we've all been there over past years. this year they are still there but this year we are also asking ourselves much more fundamentally, are we seeing the beginning of the end of the western-led order after liberal international order. we know why we're asking the question now, it's president trump. but it's also much more structural than that. it's been coming for a very long time. the rise of china. p populism in europe. brexit. explosions in the middle east. and we have to ask ourselves, number one, can china or anyone else step in? number two, if they can't, will we have an order without a leader and what does that mean? and number three, is to the extent that u.s. leadership is taking a big hit, can the americans get it back? i think to answer those questions, there's no one better to kick it off than senator john mccain. senator? [ applause ] >> thank you, thank you for the kind introduction. and can i say, trying to follow bono reminds me of the story of the actress gentleman gentleman zsa zsa gabor's husband said on their wedding night, i know what i'm supposed to do, i just don't know how to make it interesting. so any weigh -- [ laughter ]w weigh -- [ laughter ]a weigh -- [ laughter ]y weigh -- [ laughter ]weigh -- [ laughter ]eigh -- [ laughter ]igh -- [ laughter ]gh -- [ laughter ]h -- [ laughter ] -- [ laughter ]to do, i just don't make it interesting. so anyway -- [ laughter ] not every american understands the vital position of germany. all of us who do, let me say, thank you. my friends, in the four decades i have attended this conference, i cannot recall a year where its purpose was more necessary or more important than this panel is going to ask us to consider whether the west will survive. in recent years this question would invite accusations of hyperbole and alarmism. not this year. if ever there was a time to treat this question with a deadly seriousness, it is now. this question was real half a century ago. when van cloudy ski they did not assume that the west would survive because they had seen its near annihilation. they saw open markets give way to beggars thy neighbor protectionism and the poverty it imposeed. they saw world order clash into passio passi passions and the misery that brought t brought. they saw the rise of hostility. from the ashes of the most awful calamity in human history was born what we call the west. a new and different and better world order. not one based on blood and soil nationalism. the conquest of the weak by the strong. but rather on universal values, rule of law, open commerce and respect for the national sovereignty and independence. indeed, the entire idea of the west is that it is open to any person or any nation that honors and upholds these values. the unprecedented period of security and prosperity that we have enjoyed for the past seven decades didn't happen by accident. it happened not only because of the appeal of our values, but because we back them up with our power and persevered in their defense. our predecessors did not believe in the end of history. or that it bends intestify tableably towards justice. that's up to us. that requires our persistent painstaking effort and that's why we come to munich year after year after year. [ applause ] >> what would von clis s.e generation fear if they saw what was going on today? they would be alarmed by it. they would be alarmed by the universal values and toward old ties of blood and race and sectarianism. they would be alarmed by the hardening resentment we see towards immigrants and refugees and minority groups. especially muslims. they would be alarmed by the growing inability and even unwillingness to separate truth from lies. they would be alarmed that more and more of our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticizing it as our moral equivalent. but what would alarm them most i think is a sense that many of our peoples, including in my own count country, are giving up on the west. they see it as a bad deal that we may be better off without and that while western nations still have the power to maintain our world order it's unclear whether we have the will. all of us must accept our share of blame for this turn of events. we grew complacent. we made mistakes. at times we tried to do too much and at others we failed to do enough. we lost touch with many of our people. we've been too slow to recognize and respond to their hardships. we need to face up to these realities but this does not mean losing hope and retreating. that we must not do. i know -- i know there's profound concern across europe and the world that america's laying down the mantle of global leadership. can i only speak for myself but i do not believe that that is the message you will hear from all of the american leaders who cared enough to travel here to munich this weekend. that's not the message you heard today from secretary of defense jim mattis. that's not the message you will hear from vice president mike pence. that's not the message you will hear from secretary of homeland security john kelly. and that is certainly not the message you will hear tomorrow from our bipartisan congressional delegation. make no mistake, my friends, these are dangerous times, but you should not count america out. and we should not -- [ applause ] and we should not count each other out. we must be prudent but we cannot wring our hands and wallow in self doubt. we cannot allow ourselves to question the rightness and goodness of the west. we must understand and learn from our mistake. but we cannot be paralyzed by fear. we cannot give up on ourselves and on each other. that is the definition of deck dents. that what our adversaries want. this is their goal. they have no allies so they want to divide us from each other. they know their power is ic inferior to ours. they want to erode our wall to resist and put us in passivity. they know they have little beyond the world beyond selfishness and fear. they seek to undermine our confidence in ourselves and belief in our own values. we must take our own side in this fight. we must be vigilant. we must persevere and we must never ever cease to involve in the moral superiority of our own values that we stand for truth against false hood, right against injustice, hope against despair, and that even though we will inevitably take losses and suffer setbacks, through it all, as long as people have goodwill and courage, refuse to lose faith in the west, it'll endure. that's why we come to munich. that's why we come to munich. year in and year out. to revitalize our common moral purpose, beliefs that our values are worth fighting for. because in the final analysis, the survival of the west is not just a material struggle. it is now, and has always been, a moral struggle. now more than ever we must not forget this. during one of the darkest days of the early cold war, the great american novelist william faulkner delivered a short speech in stockholm upon receiving the nobel prize for literature. i declined to accept the end of man, faulkner said, i believe that man will not merely endure, he will prevail. he is immortal, not because he among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. even now when the temptation to despair is greatest, i refuse to accept the end of the west. i refuse to accept the demise of our world order. i refuse to accept that our greatest try fum ofs cannot once again spring from our moments of greatest peril as they have so many times before. i refuse to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries. i'm a proud unapologetic believer in the west. i believe we must always, always stand up for it. for if we do not, who will? thank you. [ applause ] >> glad you made it, man. >> no problem. >> i think we can tell from the room that a spirited and full-throated defense of the west is something that resonate well with the spirit of munich. and i thank senator mccain for that. of course, the fact that it is a defense of the west does imply that this has become somewhat more controversial in this room and more broadly than in previous years and very distinguished panel will help us work through that. i have the president from poland. i have the president from ukraine. i have, of course, foreign secretary boris johnson from the uk. and i have foreign minister from the netherlands. they will give us quick opening views about the extent to which they believe that the western order is under threat and the implications of that. then we will have, i think, a fairly lively discussion amongst ourselves and with the rest of you. and at the end, i'm bringing the chinese foreign minister here because how could you conclude a discussion about the future of the west without china? so with that, let me start next to senator mccain with president duda. please, sir. >> okay. >> it is not the first time i have taken part in a discussion where the participants have to come from, with the question will the west survive. to all those who expect to witness the down fall of the west, i would like to dedicate the words of mark twain. there were parts of my death have been greatly exaggerated. but politics is