Transcripts For CSPAN3 Trump Administration Foreign Policy 20170509

All right. Im the assistant managing editor for politics at the los angeles times. I do lots of work usc and even though im a berkeley grad, i manage to come to usc all the time. I was just here for fest valve books over the weekend. Thank you for being here. I hope its been a great conference. I have actually been on maternity leave. Im just finishing up and going back to work next week. Its been really interesting for me to sort of absorb President Trumps first 100 days not covering it. Im looking what the my colleagues are doing and all the analysis here is very important for everybody at this marker. So without further ado, im going toinlt deuce this panel. Starting with robert english. Hes an associate professor of International Relations here at uc and he previously served as a policiantively for the department of defense. Joel pollack, am i pronouncing that correct sfli hes the Senior Editor at large for an in House Counsel for brightbart. He also is the awe thofr a book you may have seen out there. That is called how trump won. The inside story of a revolution. Lori brand, robert granford wright professor of International Relations and middle east study. John emerson is the former u. S. Ambassador to germany, serving from 2013 to 2017 an he was working with the Clinton White house from 1993 to 1997 as deputy assistant. And soarer writer, political spont for vanity fair and politco. So i think it does kind of make sense to start with a grade of President Trump. I would love toerve weigh in on. This but specifically, you how you would grade President Trumps first 100 days on Foreign Policy. If you can, start with something that has been handled well and something that he could have done better. I decided that i would try to dodge the question the way you put it when sent to me in advance. Because, well, its easy to say its too early to give grades. Obviously we have some initial steps. But the second was im not sure that we agree on the template for grading. What i have in mind is if most of the political elite believes, a good grade, movement in the right direction would be a return from compress s expressing admiration for putin and optimism about working together and skepticism about traditional policy alliances and so forth. To turn away from that and come back to the center, then what weve seen so far, although its donald trump and he is nothing if not protian and constant should be encouraging. What were speaking about, there has been less praise of putin although there was never much except saying hes a strong leader. That still irritated people greatly. There was the declaration that, no, nato is not obsolete after all. And indealed following through with the policy begun under the Previous Administration of reinforcing an upgrading these brigades, our military presence in poland and the baltics. What else . The Cruise Missile strike on sear yashgs on the airfield from which its alleged the chemical weapon attack occurred a week earlier. Something that seems to have infuriated the russians, something that after all again assad is their ally. They would proceed with another round of this joint venture this joint exploration project that had been signed and begun before the conflict in the ukraine. And so exxon mobil want aid waiver to go forward. They were denied. So those who want to see trump return to the center traditional Foreign Policy will also, of course, heartened by the departure of general flynn. The apparently lessened influence of stephen bannon. But beyond that, i dont know what to make of it and my grade is so provisional. We have like 5 of the course work in here. I probably shouldnt go on at great length. If youll give me one more minute. Id say the following. Im waiting to see most importantly what comes from the house and Senate Intelligence Community Investigations and the on going fbi inquiry into potential, the possibility of collusion with russian intelligence with the russian government in the election itself. The hacking and timing of the releasest emails to embarrass the Clinton Campaign. Without prejudging what might come out of them although i would say lots of smoke, not much fire, ervverything hinges. That and never has russia policy been so tied to what happens in american domestic politics and what happens in washington. Its impossible to assess what hes doing out therein dependently of what is happening in d. C. If those investigations produce a smoking gun, then everything changes. In other words, its a series of xan scandals or misdeeds of the stuff we saw after the iraq invasion and the reconstruction and the no bid halliburton contracts and the rest. Well thats bad. It wouldnt necessarily tie trumps hands in seeking at a later date to change direction with russia and try to find some accord on syria, some kind of deal to end the ukraine conflict. Thats a lot more than he wanted but now ill be quiet. Nice groundwork for the things were discussing to day. You touched on a lot of the really big issues with trumps foreign poll sichlt well be taking your questions from the audience as well at the conclusion of our panel. I assume you have a slightly different assess ment. Great question. I would give trump an a in Foreign Policy. And i would do that because he has been singular effective in Foreign Policy in a way he has been in no other area of his presidency. If you look at the things he has strugled to do, most of them have been in areas where he is stifled by congress or by the courts. Where so hes running up against the other branches of government which is how our system is supposed to work. But in Foreign Policy, the president has a fairly free hand. There hes been very effective. One of the most important things and i twloet before the election that its important for the next president to do is to restore americas strategic advantage which had declined over the course of the obama years. Also somewhat over the bush years for different reasons. With bush there was a diplomatic decline as a result of the mess in iraq. There is slow attrition of the military and leading from behind strategy, the restoration of relations with rogue regimes. All of this served to undercut americas effectiveness and strengthen the world stage. And he has established the leverage of the United States dealing with great powers, not just small countries but with adversaries potentially. There have been some surprises. He has been friendlier towards china. But its easy to be friendly when youre bombing syria over a piece of chocolate cake. I mean hes used different aspects of his Foreign Policy like the syrian air strikes in order to advance a policy agenda with china that is about much more than the middle east and certainly not even primarily about the middle east but about trade and north korea. That is the only way to claw back that strategic advantage that was lost over the last decade. When you cant build up your military and navy quickly, although he said he wanted to do it. Not much has been done on that in the first 100 days. Takes a long time. He wont be able to build up that navy that he wants any time soon n the meantime, he can regain the advantage by being unpredictable. One criticism is hes starting to follow the path of george w. Bush by engaging in the middle east. That was an early criticism that happened right after the syrian air strikes. It was contingent of strumtrump supporters that felt he was swayed by various adviceors. Its difficult to