in conversation is his much smarter are colleague who moved for california, Niall Ferguson i who is a colleague of mine as at the Hoover Institution, niall is a senior fellow at the harvard a visiting professor in beijing. He is one of the worlds leading economic historians, and an astute and wildly followed political commentator and a prolific author. Graham allison as sold 450,000 book Niall Ferguson has written 450,000 books. Incredibly prolific author, his books are, kissinger, 1923 to 1968. The idealist, highly award book. Kissing, the west and the rest, the assent of money, financial history of the world. He takes very niched topics. Empire, how britain made the modern world, and colossus, the rise and fall of the american empire. He is in london sunday times tid the boston globe, he was prostitute of history at harvard for 11 years and before that he taught at nyu, and the London School of economic is. He has won a number of awards and perhaps the only person i know who can say he has won an International Emmy for his pbs series, the aas scent of money, and the ward for the best documentary from the new york Film Festival now his feature length film, kissinger. He is named as one hover the most influence people until world and in 2017 he achieved a first the hundred year history of the Hoover Institution which was to get every single fellow interested in International Security affairs together for the first of what has become a series of salons which has proven to provide incredibly fascinating, illuminating conversation, and youre about to see why when you hear these two professors talk about Graham Allisons book, join me in welcoming Graham Allison and Niall Ferguson. [applause] you seek the introductions are better here than they are at harvard, too. Thank you, amy. So, one thing amy didnt mention is that graham and i have also been coauthors. We published an article on applied history last year, arguing that the president of the United States needed historical advisers, this one especially, and so we are not in an adversarial relationship, its fair to say. Indeed the book that were going to talk about is the book i watched evolve while i was at hard regard, and i have to congratulate you, you got the timing just right. If you arent worried now about the possibility of conflict between china and the United States, when you leave this room, i guarantee you that you will be. Let me begin our conversation with a quotation from the book. When a rising power felonies to displace a ruling power, alarm bills should sound, danger ahead. China and the United States are currently on a collision course for war unless both parties take difficult and painful actions to avert it, and war between the United States and china in the decades ahead is not just possible, but much more likely than currently recognized. Indeed, on he historical record, war is more likely than not. Graham, i have to did you to set out your case, assuming that most people in the room have bought the boot but not yet read it. Persuade us that war is more likely than not between the United States and china. Okay. So, thank you very minute, niall, and thank you for participating in this event and thank you to amy and everybody here for organizing this, especially amy, the joint venture with hoover and its a great honor and opportunity to be here at stafford. Did actually send one very happy year at this center for the advanced studies back in i think the early 70s and i thought, couldnt possibly come here because i wouldnt be able to do any work. Its too nice. Too many other things to do. I remember when kim arrow, a colleague at harvard came out here, said how do you get any work done . He says actually i spend as much time in the sun as i used to spend shoveling snow. In any case, great pleasure to be here, and thank you for the introduction. Not for this group but for general audience and especially four younger audiences today, the concept that there could be a war between great powers is just inconceivable. Seven decade without war as tubes at harvard often tell me, the war between grain great hours has been consigned to the dust bin of history. Not to do with the 20th 20th century. Its for previous centuries. Thats account be war between the great powers because there havent been for a long time. Anyone with any historical sensibility will recognize how silly that observation is. This period of seven decades is historically anomalous. John getis ron population about the long peace is a powerful proposition, so the notion that peace is either a natural condition of mankind or that for whatever reason we have now are better angels have back to powerful or we have become so wise or in any case, war between great powers is obsolete. Dont believe it for a second. Thats the premise. Now in the case of u. S. And china, i think every day the noise and news about what is happening in this relationship. Either north koreas threatening with missiles or china is the number one trading partner of germany or theres a near collision in the South China Sea or whatever. Is there some way to look beneath the surface of the daily noise and news to see something of the structure or even substructure of what is driving these events . And i came upon the idea that lucidity and that insight helped illuminate what is happening today in the relationship with the u. S. And china, namely, a rising power is on a course and is threatening to dismace a ruling displays displays a ruling power. The founder of history have said about the conflict between athens and sparta, two great city states of classical greece in a famous line, he said, quote, it was at the rise of athens and the fear that this instilled in sparta that made the war inevitable. So, he identified a dynamic, lucidity and dynamic, which a rising power feels bigger, stronger, thinks, well, okay, my interests deserve a little more weight. The current, aments, which were set in place before i was bigger and stronger, are confining, even unfair. Maybe even i can remember some abuses and the ruling power looking at this thinks this upstart is trying to upset the situation that is actually provided the environment in which its able to grow. The only reason it became bigger and stronger, because i was helping provide an environment for it. So, this dynamic between a rising power and a ruling power, greatly it exhausts trusts. So every action of one party is misinterpreted by another. I try be ben nye, you suspect i have ulterior motive and vice versa. So magnification of understanding and civility impacts external, as or events in which something happens and then one thing triggers a reaction and then theres a cascade at the end of which is an outcome that nobody would imagine. The dynamic is not that in the rising ruling power relationship one party decided war is a good idea. The proposition report i think the current arrangements are great because they provide a long period of peace, that allow you to grow rich as we as an American Government official from time to time i have given a speech to people, believe its true, the u. S. Constructed in the aftermath of world war ii an economic and security which has provide for longer face and greater prosperity than china saw in its own 5,000 years. They should be extremely grateful and should participate in this irrational they say, who wrote these rules and where were we when the rules were written and are the rules fair from our perspective . And shouldnt they be adjusted in