an literature. it's not about finding clever answers to these types of questions. it's about finding effective solutions and implementing them. what we are really actually going to experience in the following years, perhaps even months, depends entirely on our access. i firmly believe that in order to consider the future of the west in terms of combe back rather than down fall, first we need unity. second, we need responsive elements. that's in my opinion, two pillars of the good future of europe and i think also the good future of the world. history proves that western world has always been strong and stable. when it was also been united. unity is the bedrock of our strength and security. if the west is to come back, it can only come back unified. if the west is to fall down, it will fall down in parts. as the president of poland, i know very well that the divisions of west have never caused any good for central europe. that is why my country works actively for the unity of our region and for it to be a part of the united western world. the latest displace of our unity are the results of the warsaw nato summit. this result must be fully implemented. it's the matter of our defense and deterrence capabilities. only when we are strong, we can enter into dialogue. the basis of our strength is a transatlantic bond. we must not recklessly put it into question. it is our task to engage with a new u.s. administration which would preserve the common interest of the euro atlantic community by common interest i mean security. we all realize that consequences of the potential destabilization in europe will be felt on both side of the atlantic. furthermore, when we speak about euro atlantic unit we cannot discuss the brexit. britain might leave eu, but it is in our interest that it does not abandon the european security architecture. the uk is a strong pillar of nato. also a key partner in the european defense corporation. therefore, we have to frame the common security and defense policy in a way which would allow britain to actively participate. apart from unity, it's the response of government that has always been a source of strength and stability in the west. by responsiveness, i mean the capability to react according to citizens' will. to meet their expectations. meanwhile, nowa days, so many people experience a lack of trust towards state institution and government. what is more, political elite look at election with fear rather than hope. on top of that, the legitimacy of democratic elected government says often put into question. this may lead to the impression that west is reaction aiary in traditional sense of that word. its political class resemble the lou louis xvi of france on the eve of the french revolution. the window of political change can be felt throughout the western world. the political elite should not try to stop this change. because it's unavailable. on the contrary, they should turn their attention towards managing it so that the effect of this change are constructive rather than destructive. i strongly believe it is one of the biggest challenges facing the western political class. if you really want the west to come back, we find that to tackle this challenge effectively. and let's face it. not everyone is interesting in the western world. we need to be honest with ourselves. the west has enemies. they want us to be divided. they also want our elite to be detached from the people they represent. that is why we must reaffirm the cohesion of the western community. but also and perhaps equally importantly we must be able to respond to the hostile policy aimed at breaking our community. we, the representatives of the western world, cannot allow ourselves to be afraid. as mr. senator said. we should not fear to use all the strengths at our disposal to counter our enemies. which is what i wish to all of us. >> thank you. >> so, you heard from president duda the importance of the unity of the west. there is certainly no one at this panel that has suffered more from the disunity of the west than you. so i would hope that we can talk a little bit of that as you talk about where you think the west is going. sir, the floor is yours. >> thank you, very much. indeed, your excellences, ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank ambassador for many years to have discussion about the most important question. question of global european security. and thank you to chancellor american and whole leader of the european union and their personal involvement in the process to keep europe safer and to bring peace on the ukrainian soil. >> here, here. >> let me start with a very famous quotation from the 1938. i believe it is a peace for our time and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. go home and get a nice quiet sleep. end of the quote. these are the words of the chamberlain in defense of the munich backed. most likely those were inspired by the promise of the nazis right after munich that they will not have any territorial claims in europe. as we all know, appeasement was very long things to do. one should never believe in the goodwill of someone who proved that he has no good will. but do we know what is the right thing to do back then? probably staying in a strong unit. and probably this is a historic appeal to all of us from 1938. appeal from all of the people that had to die in the following years because someone had a nice quiet sleep at a wrong time. things got poll -- aggressive russia is not the mainstream in the western policy. however i hear increasingly obsessive calls for at least some degree of impeasment to what russia's appetite. to move in that direction, would be naive, wrong, and dangerous. but open hi for ukraine, but also for the europe, and for the world. allow me explaining why. first of all, putin hate ukraine by deeply and sincerely. he denies unique identity of ukraine and people. i know that personally. he publicly proclaim ukraine an identity as a part of russian dominant identity. he sees no place for ukraine and political map of europe. and he wants to draw a place for europe in russian colors. but it will be a mistake to think that russia's appetite are limited to ukraine only. and let me remind you one story. last year in november, president butt putin took part in ceremony of award winners by geographical association. where do the russia's border end? he asked one student in the audience. russian border end at the bering strait with the united states was the answer of the student. that was the right answer. but putin still corrected the boy and said, russian border ends nowhere. although he said afterwards that it was a joke. >> it is contiguous. it is a circle. >> it was not a joke at all. in many countries, be in the european union or beyond atlantic, have already felt the action. there only one time and one place the countdown and -- and the time is now. and the place is ukraine. [ applause ] this is absolute historic chance for all of us. but above all, this is a historic chance for the new year's administration and solid transatlantic unity. i have exact confirmation of that speaking a few minutes ago with a new secretary of state, rex tillerson, who confirm me that our unity as president and senator mccain said, and our solidarity. this is exactly what we need now. this is a unique window of opportunity for the soft power to show its trends. this is a window, too small in time, and opportunity is still available. ukraine's only sin is that my country once decided to live independently on their own soil and under their democratic values. freedom and democracy. we want freedom. and russia want to punish us for that. i have represent here my 45 million nation of european people. on their behalf, let me assure you that we never agree that someone or somewhere would determine our trade behind us. any behavior behind our back will be immediately decisively by million of ukrainians who have proved its ability to fight for their independence. we have no intention to give up. and ready to defend our country. my message is very simple, nothing about ukraine without ukraine. any deal with putin behind ukraine would only aggravate the situation. supporting ukraine is only way to stop ongoing aggression and bring russia back to respect in international law and global order. allow me to remind you, ukraine contributed a great later to cause these instability than we have received in return. the notorious budapest memorandum is an illustrative example in the matter. because ukraine was the third biggest nuclear nation in the world. and we voluntarily give up our third biggest nuclear arsenal. support in ukraine is the cheapest invest many in the security of the free world. the tools are there. first, there is nothing more encouraging for us than the transatlantic commune it to keep promises before partners and stay strong in unity and solidarity. second, there is nothing more sobering for moscow than result of the breath to enforce its thread lines with a with the sanction. sanction our essence, not liability. the manifestation of our strength are in place, but the manifestation of our weakness if they are rolled back. diplomatic pressure on russia or softening the sanction on russia, it all would be encouraged. why have i speak like that? during the last 24 hours my nation lost three soldiers. 