know what the advisors are saying. I dont think anyone can presume to know on Foreign Policy what Steve Bannons views are. His views line up closely with the Trump Administration in terms of the action. So its very hard to read the tea leaves in terms who have is having what discussions and so i dont even bother. Continuing certain aspects of existing policies and so the Trump Administration was careful to say were not sending lots of Ground Troops there. So they kind of nulified that for a while. I did some writing about israel and the israeli conflict and there was this sense when Trump Took Office that anything was possible. That this terrible relationship that had come about over eight years of obama deterioration of ties between the two governments could be reversed. It could reset the chess boards in the middle east. There is criticism hes fallen back on patterns of Previous Administrations, for example, prioritizing a peace accord. That is something that every administration has done and failed to achieve largely, i mean we can get into the reasons why. I dont want to start an argument. We have many things to argue b lets noted that to the list. This wlo is this person that works for konld lisa rice and so on. Theyre relying on people with experience from Previous Administrations and there is concern among conservatives who supported him that he lost some of the initial edge, some of that initial, if you want, power of surprise that he had. When he came into office, nobody knew anything. The palestinians didnt know who to call. They didnt have a phone number for anybody in the white house. So they panicked for several weeks before somebody reached out to them. This is the case for many people. I remember i was covering an event with the australian ambassador a few days after trump won and they just did not know what to make of it. And they were trying to put a brave a face on it as possible. And awe stral dwra ya say close ally. They were nervous about the damage they had done to relationship with the new administration through all the things they said during the campaign. So given that uncertainty, there was a moment where trump was expected to do all the unbelievable things. You can understand his behavior by understanding almost everything does he is a negotiating process. And i write a lot about negotiations and i have to say that in a major Foreign Policy for us in the administration, hes done everything a good negotiator would do to obtain better results, more leverage and ultimately the outcomes he wants to achieve. So i would give him an a. Still tlots do. I read it in terms of flipflops and turn abouts and every administration being unprepared for the actual foreign poll sichlt i think his negotiating instincts guided him very well so far. Professor . So i think ill follow my professor colleague who sort of declined to give a grade. Its an odd thij to do. I would prefer not to do. That you asked if we could talk about one thing we think is done especially well and one thing that hasnt been done particularly well. I would like to rephrase it a bit and just say a couple things where there is actually a pull back from position thats were staked out during the campaign and that i see the pull back or the revision of position as being a positive. Two things that President Trump promised to do was done on day one and neither have been done. I that i is very important. One was the promise to move the u. S. Embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. Then its one this is always back add way from. It gave him an opportunity to exercise a six month waiver if he or she feels it to be in the u. S. Interest. And so in any case this was one of the things that i think many i think that is an important change. It doesnt contribute at all to, you know, improving u. S. Relations in the region. It would not have gotten any attempted discussions about future palestinians and israeli relation offs with the United States involved to particularly good start. The other that was the president also promised on the first day he was going to tear up the Nuclear Accord with iran. Hes back add way from that. Immediately there after we learned who his appointees are for Major National security or Foreign Policy posts and heard them as they began to make public statements that there was a real difference clearly among the various Foreign Policy actors and you had tillerson and madison in particular who i think in various ways said that we need to wait and see. Mattis said the United States has signed an agreement. We have to show people that United States wont back away from the agreements. But there was no Movement Forward to tear up the agreement. Trump himself has just recently made a statement saying that he felt iran was not keeping with the spirit of the accord but there is a back away from tearing it up. Ill limit myself to two comments. One, it has to do with the president s decision to congratulate turkey for his winning the election. For those that follow turkey, this is a referendum on gutting whatever remained of turkish democracy. Turkey has for the last several years, the analysts, turkey has taken what was called an authoritarian turn and has become increasingly severe since last january. And what can only be called, i think, purges have taken place in various parts of the turkish state and also in the universities. Its been a hollowing out of just some of the turkeys best and brightest. The muscling and complete crock down on the Turkish Press is dreadful. While its one thing for an administration to decide its not going to use human Rights Advocacy as one of the positions, its another to come out and support with someone who is clearly turning turkey into a police state. The second thing i would mention which didnt have to do with the normal regional realm or specifically that which is the middle east, concerns the executive order that the president signed to ban federal money going to International Groups that perform or provide information about abortion. If the president is moved about it dreadful sight of syrian men, will, children would were gassed, then we need to think also about the number of women who will die from illegal or unsafe abortions as a result of the direct impact and in tl are plenty of studies that demonstrate this from the executive order. Ill add a follow up question to. That that was Barack Obamas first action as president was to reinstate this that president bush had pulled. So is there a demonstratable effect . Was there when obama signed it, you know, reversing what bush had been doing . There had been studies conducted which show what the impact is of the lack of access to this information and these sorts of service as broad. Thank you. And i also want to thank bob shrum and his team for putting this all together and inviting us here today. Okay, two thing hes done well, number one, mattis and mcmaster, the two key elements of the National Security team have proven to be terrific appointments and have really, i think, begun to move the National Security apparatus. In stark contrast to what we were looking aduring the transition and with the three weeks when general flynn was in charge. The second thing is after a disastrous start with regard to his relationship with foreign leaders, you know, the stumbling over the two china policy, incendiary comments and insults directed to Angela Merkel and yelling at the australian Prime Minister and hanging up on him on the phone, you think donald trump is beginning to do a