maybe i should have more say, more sway. We say, sit in your place you should be happy, you should be grateful. This dynamic leaves to us be vulnerable to events like what is happening in korea, if what is happening in korea happens between the u. S. And britain, ireland was backing obstreperous in a way that was threatening to the two parties them british and americans would sitdown and say, little pipsqueak like this cannot disturb relations between two big states. Forget about it. Lets just sit down, solve this problem, and if we cant agree on something, well flip a coin but we can find a way to work this out. The relationship between the u. S. And china, as we watch what happens in north korea, the chinese actually, as you know very well, niall, have not participated in the conversation we did. We were both part of a very high level track 2 post motor thumb on maralago. From the chinese perspective in beijing, the problem in korea is only that were there. There would be problem in korea if the americans were not in korea. We would solve this problem in a second. And from the american perspective, the idea that, wait a minute, we dont belong is there . Excuse me. We fought a war there. 40,000 americans died there. We helped build a society there its a very successful democracy. The 13 new mexico large 13nt largest market economy in the world. Were not walking away and saying, thank you very much. We have a good relationship. The power is you, china, you should solve this problem with these little guys that are your guys. Theyre the ones creating the problem. So i think the as you have written, niall, think brilliantly about world war i, if you go back and ask about world war i, i have a good chapter in the book, i think, i you can study world war i too much you cant study world war i to much. Its dumb founding, the answer after the war when people said how did this happen . He said, if we only knew. That was the right answer. How could the assassination of an arch duke in sarajevo by a serbian terrorist, an ashe duke that nobody cared about except the guy in vienna. And sarajevo they told him, dont go there the guy that assassinates him is a serbian terrorist from a group called the black if youre writing a movie you wouldnt mick this up. That is the spark that starts a fire that burns down the house of europe. Its crazy. Makes no sense, did anybody want the war they got . No. The hungarians would have loved to have smooshed the serbs because of the way they were behaving, but actually the plan would have allowed them to do that without having a great war, but one thing led to the other and by the end everybody had lost the thing they cared about most. In fact if i could do one more second on it because i think its startling and relevant. Theres no number u. S. Wants a war with china. And i dont know of a Single Person in defense who doesnt think that we be crazy. I think theres no one in the ministry of defense that thinks a war with the u. S. Is a good idea. War would be catastrophic, but in the end of world war i, what happened to what each of the parties cared most about . It was gone they ever hungarians were trying to hold together an empire and it dissolve. The emperor was gone the russian czar was backing thes. His whole regime was overthrown by bolsheviks. The kaiser is trying to become his buddy in vienna. Hes gone. The french were backing the russians. Theyve been lost their hoe generation, the society never recovered. And britain, which has been a great creditor nation for 100 years, turned into a debtor. So if you had given these people a chance for a doover, nobody, not a single one, would have made the choices he did. But the made the choices, one thing led to the other and god knows what happened. So the situation which nobody wants more, the war, in which Everybody Knows war would be nuts, doesnt mean war cant happen. Your analogy here would be the rivalry between britain and germany, which many historians have seen as central to the outbreak of that war. In this case, britain in 1914 was the incumbent power after the United States todayment germany was the rising power as china is today. They were both heavily interdependent economically and nevertheless came with disastrous consequences. And because theyre of this rivalry in my reading of it and i think your own history of it, they had each become entangled with other parties whom they would not have otherwise been entangled. So if its bismarck in germany, he would have understood exactly how we not about to let them drag him he would have left a alliance with russia lapse but you have keiser who didnt know what he was doing, trying to run the german end, and they again to make mistakes. Similarly, the british havent been very careful for 400 years not to get too entangled with other countries of the continent. But germany had succumbed to, i gales we better talk to the french about this issue guess maybe we should have more relationship is with the russians, even the brits were very worried about the russians because thy thought the russians were threatening their emnear india. So in the book i should explain, graham actually gives you 16 cases of an incumbent power feeling threatened bay rising power, and makes this is the Political Science part the argument in 12 out of 16, this results in conflict. So, id like to talk more than minutes about that 1914 analogy, which i think is a very powerful one, and then id like to get on to the contemporary parallel in which sort of small rouge regime, serbia, north korea, precip tates conflict. Can we talk about lucidities. Its worth pointing out to this audience that you may not have read the chinas leaders have. Did you raise your hand if you have read this book, all or part of it . Very good. Its like being back at oxnard. Let me make a shoutout. I like to say, you can go right now when youre done or even now, and download for free on to your kindle lucidities read about the war. It will knock your socks off, for free. I hope you like the other book, took but you of the pay for it. Lets just briefly talk about lucidities. One of the remarkable things for me is this has become something that shawnes leaders refer to. Xi jinping himself refers to the trap in the speech i think in seattle, remind me if i have that wrong, we heard just the other day that Chinese Ambassador to the United States referred to it, too. So it may seem arcane if youre not into ancient history. Doesnt seem arcane in beijing. Thats for sure. And who is sparta and who is athens. Its not like this is exactly like that. When you get attracted to an analogy, be careful. Always take a page of piece of paper and draw a line down the middle of the page and write similar at the top of one column and different at the top of the other column and if you cant make a bull point inform each, take an aspirin and consult an historian. These are not alike. In fact in the spartan case, as you know, niall, very well, and people may notert, part to had been the ruler of greece for 100 years, that was in the normal circumstance. The persians came and there was a big war with the perkses, what we call robbans iranians now. Athens belt a fleet, the first professional navy. Their navy people were professional. Other guys were soldiers who rode and if youre a professional you can do a little bit better than a pickup game. So they produced the pretty impressive navy and then created an alliance structure. Together athens and sparta then defeated the persians, wh