12 were wounded. most of them in --. russian arrtilary hit a civilia house speaker a headquarters and one russian was killed and two were wounded. we should understand what price we pay now. third, there is nothing more inspiring for us as an open and exclusive eu towards europe and allies. european project is much more resilient than the kremlin imagined. the values that lie at the heart of this project exceed the youth by the intimidate european. ukrainians believe in the europe project and it is the europe code. i can tell you that ukraine now is the most european optimistic nation on the european continent and i'm proud to be the leader of such an optimistic nation under present condition. let not repeat dramatic mistake of the past. let's show the rest of the place it deserve. let's again consolidate our unity and solidarity. this is how we can gain the peace in our time and go home to get a nice quiet sleep. thank you. [ applause ] >> so to the extent the ukrainians are the most optimistic, the bar has gotten lower. the uk has helped -- >> let me say something about -- first of all, can i say what a pleasure it is to be here listening to you and i think we're all very moved by the tragedy that is unfolding in your country and just -- it goes without saying, but it's worth saying anyway that the united kingdom is 100% behind you in vidicating the rights of the ukrainian people and the independent of a sovereign ukraine. that's very important to us. i hope everybody's -- i know that goes for everybody else here. but let's be clear. the question that has been asked is rather akin to the questions that you sometimes get in the tabloid newspapers that demand the splash headline of certain tabloid newspapers that demand a certain single overwhelming negative response. is elvis alive and working in munich. can they cure cellulite. were the moon landings faked? these are the kind of questions and that i'm afraid is my answer to which whether the west is the -- whether this is end of the west. it is not the end of the west without wishing to disparage the great bono from whom we heard earlier. i thought it was a fantastic speech, but there is a certain type of character, isn't there, who comes to conferences such as this one and announces that the world is more uncertain and more dangerous and chaotic than ever before and in terminal decline. i want to point out, ladies and gentlemen, it is exactly almost 100 years ago since spangler wrote a book called the "decline of the west". we have since the triumph of what you might call western values, western technology, western culture and indeed western economic thinking with 1 billion people lifted out of poverty, the turn of the millennial and with a proportion of the global population living in poverty having declined to fewer than 10% today from 37% in 1990. even more staggering accomplishment for the human race, when you consider that we have added 1.8 billion people to the planet in that time. and, yes, it is true that that population boom growth particularly in africa and in the middle east is driving poverty, migration and radicalization and extremism that threaten us all, but the answer to those pneumonia is not to throw up our hands and declare that it's all over for the west. the answer is to deal with the root causes of those problems. bad governance and corruption. i think one of the great pan seas is the education of women and some countries i've just been in in asia and africa we have 77% il lit rasy amongst the female population. sort out that and double down on things that unite us. john, it was great to hear earlier what jim mattis had to say about nato and the commitment of the new american commitment to administration of nato and this is not the moment for us to turn our backs on globalization. let's not let globalization become a bad word. let's defend it. let's exalt it. i wonder -- you know what article 5 of nato says, don't you. do you know what article 2 of the washington treaty says? who knows what article 2 of the washington treaty says? here you are. this is the munich security conference. do you know what article 2 of the washington treaty says? does anybody know? it doesn't say spend money, though it should. it says -- very good idea. it says that nato members will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them. isn't that fantastic. did you know that? nato is a charter for free markets and free trade and breaking down economic barriers. you didn't even know that. who needs the eu when you have nato, i sometimes wonder. i say all that -- i say all that when -- i say all that, of course, because it is free trade that has driven our global prosperity. finally, stick up for our common defense. stick up for nato. stick up for global free trade. then we've got to stick up for our values, our western values, which obviously are not geographically located in the west but are universal as senator mccain said. we need to keep promises when we make promises. when people cross red lines and use chemical weapons against their own populations, then they should face a price and we should exact that price. and if one power anexs the territory of another, then we must remain absolutely robust in imposing the sanctions demanded by that kind of aggression because in the end it is the certainty and the stability of the rules based international order of the last 70 years that has created unparalleled, that has been the foundation, the bedrock for unparallel economic grow growth because it's the rule of law that guarantees fairness between people and companies and countries and in the end it's the rule of law that is the foundation of freedom and of prosperity. i will answer the three big questions posed -- that i'm told are floating around in this conference in the corridors like a ghost, the three great questions. the three questions is brexit -- does brexit mean the end of the eu? emphatically not. we may be leaving the eu, but we are not leafing euroving europe. we will remain supportive to our partners. we will be outside the main body of the cathedral, but we'll be there like a flying buttress. we will be there. the second question is are we seeing the object so less ens of nato. again, my answer is absolutely not. we are seeing the beginning of reform and change in nato and certainly a recognition that other countries need to step up to the plate and spend 2% of their gdp on defense as we do. the final question, are we seeing the end of globalization? the answer is emphatically not. we'd be mad to erect commercial barriers between us. wouldn't we? how mad, how foolish we would be. i want you to know there is at least one country represented here today that will shortly as a result of a decision we've recently made be liberated to do free trade deals once again after 44 years with any and all comers around the room and you know where to find us. thank you. where are we going to be? we're going to be in europe geographically and in every other important respect. >> thank you very much. >> the question of the flying buttress outside the european cathedral, are they pointed at you or in the other direction? to the foreign minister please. >> what's going to happen with the plans of the united kingdom government, if they're going to go back to the future or they'll really going to invest in a new way of incorporating with the european union. we'll see. it looks messy to me, but maybe we have an opportunity to find a good relationship and it's in the interest of my country. let me say a few words. first, i'm very energized from john mccain. we came from different sides of the political arena, but it's very key. i visited you in january. i think at this time we need a very strong transatlantic relationship, maybe more than ever. i think we will go through a time of volatility and unclarity. it gives a boost to i think proper more intelligent and directed european cooperation, not only in defense and security, but in some the of the areas that i think the west has to respond if you wish that word better than we've done so far. inclusive globalization. i'll come back to that word in a second. second, i think we are in a very dangerous time. i disagree with boris. we have to be strongly in defense of our open societies at a time of rising authoritarianism, not only outside of our west, but inside our west. i see movements. i see developments in which people are looking for more authoritarian answers within our european and transatlantic community. second if we want to be in defense of open societies, we have to do a lot about it. i'll come back to that in a second. second, i think we have to be in defense of globalization, but i think we have to change what we are doing right now. there's no doubt about it that if we continue the way that we're supporting globalization right now, it either leads to protectionism or it leads to some politics or political economy of a