pretty good job of building good personal relationships with foreign leaders. I will tell that you Angela Merkels top people will confirm that relationship is being built and they see that as an important and valuable thing. Those are relatively small items though when you consider the concerns. As joel indicated, virtually everything that donald trump does is part of a negotiating process. And his strategy is purely transactional. And this can lead to problems. And great example of this is when you have on a monday rex tillerson, the secretary of state who really hadnt been heard from all that much until this point gives a speech demonstrating or outlining what was a clear departure from not just the census and the Obama Administration, the bipartisan consensus in the Obama Administration but also the consensus with our allies that the only solution to the civil war in syria is a political solution that does not have assad in charge of his country at the end of the day. Tillerson says, you fwhee . Whether assad is involved or not is going to be up to the syrian people. Sth th this comes in the wake of all the warm and fuzzies and assads major patrons. Should we be shocked that assad violated the agreement that he made to destroy and not use chemical weapons to then drop chemical weapons . Hes been dropping bombs forever. Im not trying to give him that excuse. The point is then the day after you have tillerson getting up and saying, no now assad has to be gone. They walked it back a little bit as joe or robert pointed out. You know, this is a problem. When you dont are v. A Strategic Thinking and everything is done on a case by case basis, run into problems like this. And another illustration of this is a complete lack of understanding of the power and necessity for diplomacy. And the fact that the trump budget represents an issue is going to be a 30 and now its an 18 cut in the budget of the state department and the agency for International Develop ment which candidly so much of the work they do ultimately helps to stabilize this unstable world in which were living. To the point that general mattis says thats fine, youll just have to buy me more bullets and rex tillerson, the secretary of state embraces the cuts which demonstrates to me the general mattis has a better understanding of the rolest secretary of state than our current secretary of state does. This is dhsh is a problem. I believe in the first three months that donald trump has done a very good job of squandering what is literally the most important asset that any president of the United States has when it comes to Foreign Policy and thats president ial credibility. When you start tweeting about and promoting far out conspiracy theories or unproven or flat out false statements and accusations, you undermine the credibility of your office and you undermine the credibility of what you say. So lets say were going to talk more about this with the iran nuclear deal. Lets say that iran does more than what it typically does. What it typically does is they always walk right up to the edge of violating that thing and then we have to pull them back. This by the way happens on a weekly basis. It is a lot of work to keep that deal moving forward as it has been which is g but lets say they violate it. Now that was a six country deal, right . You had the chinese, the russians, the germans, the french, brits and the americans negotiating with iranians. And you got the other allies, they like this deal. President trump spent a good deal of his transition denigrating the Intelligence Community and the quality of the information that they get and spends time saying that the press is the enemy and anything he doesnt like is fake news, so now how he is going to go to allies and say we got intelligence that shows the iranians are violating this agreement and we need to walk it back and we need to reimpose sanctions. You think theyre going to believe him . Thats a problem. They talked about getting more clear eyed about rush yachlt i personally agree with the action taken in syria. I think that one of the mistakes obama made was announcing a red line and then not following through on that. So i was glad to see that happen. And im very pleased to seat work that mattis and mcmaster is doing. Theyre getting very, very good reviews. So maybe hes up to a d plus or a c minus. But the two these issues, lack of a any kind of comprehensive strat strategy, everything is not transactional. You have to be thinking more broadly than that. And the absolute deterioration of credibility is two very, very serious problems. Todd, youre grade . Always great to go last. Everyone stole your answers already. I would have said two things were general mcmaster and general mattis. Fwhut response to the question about the grade, we journalists are taught several things, one chf is at all costs as sean spicer learned not to do analogies and we were taught to avoid things like letter grades for politicians because i think its a cliche. You can say that president has ab incomplete or an i for incoherent at this point. I think the policy has been situational, anecdotal, responsive today today events. Its hard to see what is consistent about it from day to bay day. I agree with the professors that from a perspective of mainstream 60, 70 years of american Foreign Policy, the changes hes made since taking office have been to good. We can all be grateful for that he is adopted a more conventional Foreign Policy tone overall. I think the personnel and deana powell who have worked in the george w. Bush administration is on a far superior plain to the personnel in the domestic policy staff or the internal staff of the white house. And these people could have served in any administration in the last ten or 20 years, i think. Even general masters or mcmasters or general mattis could have easily worked for president obama. I that i is a very good sign for the continuity and stability of Foreign Policy. I agree with john that the cuts in the state Department Budgets and the bunt for diplomacy in general are alargiming as is tillerson uninterest in supporting his mission. He liked to say that personnel of the state department doesnt amount to a Single Division in the army. He was trying to do the work he was doing in the aftermath of 911, especially hand willing the situation in the runup to the iraq war and the aftermath of it. And so i think, you know, as general mattis said, soft power does not make you soft on Foreign Policy to be an advocate for soft power. Doesnt make you soft on the National Security interests on the securityst United States. It makes you smart. I would say that a whole range of other disappointing things involve the Trump Administration and the President Trump and his fap liz unwillingness to untangle, disentangle the complicated web of obvious conflicts of interest they have all over the world including the ram pant uptick in the number of trade marks hes seeking in china and other places. I dont know Jared Kushner but what he brings to the table or what he knows in terms of being able to solve the real mideast peace ordeal as the point person on an international relationors china or you name it in places where among other things, his family may have complex and interrelationships with commercial interests i think should be troubling to any american. I think that is something that undermind the president s credibility. Why is he doing what hes doing . He is doing this because it benefits him, because it benefits the country, because