kos month pelite. that will lead to an end of social contracts. what we see is the risk of our social contracts. we do open the economies. my country is completely dependant on trade. the size and openness of our countries, but the openness has always been determined by a social contract. if people have the sense that their governments and their distrust in their politics, which we find in the west if we like it or not, is not properly answering to this, then globalization will be identified with the wrong west in my view. now, the president of poland i think mention ed correctly the death announcement of the so-called liberal order. i don't know if it's the west or a rules based system or maybe there's not a movement from a bipolar or to a multi order, but it's seriously ill. if it's serious ill you can do two things. one, talk to the patient and say you'll be dying anyway. we see the movements. the movements that want to destroy that system. i'm deeply convinced we have movements in our country that want to destroy the west at the moment. we can say you'll die anyway. some people are doing that. i'm very much against. so what do you do to a very ill patient? you basically say change your behavior, depend whfend what yod defend and innovate. realize you also have to change. i think the change are -- they have been put forward to us, but we have to have the trust and the political will to engage it. i see our domestic politics to make sure our international corporation is not something that's perceived for the elite, but is in the direct interest of our citizens. when it comes to conflicts, we have a rule based system, yes, but we have to make sure i think three things. one that they're seen as legitimate by everybody. that means of course the west is now not the only ones who are big. so when it comes to reform of the security council or some of the international intuitions, we'll have to change some of them if they're not seen as legitimate, they will not be effective. that's a legitimacy question on the rules based order. the second is the effectiveness. in some areas -- this is one of the criticism which i understand from many citizens in your country, but we also in mine. we in the european union have gone in the rules and regulations, but it doesn't mean europe is bad. we need a smaller europe that deals with the issues of our citizens. it means the second issue in my view is the transparency and democratic accountability. the issue of are we fit for purpose. and there i think we have to look much more at the concerns that our citizens have otherwise we get a backlash if hn our societies which will reduce the space for international corporation. i think we know the areas. we know the areas around television, around security, around intelligence corporation, about conflict management, about migration that we need to perceive this not as a policy, but something that we cooperate with with all the continents. my answer to the question is this. the west as such of course has to be defined differently than 1944 and 1945. second, we have a lot to defend and many of our values have become universal. third, they have given a lot of profit. there is a big risk to this order and i see that. we can defend and change. if we don't do the same, then i'm pretty pessimistic. >> thank you. thank you very much. i think everybody on the panel agrees with boris if we ask this in the tabloid fashion that the west is not over, but i also think that everyone in different degrees recognizes the nature of threat, the challenges of coordination and unity, the erosion around the edges. there's one thing we haven't discussed directly and i'm going to put that first to senator mccain, which that all of the things i heard in your speech, i did not hear you mention president trump directly. i'm sure that was intentional and, yet, for the people in this audience, he clearly represents a very significant departure to the level of personal commitment and embodiment of a lot of the goals we're all talking about here today. now, what do you say to us after secretary mattis stands up, gives a talk and is very committed to nato and very robust on values, but seems disconnected from what anyone would have heard from trump yesterday or in his first 28 days, how do you not square that circle because i don't think it's squarable, but rather how do you address it? >> i move we adjourn. i believe that if i had been asked to pick the team on national security around president trump, i couldn't have picked a better team. and i think that's very important. >> pre-flynn or post-flynn? >> i think that the flynn issue obviously is something that is -- shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they have a lot of work to do, but i couldn't be happier to have a secretary of defense than general mattis. you're going to see general k kellke kelly. is an outstanding individual. so the president i think makes statements that on other occasions he contradicts himself. so some of us have learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says. and some of his actions we need boarder security. we need to try to stop the flow of illegal drugs that is eating away at our society that's coming across our southern boarder. we need to build our military. i'm telling you now the last eight years have evis rated our military and its capability. there was an article yesterday that two-thirds of our f-18 aren't flying. the congress shares this called sequestration. the president has promised to rebuild our military and we need it. my job is to work with the president on areas that we ag e agree. on areas we disagree, i will speak up and maybe occasionally be the subject of a tweet in the middle of the night. but i do think it's also to point out one final note. our constitution says that our government is three co-equal branchs, judicial, legislative and executive. i can assure you that the legislative branch and obviously for what we just saw on the immigration order that both the legislative and the judicial branch will be exercising our constitutional responsibilities. >> so watch what the president does, watch what america does, not what they say. we've seen a lot from the united states not just from the president, but in previous administration on things like refugees, on coordination with the europeans, on the middle east. how comfortable do you feel with both that formulation as well as where we're heading as a consequence of that? >> well, definitely the sense that we still have in my country and in europe is one of unclarity and insecurity. there is a new style of leadership. there is a democratically elected president. and of course you see a lot of anticipation in what direction that policy should go and there is some confusion. but let's be very clear. i as the foreign minister of my country is not judging a man that is democratically elected. i play the ball and i do that on the basis of the values and interest that we have as a nation and a european union. i think it is of great interest that we work together and i was just impressed by the meetings we had today in the context of the g-20 where i saw -- we were talking about the end of the west and it's interesting because in that context you have not only the west, it's with china and india, these enormous countries and with russian federation. although this big differences and anticipation on what happened, it is interesting that there's still this urge to find a compromise because nobody wants to fight in a conflict with the last syrian or nobody wants in the end in trade to go to the last protectionist measure. there is a capacity to work together and i notice in a very good conversation that we had with secretary of state tillerson, his engagement as the president of ukraine said of the importance of the agreement and i applaud that. we need that. we were talking about united nations sponsored discussions in geneva with a new emphasis and a new also to criticize the russian federation and syria when all opposition is simply seen as terrorist. i find this an important point. in the middle east process, it's for us not to anticipate and wait. i respect a new president. we shouldn't wait and just see and comment. we are politicians and we base our politics on some concerns, but also on hope and on our values and interests. there i think we have to invest in that corporation in a time that also in europe that's not mistaken. also in my country, democratic elections, different styles of leadership. we also have parties in my parliament that will be pretty close to some of the views not only of president trump, but others. this is the way we have to deal with this, with confidence, realizing that the world has been much more insecure. based on our interests and principals, let's invest in that. that's the importance of this conference as well. >> boris, one can say that the west is fine and globalization, of course, persists, and yet to the extent you have reactions from countries around the world that feel different, you still have to address it and you've seen in asia countries that seem to be less aligned with the united states than they were a few years ago. you see in europe a slipping away from some of the democratic principals and even free market principals that you espouse. >> where have you seen that? >> i'm thinking of turkey, but it is less like your vision of europe today than it was five years ago. if you're standing here as one of the most articulate propon t proponents, what are you seeing what's happening both within the eu and outside of it, they're saying we're worried. what we're seeing and hearing we looking for more alternative models. how do you respond to that? >> i think they would be way, way too pessimistic and, yes, i'm not going to deny -- i don't think we disagree about this. the world has been going through a very difficult time and global conflict is rising again, but it is rising i'm afraid largely because of the failures of collective failures of our governments to deal with the problem, to scotch it at the beginning we failed to deal with the syrian crisis in a way we might have done. we stepped back. that did not happen under the new trump administration. there all sorts of crisis. look at what's happened in ukraine. that didn't happen under the current administration. those are the crisis that effect us. now, yes, of course, there will be a certain amount of plaster that comes off the ceiling when these executive orders are issued. we had one the other day as you know about a travel ban with which the uk government did not agree and we had to talk to the white house and to the trump administration to try and hammer it into a bit of a shape there. we won't necessarily agree on everything, but this is a guy -- i appreciate what john mccain says about his team. he has a fantastic team around him. all the conversations that burt and i have been having with rex tillerson over the last couple of days have been reassuring. rex clearly understands and has thought deeply about some of the conflicts that everybody is now looking to the u.s. to address, particularly yemen, libya and of course syria and iraq. i am optimistic about this, folks. not of least because i have no option, but give -- what i would say to you is give these guys and give donald trump a chance. yes, it's a new style of government, but don't underrate the capacity for a new approach to deliver results. >> so you may say you have no option, but of course the person here who truly has no option is the president. he's in on the west such as it is right now. when you see brexit and when you see the changes in turkey, when you see some of the changes in eastern europe, a huleadership that is aligned with putin, how do you think about the west? what do you think the west stands for and is it okay? can ukraine live with a more transactional west or does ukraine require that europe comes together much more on these shared values, the things that our dutch foreign minister colleague was so concerned about? >> thank you very much. indeed, i tell you one thing. this is absolutely impossible to be the president of the country in a state of war and not to be an optimist. not to believe in the victory. truth is with us. freedom, democracy is with us. that's why i have no doubt that victory will be with us. victory, i mean political and diplomatic means. when i told that we are one of the most european optimistic nation, this is just explanation that me personally and most of my nation strongly believe that the main events at the beginning of the 21st century was the creation and the effective functioning of the european union. no doubt. this is our difference from russia because if you ask president putin what was the main events, the answer was the collapse of the soviet union. different universe. not simply different ideology, different universe. with that situation, again i'm proud to be the leader of my nation who strongly believes, 77% of ukraine and now strongly believe in the european union and european values. that's why we do more reforms during the last 2 1/2 years than the previous 25 years. this reform is extremely difficult, extremely unpopular, but ukraine and people are still supporting and believe in the european future and in the european values. sorry. >> no, no. we're backing you. >> when you're at war, you get more on the panel. that's true. >> absolutely. >> it's true. >> i think that the destabilization is a disaster. right now in your presence i receive information that russian backed militants 20 minutes ago hit the building. lots of wounded. civilians. 20 minutes ago. why do they open fire against my civilians. they want to have a ukraine in russian empire. we never, ever accept that. do you know why? because we believe not only in the european union, but also in european unity and solidarity. i am confident made european voters much more responsible in their choice. that's why me and i don't afraid any election in european union. >> thank you. >> you know why? because i believe in the european union. >> thank you, sir. >> that's the case. >> john, real quick. >> can i make one brief comment? >> one more thing, on the 31st of december, me together with senator mccain was exactly on the frontline in our fighting with russian troops together with my marines. >> we saw the brave ukrainian troops who have not received the assistance from the united states as far as defensive weaponry is concerned. look, i agree to be emotional. i saw this president give a medal to a mother, a mother, whose son had just been killed by a russian sniper. it was cold. all the soldiers were around. and the mother stood there and tears flowed down her face. russians are killing ukrainians every single day. they are killing them. and i believe that it's going to get worse because i believe that it's going to be a time of testing for this administration, whether it be in the south china sea or whether it be in the middle east or whether it be in ukraine and this is a time for us to show solidarity. one of the countries that i think is going to come under some pressure is yours. >> there's no question that the ukrainian issue is one of the key lynch pins that would lead to this panel to begin with over the past years and questions around the trump administration and russia have been and will be exercising issues of what the west stands for for quite some time. before -- we have a bunch of good questions and i want to go to the audience before we see the chinese foreign minister, but the final question given that's whose coming, i wanted to ask you since you talked about the divisions inside the west and one thing i thought was very interesting to see announced is an upcoming eu/china summit. we know on the economic front nato as an article that deals with economics, but nato's not writing big checks. the chinese are. it was the uk looking for those checks a few years ago and there are others in europe that are as well. it was the chinese that were giving speeches that would have sounded like they came from american presidents. if you're poland today thinking about the future of your role in the global economy, how much does the west play as opposed to china's writing big checks, we have to engage with them. is it easy to balance those things or do you have to start actively thinking about what a strategy looks like that can't be all eu as a consequence? >> it's not very easy. it's not very easy because globalization is a fact and we have really two big powers in economy worldwide, yes. united states and china. and if we talk about security and the future about the development in the future, in my opinion it's very difficult to imagine safety and united europe without united states. it's impossible to imagine. look at the history. of 20th century, two big world wars, first world war, the second world war, every war started in europe here was the beginning of the first world war and the second world war. united states, america, was far away, but they had to -- finally they had to take part in that war. hundreds of thousands of young american boys died in europe and other places in the world, especially during the second world war, yes. so if i discuss with american generals a few weeks ago about the situation of security in europe, about the results of war, so nato summit, about implementing those decisions, i said you can't leave europe. your soldiers, your troops are absolutely needed here. so i'm very happy as the president of poland that you are here on our soil, a few thousand of american soldiers, the biggest country of nato, and when i think about the security of europe in europe, i think great britain is a crucial partner of our security here. and this is -- this is the problem of security, but it's connected with economy. so of course we would like to create a good business with america and the european union, of course, but also in asia, with china. but we have to be very careful and we have to look at our interests especially. >> thank you, sir. so it's -- >> in our part of the world because i want to see us as a unity -- as a union, not as a group of separate countries. >> mr. president. >> so let me go to a couple of questions from the audience. first we have