its the right thing to do for the world in which were living . I think his he is the business. Its not like hes the chief executive of a Public Company if he were, by the way, even if he were the chief executive of Goldman Sachs when hank paulson became the treasury secretary, told me that if he had really understood what it was going to take in terms of resolving conflicts of interest and making huge sacrifices of future earnings and payouts, he would have headed back to wall street. By that he already said yes to president bush. Ill grant you, it is complicated in president dump because he is his whole business. He is his brand. Its not as if he can walk away from something. It would cease to exist because he is it. So i understand that. But i think theyre easily could have been and yet might be creative thoughtful ways in which he and his family if theyre willing can really make a cleaner break some of these questions and make people have greater confidence in whats happening in his dealings around the world. The question of whether there is a strategy come frgt Trump Administration and the state and defense and all of the seemingly unrelated things, the destabilization of the Korean Peninsula and what were seeing in europe right now and yemen, yes, we can go on and on. Do we think he is approaching this with a strategy or a series of unrelated events happening all at once . You heard me on it. President reagan said we win, they lose. Thats a strategy. Whatever you have to do to win. And what trump is showing us is that there are many more tools in the toolbox than we had previously thought. It became a joke. Soft power is fine but not to the point of losing any structure whatsoever. There is flexibility in terms of the way theyre willing to use soft power together with hard power. The fact it is constantly unpredictable is g you dont simply want to be unpredictable. You also want to be effective. I think that that is part of the strategy of the United States to a position where well succeed. Theyre shifting the economic gains and some of our trade relations back to the United States. The problem with we win, they lose, that sounds great. Who doesnt like that, right . The problem with we win they lose is what happens after we win . And to effectively win the peace or win the victory or consolidate the victory, whatever phrase you want to use, you often need very pro active, thoughtful diplomacy working with our allies to accomplish that. What im asked is we live here in los angeles. Should we be concerned about whats happening in north korea right now particularly given that president trum spt person in the white house . Well be suffering less. Theyll be suffering prolonged. Which is my waive saying there is nothing special about if it gets to that were all if bad shape. No i cant really im sorry. I dont have a great deal of faith about. This i just dont have expertise. Can i ask a different question . I wasnt clear at the outset. When i said the grade you give depends on a template that we might not all agree on, visavis russia, and im not necessarily in fact some ways im clearly not with the mainstream that tougher we are on putin the better. The more were like Hillary Clinton would have done, the better with rush yachlt i see the need for it an opportunity and greater cooperation. I see a relationship that is broken down to the detriment of the whole world. And has in our political dee debates become so full atmospherics and sort of extremes that are kind of clean slate, there were things as little faith as i had that trum cop execute it, they were nonetheless in the basic principles annunciated very bracing, very refreshing. Therefore if, what weve seen as i probably parentally seem to suggest was, trump going back to that mainstream. It didnt mean i thought that was good. But again, where it leads thanks to the investigations will take it out of everyones hands. So let me just clarify that by asking us to think ahead. Also we wake up to the issues very late. What i mean fwha is sort of unnoticed in the current climate but maybe in a different calmer time we would have paid more attention. As if were about to admit a new member of nmonl montenegro. It is a treaty. It requires senate ratification. A the love people, meaning 20 of us, i suppose that are fairly expert in the region, have a lot of concerns about that. Montenegro, of course, again with the mainstream approach. Okay. Another member of nato. Great. The interest will be stronger. That stands up to russia. It is ginned up by a dictator that is worse than putin has been and my god, speaking of double standards, if the whole reason we went so strongly in support of the ukrainian revolution, ukrainian push or rebellion back in 2014 was because even though he was democratically lekted, he was so corrupt that how are we jump into bed and supporting this for whom getting into nato is a way of prolonging his stranglehold 25 years and counting on the country . Monlt nag row is ruled by a thug and gangster. He is indicted all over europe and italy and the European Union for running the Largest International smuggling clandestine human trafficking, tobacco and drugs across the adriatic. Its just unbelievable that were walking into bringing this guy this country into nato which wh it has nothing to contribute to nato. And the rest of the world, those not part of the nato diplomatic elite say, geez, we take you seriously when you say youre fighting corruption. Its okay to undermine a government because it was corrupt . So why am i going off on this . This could be the issue two years ago we were sleepwalking as things evolved in ukraine and we discovered we were crossing a russian red line and we were thought blsment that let me close by connecting this to unintended consequences. Having a strategy not nearly reacting. If anyone stopped and thought that ukraine was being subsidized by russia to the tune of a, probably 8 billion a year in below market gas prices and purchasing ukrainian Industrial Products that nobody else would and that when we basically maneuver sod that ukraine would leave the russian orbit and join ouz, we in a sense took on the responsibility for it. It turned out to be fantastically expensive. Its more corrupt today than it was before. That is the reason they came out in the streets in the first place. Were going to have that around, we the west. But america too around our next for a long time. Regardless of the separatist in the east and any trouble that put putin stirs up. We made it so easy for limb to do that by what we did in ukraine. Montenegro could be a tiny version of ukraine. I think there is a lot of not thinking through the consequences or long along without a strategy on part of the mainstream. Maybe on this one, i havent heard President Trump speak about montenegro or express any opinion, he probably never heard of it, but some of his instincts might have, you know, suggest he would have been a lit more cautious. I know ive gone on too long. But there are things happening. And perspectives worth considering that dont make night the normal media and therefore part of the debate that ought to be. Thats why this is such a good panel. Were all learning things. Im no expert on montenegro. I think we should stick to nato for a second. Given what President Trump said during the campaign that nato is obsolete and sort of his retraction of that and reassessing it, im going to ask joel what you think about how his Campaign Supporters are reacting to it you . Touched on this