a munich young leader, parliamentary from ukraine. >> your excellencesies, i have a question to whoever may answer it. in 2008, ukraine and georgia asked for an action plan. two european states blocked the decision under the condition that it will escalate the situation in the region. instead, we received full fledged wars, first in georgia and then in ukraine. now, ukrainian president has mentioned already after refusing our nuclear weapon, the budapest received it. now my question is would you agree that this type of western reaction actually, in fact, instigated the hybrid war? thank you. >> who wants to take it? >> well, let me just have a -- thank you. >> i bet senator mccain will take it. look, if you're asking whether the -- the declaration led to hybrid warfare by russia against ukraine and indeed against others, i'm not certain that's the case. i think very likely it would have happened anyway and i think that as petro has said there's a tendency in the kremlin these days and i think you see all sorts of stuff going on. you see french tvs being messed around with and all sorts of plots being hatched by russia. now whether that's attributable to what happened i very much doubt it. we have to deal with it. nato has to think about the reality of hybrid warfare and cyber warfare do require us to think about article five and how we come to each other's defense in the event of hybrid and cyber warfare. what are the triggers. how do we -- what is the logic of retaliation and deterrence in the case of cyber warfare. do we respond? how can we respond? how do we know who is doing it and how do we identify cyber warfare without giving away information. these are questions we need to grapple with as military power is projected in a different way. >> take one more herein the fro front. >> thank you very much. i wanted to thank senator mccain. i would hope that more leaders in europe will be as direct and open in support the claim of the people of ukraine and support the president. i would like to talk to the foreign minister of the uk that the word liberation in the history of europe has a very strong meaning and in these challenging times we are talking about liberating britain from the european union is just bad taste. thank you. [ applause ] >> come on. i have to say -- i hesitate -- i hesitate to accuse you of pomposity, but the word liberation is equivalent to being free. it's an undeniable fact that the uk has been unable to run its trade policy for 44 years. we now have the opportunity to do exactly that. i think people should be proud and excited about that and that is what we are. i want to reclaim the english language, if i may. there's absolutely no reason why i should not use the word liberation to refer to our ability to take back control of our tariff schedules in geneva and do our own free trade deals. i'm going to disagree with you. >> we're -- >> no, no. >> we have a question in front. please, sir. >> thank you for your speech, senator. i was very inspired from this vision and i think it's very important now to have new ideas for the future. but i think perhaps we have also to look a step forward, not only seeing our interest, that's good, okay, but to solve the problems of the world, we have to go forward to look on the common good of the world. we've heard the speech of bono, but it was a little bit like a priest, but he's right, i think. i am not naive. we have to look on the different interests, battles and problems, but also to develop visions a little bit more forward. what is the common good of the world? can we see the interests of the others? what are their plans? what are the benefits for them? not only for us and i think you talked about the g-20. there is another community to look what are the interests of the whole world, how can we come together, not share our values with others, not defend only our values against others, but how can we share our values with others? how can we find ways to share our values? i don't want to criticize foreign politicians. that's not good, but in this circle perhaps i admit i was very shocked from this first speech of the president of the united states. i heard it and i was shocked. and to think also in another level of the others, i will give him a chance. we will give him a chance. that was very hard to hear and to have a vision also for the future. thank you. >> maybe just a few words because i think it's absolutely key what you're saying. if we are all saying our own country first in a way that it can be interpreted as sort of protectionism where our own values are the best and the rest is nothing and we forget the enormous investment that is needed in international public goods like climate and security, like dealing with some of the major conflicts in the world, we are nowhere. i think when you really look at the issues today, in defense of universal rights means in defense of our rights in terms of democracy and the rule of law and i think that's key. therefore we shouldn't say if there's corruption in africa or in france or in my country it makes any difference. corruption is corruption. i am opposed by the fact, i've worked four years as the head of a peace keeping operation in africa, four years, i have never seen a decade, but the last in the time i'm in politics in the last 20, 25 years, where a complete lack of interest for the protection of civilians and international humanitarian law has gone as far as we see right now. countries are ready to fight to the last syrian, until the last yemenite just because of the type of new conflict we have refer to the fact that they start from inclusion and it becomes proxy and it becomes regional interest and then it becomes lack of global willingness to cooperate. yes, we have to make sure that we're not just working as the elate th eli elite, but to make them for the community of nations. this is not naive ideaism. we have to invest on this. that's what a generation of people ask for. the anger in the world is simply at the moment being misused and instrumentalized by our own people of the world. we didn't mention that today. terror has to do with ideology, not with poverty necessarily. with ideology. it's the politics of hatred and we have to find answers to that. >> just as briefly as i can, thank you. second of all, there are different aspects of this struggle. one, of course, is what we've been talking a lot about, russian aggressive behavior, iran, set raet are yet cetera .e the other is this motivation that motivates young people to go out and take the lives of others. in both cases we need to understand there's also an information war going on here which is facilitated by devices like these. social networking is having an effect that none of us really ever had contemplated. young people today in the united states don't own a television set. they get their information off the internet. so i would just mention the way we won the cold war was by having strong defense capabil y capabilities and nato was the bedrock of that. the other way we won was the voice of america. how many millions said i listened to it. i heard the voice of america. i heard radio free europe. i was there. i know who that was. so we've got to spend a lot more time and you can be helpful in this in telling people giving them the information they need to fight back against the incredible innovation that inunaddition that's going on right now of information and propaganda from both the ideological aspect and also the russians. >> if everyone would please now join me in welcoming the chinese foreign minister please. [ applause ] >> very nice to see you. >> glad to see you again. >> thank you very much. >> i speak chinese so please put on. you can enjoy another language. [ speaking chinese ] >> translator: terrorism remains a great threat, on top of that there is the unbalanced and weak world economy rising geo conflicts, deteriorating refugee crisis set back in globalization and regional integration process. a long list of new challenges. so what is wrong with the world today? this is a question, a question -- a major question that bears on the future of m mankind. we have seen a plethora of views and opinions. i'm sure that just now you had a lively discussion on this issue as far as i understand some say that economic globalization is to blame for the many problems we face and there should be a return to protectionism and isolatism. some say the world is less existing international order and system should be scrapped and start anew. some say that terrorism cannot be rooted out and there will be a new round of regional conflict and clash of civilization and some people say that the differences between established countries and emerging countries are ir rek con sighable and there are more chances for conflicts and even wars in the world, but there is a saying in china history informs us, the rise and fall of diynasties and nations. throughout history time and time again we had come to the cross roads of survival of human being and time and time again we had to make historic choice between peace and war, cooperation and confrontation, openness and