in your opening answer. A lot of his changes and his decision, you know, the sort of does america need to be involved . That is something that a lot of people appreciated when he was on the campaign trail. He said a lot of things about many different issues. On iran, for example, did he say he would tear up the agreement. Before that, he said that he would enforce the agreement. And i remember writing at the time that this was a really remarkable response because most of the other republican candidates he said it during the primary were all talking about tearing it up. He said, you know, were going to enforce it really harshly. Now thats what members of the administration are saying and it looks like a flipflop. He said both things during the campaign. And similarly on a variety of issues. On north korea, he was firm but also did Something Interesting not just north korea but other countries as well, something that obama did in 2007 and 2008 where he said he would meet with the leaders of the countries without precondition dhz is a big target for republicans in the 2008 election. There was an attempt to contact them in north korea. Nothing ever came of it. But there was an effort by trum top repeat some of the things that obama did, perhaps on the belief that obama just wasnt competent to doing them and woeb more successful and that was one of the things i criticized when writing about trumps Foreign Policy during the campaign. I dont think the supporters are interested in what happens week to week in minor ways. Youll find some supporters that dont like any foreign intervention at all. Theyre a very small minority. You find more who are i think encouraged by the show of american strength. Theyre not simplistic in thinking of blowing up the mother of all bombs is a great thing to do or what the consequences are. I think the idea that they were doing that above a Tunnel Network which its next to irans network wasnt lost on people and people like showing strength and makes them feel stronger. And just on the north korea point. We have were actual fli los angeles were actually sitting in a community or among people who are the who already have been target bid north korea. And sony hack a few years ago. They hacked sony studios and through intimidation basically forced the cancellation of the screening of a film in the United States. You wouldnt get anyone to host this film. Its like what happened in beshgly to day where ann coulter is forced to cancel her speech. Im not saying we should laurnlg the Carrier Group as a result of. That but it certainly was an act of war. And we have seen already that north korea poses a threat to our economic interests, our freedoms and they havent been reluctant to attack us. So what trump is doing now, we dont know. It makes one think that he intends to remove the north korean regime somehow or to have the chinese do something. The chinese warned north korean this is week not to do any more Nuclear Testing because they would reach a point of no return. Thats very strong language. What does that mean . That meebz tans the integ rift regime. Thats what were talking about now. Thats on the table. And, you know, glenn beck who is a conservative critic of trump says that he doesnt like this idea. I heard him on the radio this morning talking about a Million People will die in the first few days of a war with north korea. So there is going to be some conservative push back if it heads in that direction. Trump has shifted fwook anything a president ial way as opposed to a Campaign Mode and presented with new realities every day. And i think uniquely trumpian to have this variety of responses to some of the things as they come up whereas obama was more ideological had, a very clear plan. Trump says im not going to tell what you im going to. Obama was clear about what he was doing. And our adversaries and allies adjusted. Over time they tended to erode our interests and our positions. Trumps position is not going to be as clear. Hes going to reserve his overall strategy to himself other than, you know, if we win, they lose. Make America Great again. But he is going to be flexible, i think, agile with his use of different tactics. But on north korea, i think theres theres something more important happening than we have seen in the past two decades. Anyone else want to weigh in on north korea before we turn to afghanistan . Sure. There are three possible solutions to north korea. Decapitation which is incredibly complex and difficult to take off to accomplish. You could accomplish it. You have no idea whats going to come after or what the consequences will be. A military conflict which i think i would agree with beckon that, i dont know about the numbers but you got seoul within, what, ten Million People in seoul within mortar shell range of north korea. So there would be serious reprecushions and loss of life from that. Or working with the chinese to finally really put a squeeze on them and get them under control. And the chinese, you know, they theyre conflicted. On one hand they dont want to see north korea develop further develop and have the ability to deliver nuclear weapons. But on the other hand they dont want to unstable regime and they sure as heck dont want to see reunification of the peninsula. So its a very challenging situation there. And i, you know, im sure that as with most things in Washington Well be reading soon about what that strategy is and what was discussioned with the senators today. The one thing that concerns me is inadvertently through bluster and tweets and comments inadvertently establishing red lines that maybe you dont want to establish. And then youre sort of stuck in that situation. B. They do something or they cross a red line that is short of successfully testing an icbm and then how do you respond . Particularly given those three option, two of which are very unattractive. And so i think thats a concern. And the other concern is with someone who is clearly so unstable and volatile as kim jongun is and who comes from a culture where saving face is very, very important, you know, you dont want to go so far with the baiting that you end up illiciting some kind of a first strike attack. I think thats a very, very careful balance. Im not saying this is a criticism of policy or anything. Im saying in is a concern that i have as i look at that situation. Can i add two quick things . One is what john said about the senators meeting at the white house today. It remains to be seen how congress is going to react overall to the trump Foreign Policy as it emerges. You see people like senator mccain who have been a stiff critic of emerges. You had seen some approving of his action in syria. So i think congressional opinion and congressional involvement in this question and granting joels notion that the president has the greatest unilateral Foreign Policy. But i think what happens in congress is going to be very important. To johns point, when Vice President pence was in north korea in 2 demille tarrized zone last week, he except saying the era of strategic patience is over. He didnt say what it was going to be replaced with. I think ice dangerous to declare the end of something if you dont know whats coming next. I would say the early headquarter of the Trump Administration is thm be the end of this but were not sure what it will be. Transition to the middle east, id say. Professor brand, we can start with syria or afghanistan. But we talked about the mother of all bombs. Theyre going to be sending more troops top afghanistan. What is the situation there now and what should people be expecting from the next 100 days . One of the interesting things following rhetoric or following pronoun pronouncements afghanistan is the very edges of the region that i follow, but there was essentially nothing about afghanistan during the campaign. Maybe thats because there were so many other hot areas or contentious areas. It hasnt been referred to since the inauguration. So in in some ways, this dropping of this you know, i dont like the term, anyway, this huge bomb, it came out of it doesnt come out of nowhere because this is the ongoing this is the longest military conflict in which the United States has been engaged. And the attempt under obama to close it it was with was not successful. The british had the experience in afghanistan in the 19th century. Different kind of ordinance available in those days. In the case of syria we were told during the campaign and it seems to be being followed through on. It was going to be the obama policy on steroids. The u. S. Was bombing isis and targets in syria, and that this was going there was inpatience on the part of the military that this should be carried out in a more intensive way. We dont know what the strategy is for afghanistan. Weve already spent billions of dollars in afghanistan. I think mcmaster was there recently, mattis was there on monday. Theyre clearly looking into what the followup is to the dropping of this huge bomb. But i dont know what i mean, i dont know how to anticipate what the strategy is going forward, because it seems to have come out of almost nowhere. In terms of syria, the i mean, i agree with what was said earlier about the fact that the Obama Administration at the time of i mean following the pro noumt of this red line left hand the fact that the government used clepts and obama chose not to strike militarily, that this was part of obamas view of the world, having we had just come through this dreadful experience with iraq and no plan for the morning after and so i think that made great deal of sense at that time. Were much farther into this disaster which is the gradual destruction of syria now than we were at the time. And so the impact of that kind of a bombing is not its not all clear to me exactly what that accomplishes because there doesnt seem to be o a different strategy other than sort of intensification of involvement. The United States has introduced additional troops. Not a lot of them but i think last time i looked we had about a thousand troops in syria. It appears to be another its its an extremely impossible situation. This is an intersection of a civil war and multiple proxy wars and so the yes, i mean, no one wants to see people gassed but this kind of response to me seems to be not exactly gratuitous but im not sure it has more than just symbolic impact. The Obama Administration, there was a lot of debate on capitol hill about the authorization for use of military force, and if there should be a new one related to isis, because the white house believed that the 2001 authorization following the september 11 attacks gave them broad leeway in this. Whats the status of that debate . We havent heard much about this from President Trump. I dont think youll hear about it from congress, candidly. My sense is everybody rushed into voting for the iraq war and now its that vote was a key issue in three president ial campaigns now. I think starting with paul ryan theyre happy not to have to take responsibility for what does or doesnt happen in that complicated and unstable region. Youd think a general sort of expression of the world view, the Trump Administration would be skeptical of the war powers act to begin with. This would be well within their purr view, anyway, following the cheney doctrine. But dont know. So russia. Professor english, you touched on this at the beginning. Theres obviously a lot to to unpack here. Sort of the status of this fbi investigation, how much is that going to affect trumps Foreign Policy . Anybody that would like to weigh in on this. The professor english, if you want to continue. Something he said earlier struck me. Even if it doesnt rise to the level of a serious constitutional crisis or something thats directly linked to candidate trump, the death by a thousand cuts distractions of this can still be very particlizing for any administration. I think you said one other thing, professor, which struck me which is it is rare to have russia this involved in domestic politics, except 75 years ago it was involved in the case of mccarthy, the rosen berg case and on and on. The debates which infected our internal domestic politics were crippling for both president s truman andize over hour. What the potential kind of explosive personal and or domestic political ramifications wed be lack looking at something pretty volatile, even if the worst doesnt happen. Its without a fact and without a motive. What would trump have hoped to have gained by having somehow a better relationship with russia in the way thats been suggested by this theory . What was there left to give away after Hillary Clinton and barack obama. They gave away missile defense, the 3450es, they gave away cry miya, they gave away the new start treaty. They gave away various votes in the i mean, what was there left to compromise on. You have to look at the Previous Administration sort of wakes up and realizes that russia is not our friend, that the reset didnt work, but i cant find any reason for the russians really to believe that Hillary Clinton would have been tougher than trump and i cant find anything left for trump to give them that they would want. Thats what happened now is that the reality of syria and iran and russias involvement there has frustrated almost every other aspect of trumps Foreign Policy and i think the russians as they do with every president are trying to see how far they can push trump. But i think wham end up happening is the russians will try to consolidate their gains in the middle east and leave Eastern European i loan until after the Trump Administration. I think russia has almost a permanent interest in frustrating americas overall ambitions. They can find places to work with us in certain times and circumstances, as we can with them, but i just think that any idea that were going to solve this problem with russia is naive. This is the way russia behaved in the world and we behave p differently. When trump thought he was going to have a new relationship by speak with putin, i thought that was naive. I cant see one shred of evidence for it and i cant see anything that putin would have hoped to have gained from it other than finding evidence through hacking that hurt Hillary Clinton under the assumption she would become president. In fact, one of the most interesting things to come out of the raugs hacking scandal came out recently. I think this came out from the New York Times. James comb imwas aware of an email of a democratic aid sbek lating that Loretta Lynch would never let Hillary Clinton face prosecution, so they were satisfied that she would quash the investigation. This New York Times a few days ago suggested thatches the reason james comey went public with his reopening of the investigation. Loretta lynch, he felt she was reaching into the investigation itself and compromising the position of the fbi. Thats the only significant evidence of any kind of russian impact on the election and it was counter to the direction that one might think. So far, the great crime the