closeness, choices that have had far reaching implications. when the right choice was made, the world embraced peace and development. when the wrong choice was made, it entailed fire and blood. the two world wars of last century are the most recent and costly lessons. perhaps maybe we are now standing again at a historical cross roads, but this time what is different is that we are in a world that country's interests are so closely entintertwined a we are tied up in each other's future. we may not be able to afford any mistake in all types of viewpoints. we can adopt an open attitude and encourage full debate to inspire vigorous exchange of ideas, but when it comes to decisions and choices, we must be extra careful and thoughtful. china cannot and will not stand on the sideline. earlier this year the president delivered two important speeches articulating china's perspectives. a central message of the president is countries should remain committed to openness, inclusiveness and cooperation and cannot back pedal and go backward. without the future of the world, the president put forward this community of shared future and shared results. while this is china's solution that china put forward based on the study of history and the trend of the times and set store by the common and long term interests of mankind and has been warmly received, we believe that globalization is not a dreadf dreadful monster and we would not blame globalization for all the problems we face. we need to steer it and work on it so that it will become more balanced, inclusive, more sustainable and deliver more benefits. we believe the world has not allowed order. the international order and system after the second world war are still playing a key and irreplaceable role in obtaining peace and world development and that should be upheld and maintained. we believe that there is no one size fits all development path or model and there is no so-called end of history. for all model they should be based on national reality and supported by the people and countries need to work with a spirit of mutual respect to learn from each other and draw from each other's strengths and achieve common progress. we believe that terrorism and other kinds of global challenges are not insurmountable. we need to find the root causes and to address them effectively through international corporation and comprehensive governance. we believe that peace and development are still the mainstream of today's world as countries truly observe the purposes and principals of the un chatter, disputes could be addressed through peaceful means and conflict and confrontation can be avoided and win/win cooperation can be achieved. ladies and gentlemen, at geneva the president gave an analogy. he hopes an analogy. he hopes we can make for the world an exquisite swiss army knife, whenever there is a problem, we can fix it with one of the tools of this knife. i believe that in the tool kit at our disposal, there are quite some tools that are carefully designed by countries that crystallize collective wisdom that have been proven effective. and they can be used to solve all kinds of challenges facing the world today. of course, in this process, we need to pay attention to make sure that they work in coordination and work with each other, not against each other. and we also need to be creative and improve them along the way. first we need to remain committed to multilateralism. history tells us time and again, self-centered unilateralism will bring more trouble. multilateralism is the pathway to peace, development and solution of global issues. after the second world war, countries have learned the hard lesson, and designed and built collectively the multilateral framework mechanism. the united nations is no doubt the core and pillar of that system. china directly involved in the founding of the u.n., and is the first country to put its signature on the u.n. charter. for the past over 70 years, many multilateral institutions represented by the u.n. have worked relentlessly for world peace and human development. and have achieved historical progress. for the many conflicts and confrontations we face, they happen because of the deviation from the u.n. charter purposes. and the universally recognized basic norms are not observed. therefore, 70 years later, multilateralism is still the most effective tool and effort for us to address problems. it is not obsolete, and far from that, it could be carried forward. at this interesting time, the authority of the united nations should be upheld, not undermined. its role should be strengthened, not weakened. we need to be more firm in maintaining the principles of the u.n. charter, with the security mechanism defined by the u.n. charter, and further elevate the governance capability and effectiveness of the united nations. second, we need to strengthen cooperation among major powers. countries, they go small, are all equal. at the same time, big countries have more resources and more capabilities. they have the responsibility and also the obligation to play a greater role in maintaining international peace and security and make more contributions to human development and progress. at all times, if major powers get along, the world enjoys peace and stability. otherwise, the world will be in chaos and conflict. facing all kinds of global challenges, big countries should be set by peace and development and work together to free from the world from troubles instead of go their own ways, and serve a self-interest or even go into confrontation. china is a responsible major country. we are ready to have this peaceful co-existence, sincere cooperation with all countries. china-u.s. relationship is the most important -- one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world. this year is the 45th anniversary of the shanghai communique and reopening of communication. in the past u.s.-china cooperation has been more of the expectation of the most optimistic people. history has shown that we have far more common interests than differences. cooperation is required for global stability and prosperity, but also the aspiration of the chinese-american people. five days ago president xi jinping and president trump had an important and successful conversation. the two sides affirmed the importance of the u.s.-china relations to both countries and the world. president trump clearly affirmed u.s. government's commitment to the one china policy. the important consensus has maintained the political foundation for u.s.-china relations in the international community. and also, created necessary conditions for the two countries to work together bilaterally at the regional level and at the global level. we are ready to work with the united states, guided by the principle of nonconfrontation, nonconflict, mutual respect and cooperation, increase communication and focus on cooperation, manage differences, so that china-u.s. relationship can bring more benefits to the chinese and american people, and the broader world. the china-russian strategic partnership of cooperation is an important cornerstone to maintain international strategic balance and global stability. this year president putin will go to china twice. president xi jinping will also visit russia. chi chi china-russia relations will coordinate negotiations with the united states and russia, to promote constructive interactions among the three countries so that we can contribute more positive energy to world peace and development. what china has always valued the strategic standing role of europe have been china's priority. in its diplomacy. and we will work with the eu to build on the four partnerships. but we need to improve global governance. this is the right way to address imbalances in the world's development, and realize sustainable growth of the world economy. we need to place development, openness, and innovation on a more prominent place. we must not reject economic globalization simply because of its side effects. we need to pursue international cooperation, address issues like poverty, unemployment, and widening depth of income. we need to implement 2030 agenda, and jointly steer economic globalization towards greater balance. we need to upgrade and improve global governance systems so it can we flect the equivalency of power and give emerging markets and developing countries greater representation and say. china is actively participating in global governance. last september, president xi jinping chaired a successful g20 summit. for the first time, innovation was identified as the driving force for global recovery. structural reform was recognized as the major approach. for the first time development was placed high on the agenda of global macro policy coordination. at apec meetings in 2017, president xi continued to call for more inclusive and universally beneficial economic globalization. he raised the chinese proposals for advancing the building of an opening economy. these strong messages have helped to increase people's confidence in the future. we need to firmly advance all types of regional cooperation processes. since the