russians have committed by hacking the 2016 election was showing how the democrats were trying to hack the election. The dnc hack showed that the Democratic National committee had colluded with the Clinton Campaign and all the other hacking has turned up this memorandum that somehow found its way to james foamy and the fbi. I think this is usual for democrats to rile up their base. Up cant see any positive result coming out of it for the country. I do agree with todd that this could be, as you say, a Public Relations problem for the Trump Administration just as though mccarthyism was a problem for eisenhower although it ended up producing nothing in the end and embarrassing senator mccarthy. I think this is a cause that some democrats have chosen to believe, even though obamaness says theres nothing there. And i think theyve responded to geopolitical reality and its already overwhelmed anything that might have come out to show anything at all about the 2016 campaign involving trump and russia. Look, heres what we know. We know the russians hacked both the dnc and the rnc. Yet they chose to expose the embarrassing emails from the dnc and not the rnc. My theory is they didnt have anything that was echl baresing. Starting with the candidate himself, they were dancing very happily over these leaks, even encouraging russia to find those hidden emails and fairly joyous about the leaks about, you know, what was happening within the dnc visavis Bernie Sanders on the eve of the Democratic National convention. That doesnt discussion collusion but it oh, boy, weve got a in germany we call it a gashanct, a gift. We know that sclunt p skrunt believes, becau Vladimir Putin believes the soviet union and the soviet sphere of influence, we know that prior to going into ukrainian and exiting cry miya and the incursions into Eastern Ukraine in the danbas area that approval with trump were in the 40s 60s. 60s to 90. Thats still pretty good. 65 to 85. Ive seen suggestions that they were actually in the 90s. But we may have been looking at different thing. The lavata center, the best i dont think what youre saying is contradicting my point, ok . From lets say from 65 the point is that this sort of pride in russia and russian strength being back was powerful a powerful domestic political gasoline for Vladimir Putin. Im sure you wont disagree with that. We know that a strategic objective of putin is to drive a wedge between, as you suggested, joel, between the United States and europe and also between and among in of the eu member states. To keep things roild and unbalanced, we know that he likes to have frozen conflicts, particularly in areas that he believes is part of the zone of influence of russia, and my sense is they and we know he hated Hillary Clinton. You know, i mean, she when she was secretary of state, she said some pretty tough things about Vladimir Putin and we also know that he is his back really got up when barack obama called russia a regional power. And it is not too far to assume that or too far aleads to figure that with the hacking, with the releases, at a minimum, russia was trying to ends mine the confidence in the result of the american election, which they presumably thought would result in a Hillary Clinton victory. Given the way things are moving, be careful what you wish for. But weve seen that done in europe. They dont to do that in europe. They fund le pens party. Theyre a funding of ald, alternative for deutscheland. They have spent literally 10s of millions of dollars of effective propaganda in europe, internet trolls and the media and r. T. And radio, trying to put out alternative facts in europe and the New York Times calls it the weaponization of information and misinformation that has occurred over these periods of time. So there may not have been i mean, i agree, joel. I havent seen any evidence that there was some sort of collusion, but theres sure a lot there that is worthy of exploring and if there was an intentional element of this, this was a massive you called somebody called the attack on sony an attack on the United States. Well, if that was, then surely 246s as well. Can i christina, i dont just to follow up and to not disagree with you, joel, that there is no proof at this point but it seems to me, the real question that people want to try to get at is whether the russians had or have some kind of compromising information related to mr. Trump, related to his business dealings, related to his financial indebtedness to russian ol garks or european banks or you name it, that they could have used to hold over him and whether his jawboning in favor of their finding hillarys leaked emails and all that was a sort of somehow connected to that and he would somehow be indebted to them. In the doos yay, whatever you want to call it, that is much endowed and much disputed, that is kind of thats the allegation at the bottom of the worst of the possibilities, and i grand you grant you that theres absolutely no concrete evidence that thats the case. If these investigations by the congress and the fbi are trying to get at that question, thats something that these investigations have their own momentum. They go on and on and on and theres no limitation statue toerl or any other way to see how those might fall. I guess thats the thing i think thats why the story has gotten legs in the pop loar imagination. To my mind, thats an even more unlikely scenario and fanciful. Its almost like wondering almost like wondering where obamas real birth certificate turns up and he cant be president because of it. He had said negative things about women, he had cheated on his wives, he had defaulted o n certain debts, all thats in the public report and yet people voted for him. His voters woos crawl naked across broken glass to vote for the guy. All these people going into the Trump Administration have to film out these forms showing all their financial dealings and, you know, people with drug convictions or alcohol problems are generally not given security clearance because its understood that theyre susceptible to behavior that could be used in blackmail. So theres a legitimate security issue there. You could have said about the same thing about barack obama. He had a history of drug use. He smoke chicago this week and said if my high schooling pictures had come outs, nobody would have voted for me for president. Theres a certain degree to which our acts are did ganges, sort of washing everyones sins away. Team of rivals isnt abe 4578 of lynn kahn. Dorps Kerns Goodman talked about how he probably visited prostitutes when he was a young man. Still number one and two on the list of Great American president s. I dont know how much this information, if it exists, would compromise trump. I doubt that it exists. Theres evidence that people on the Trump Campaign were talking to people who were close to russia. Thaft normal conversation, maybe some of it wasnt. But what youre talking about, aside from the dossier that doesnt seem credible, i havent seen anything else that would suggest theres anything remotely like it. Professor english will have the last word. Then were turning to q a. There was Something Else that russia wanted. You essentially said hillary and barack had given away everything the russians could possibly want. Sanctions relief. We can go in some detail about that, but theres no doubt sanctions and mainly the european ones but theyre of course contingent upon the american ones and American Leadership is important in maintaining the european sanctions on