second half of the last century, regional cooperation of various types have been emerging, like bamboo shoots after a spring rain. such interactions have brought countries closer to each other and cooperation has expanded common interests. regional cooperation has been proved to be conducive to the world's development. of all regional cooperation processes, long after world war ii, the european integration has the earliest start, the fastest development and most remarkable achievements. it follows the trend of the times and has made important contributions to the polarity of the world. it's run into some difficulties at the moment, but these problems will be addressed in the process of moving forward. china hopes to see a united, stable, and prosperous european union and more active role of the eu in international affairs. china has always been advocating and promoting regional cooperation. in 2013, president xi jinping raised the road initiative. this is so far the biggest public good china has provided to the international community. it is also the most welcomed international cooperation initiative in the world. the purpose is to enhance connectivity of policies, infrastructure, trade, capital flow and people-to-people exchange, to enforce the strengths of countries and narrow the regional gap. and to speed up regional integration and boost common development and prosperity of eurasian countries and the region. the initiative has been raised for three years. the speed and outcomes of building the belton road have exceeded expectation. over 100 countries and international organizations have expressed positive and active response and support. it will be an important contribution of china to global cooperation and govern nance. we believe the forum will be a full success, so that the belton road will deliver more benefits to the world. ladies and gentlemen, 2017 is important for china's development. the communist party of china will have its 19th national congress. our development plan is being implemented with solid efforts. china will continue to manage well its own affairs, from reform across the board, open up wider to the world, continue to promote world peace, contribute to global development and uphold multilateralism, so that china's own development, china will make new contributions to peace and development of the mankind. this is my remarks. thank you so much for listening. [ applause ] >> i'm afraid we only have time for a quick question. but given that this is the security conference, you've covered the world. but haven't talked about north korea. and of course, we have seen a lot from them of late. both some missiles being shot off and continued people around the leader getting killed. we'd love to hear the chinese response and thoughts on how to handle north korea going forward. >> translator: it is being hotly debated around the world. what i want to say is, to address the nuclear issue on the korean peninsula. there have always been two main pathways. one is dialogue, second confrontation. but if we look back at what we have experienced during the past decades from 2003 to 2009, negotiations have been ongoing on the nuclear issue on the peninsula. there had been setbacks and ups and downs, but so long as there was negotiation, the nuclear development was under effective management and control. and the overall stability on the peninsula was upheld. however, ever since 2009, the six-party talks suffered a deadlock, and what we've been seeing ever since then, the nuclear issue on the peninsula has embarked on the track of confrontation. and there we've been seeing nuclear tests, and then sanctions, and sanctions, then nuclear tests. this is a bad circle. and it should be stopped. because the ultimate result of such circle could be a lose-lose result for all parties. and no one can bear the outcomes. we believe that there are still opportunities for the resumption of the six-party talks. we still hope for peace. surely we need to earnestly and strictly implement full security and consult resolutions, especially since the recent 2217, and the 2231. these will enable us to effectively hold back the nuclear development of the dprk. while at the same time we must never let go efforts to resume the talks and negotiations. this is also inconsistent with the security council resolutions. that is why we hope all parties concerned will refrain from taking further actions that may lead to escalations of tensions. all parties concerned should actively explore possibilities of making break-throughs in addressing the problem. we should work to bring back all parties concerned to the negotiation table. the united states and the dprk are the most -- are two major parties concerned. they must make decisive political decisions as quickly as they can. for china, as the biggest neighbor of the dprk, we will play a constructive role and do the mediation work as necessary. >> i want to thank you very much. for your presentation, having the chinese view here at the end of the debate about the future of the west. i think it was a great idea. thank you so much. thank you very much. and let me thank the panelists. [ applause ] you've done a great job. mr. president. >> thank you. >> our moderator. >> thank you very much. tonight on "american history tv" in primetime, a look at u.s.-soviet relations. beginning at 8:00 eastern, historians discuss the cold war summits between the united states and the soviet union from 1985 to 1991. that will be followed by 1958 u.s. information agency film explaining different forms of communist propaganda. at 10:15, u.s. air force academy instructor captain jeffrey copeland will teach a class on the use of american jazz musicians as ambassadors in africa during the cold war. we'll round out the night with a commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the 1991 nun luger act with remarks from former senators sam nunn and richard luger, tonight at 8:00 eastern, here on c-span3. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, this saturday morning at 9:30 eastern, we're live from the library of virginia in richmond for an all-day symposium on civil war monuments, the history of their construction in the north and south and how public perception of confederate monuments has changed. at 8:00, hampton sidney college professor on how the rise of tobacco consolidated the power of wealthy virginia planters in the 17th century. >> instead of accepting the price that the random ship captain might have to offer me, i'm instead going to send the tobacco over to england on my own account, and i'm going to pay a commission to someone to market it there for me. this developing consignment trade ties larger planters of virginia and maryland to these english merchants, most of them in london. >> sunday at noon on oral histories, with econtinue with our series of interviews with prominent african-american women from the explorations in black history oral history collection. dorothy hight served from 1957 to 1998, and received a presidential medal of freedom and congressional gold medal. >> i grew up, and even in my religious experience working with people of different religious backgrounds with the feeling of the importance of openness, and how much each one of us contributes to the other, that there's no superior, no inferior. >> and at 8:00 on the presidency, historian katherine clinton talks about what happened to president lincoln's family after his assassination. >> the morning of may 19th, convinced his mother might do herself harm, and prodded by a team of medical and legal experts, robert lincoln filed an affidavit to have his mother tried on charges of mental incompetence. she could be held against her will due to, quote, insanity. >> for our complete "american history tv" schedule, go to c-span.org. the british house of commons held a debate recently on whether president trump should make a state visit to the uk. a week after he took office, british prime minister theresa may invited president trump for an official state visit to the uk which is scheduled for later this year. during that debate, several members called on the government to downgrade the state visit with all the pageantry to a regular bilateral visit.

Related Keywords

Shanghai , China , Turkey , Syria , Russia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Richmond , Virginia , United States , Ukraine , India , Stockholm , Sweden , Netherlands , Nowa , Dolnoslaskie , Poland , Libya , Switzerland , Georgia , Moscow , Moskva , Germany , Munich , Bayern , Iran , Washington , Kremlin , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Hampton , Iraq , Budapest , Hungary , Geneva , Genè , Maryland , North Korea , Yemen , France , Warsaw , L67 , Polish , Americans , Ukrainians , Chinese , Russian , Britain , French , Yemenite , Ukrainian , Soviet , Dutch , Russian Federation , British , Swiss , Syrian , Russians , American , Theresa May , Zsa Gabor , Sam Nunn , Katherine Clinton , Jeffrey Copeland , Robert Lincoln , States America , Jim Mattis , Rex Tillerson , William Faulkner , Richard Luger , John Kelly , John Mccain , Boris Johnson ,