russia, have together hurt the russian economy in a great deal. Without going into specifics, that relief would be very welcome in russia. On the other side, however, you know, we risk i mean, intercepting im reminded of the saturday night live episode where trump is trying to be tough on russia and theres bare chested Putin Holding up sex takes and hes soft again. This is really farfetched. I could be bruchb wrong. The investigations will show what they show. Some of even if you took it even if you believed that putin had financial or personal information on trump, to deploy in it this fashion is just silly. It doesnt make sense. Think it through, guys. That leads me to my foinl point which is putin isnt 10 feet tall. For example, his influence over european politics. I think we do ourselves a disservice and we misunderstand and maybe then misrespond to problems in politics. Such as the populace right wrirng wing nationalistic turn in europe. Putin is like 1 . I have to disagree. Hes not a significant source of money for the national front. There was one loan from a russian bank of 1 million. That is not a significant source of support. Even financially. Look at the history of the national front. Look how its grown in recent years. It has to do with 20 other things than russian influence. Doesnt mean they dont invest a little here and in germany. What im concerned about is if we focus on putin as if they can marionette master, yank the strings and shape european politics, then we will pay less attention to the real problems that are adding to the support of movements or liberal currents that we dont like. And of course above all refugees pouring in from the middle east. So its not really to disagree with you that putin is doing these things but rather to say are they where we should focus our main attention if we want to solve these problems and prevent directions in pliksz that are to everyones, except russias, advantage. I think weve turned him into somebody 10 feet tall. The thought of him invadesing another country. Ukraine was separate. Theres a russian population, theres a deep history with cry miya. And of course a potentially nato base that made it special. If wed been paying attention we would have known that that was a red line. The battlics attacking native countries, come on, guys. Thats why, by the way sanctions relief and some of the things that putintrump could have offered are. In, real gifts. Im not saying that there was a deal there. But hillary and barack didnt give everything to proount putin that he might have wanted. Lets put this in perspective and wait and see if theres fire or just a lot more smoke and unreported untaxed income rather than legal collusion, something bordering on high crimes, misdemeanors, even treeson. Theyve been some breaking news since weve been in here. There are reports that President Trump will withdraw the u. S. From nafta. Does anyone want to weigh in on that . This has been a political issue in many campaigns at all. That would shorten the stock rally that we had in the last couple of days. [inaudible]. Nafta was a treaty that was i mean, it enacted by congress back in 1993 when todd and i were both banging around the white house in different roles, so, yeah, im not sure how youd do that without having congress, maybe one of our professors knows better. But i think that requires an act of congress ultimately. But by the way, hell get the votes, for sure. The demes will vote for that. Now well turn it it does not. We have the answer from mr. Shah rum. Now we will turn it over to the audience, fieks with mike. Raise your hands and well start in the middle. Please make sure your question ends with a question mark. My question has do with your discussion about a minorish, monteneg montenegro. Why, if montenegro is n governed by a corrupt individual, you didnt mention that he had applied for nato but if he did, what would be his purpose . Thats to me, i guess. Im the montenegrophile. You i think i did. [ inaudible ] if he joins nato, the investment in infrastructure, military upgreats, a new arsenal, training, all the things will be a gusher of income for him. It would be in any case a huge Political Boost for he and his party. But he has proved a master, he and his clan thats the only word for the group, and siphoning off even more than is ordinary from big foreign investments, big business dealings, so number one he stands to profit him directly. Number two, he almost lost power. He was on the verge of being voted out. His democratic socialist party. Hes a former communist, by the way. Thats forgotten. Because hes proamerica. This soviet coups attempt, just noncredible. Cooked up at the last minute, the october surprise, if you will. I no its tiny montenegro but its emmattic of much more. We talk about democracy and the will of the majority. It uchd to be countries joined eu or nato held a referendum. It its not just a quickie vote. It was a nationwide referendum. It was for the czech republic, for poland and so forth. No more. Right . Montenegro never held a referendum and all the opinion polls show 36, maybe 37 of people support its. Orthodox christians whose rupt leadership is joining the Nato Alliance for their only financial interest. It could blow up in our faces. We are supporting a gangster and thats how he benefits. He stays in office and even enriches himself and his cloon further by what essentially is a big investment deal militarily on both sides. Its nonsense. I think we have a question in the back here. Thank you. Climate change is something that hasnt come up in detail yet and i was hoping that maybe ambassador emerson or maybe professor english might want to touch upon how that might figure into your greeting of the president s Foreign Policy and if silence on the issue is something you can great as well. How might this figure over the next four years in terms of strategy . Well, you know, if you asked president obama, what are the three things that youre most worried about when you in leaving office. He put Climate Change at the top. And the reason was he believes the science shows this. I know we dont believe in science these days. But the science shows us that we are at a point where that switch is going to be flipped where it will be very, very hard to reverse where we shall today. And will Climate Change and i mean, imd only can say one or two things, so i think we got caught on some of these other issues, but i dont that certainly would be a part of, you know, of a low grade, because its also something that the United States cant address by itself. Other nations cant address by themselves. It has to be addressed globally and i guess something that we you know, worked on, i think diligently over the last, you know, four, six years in particular. An so i think thats a huge problem and a huge risk. I used to say in germany, if you dont like the flow of refugees today, just imagine the know of refugees when we have climate refugees and people moving because previouslile airable lashed has become arid, wait until we see massive flooding and the sea levels rise. Just this mornings, the cbs morning news has a picture of the icebergs in the north atlantic which are i mean, most ever at this at least since theyve been measuring this stuff at this time, at this season. Theres issue after issue that comes up that suggests thats a huge problem. So i see Climate Change as not only a Foreign Policy issue i see its as a National Security issue. And by the way, so do the members of the military. 35,000 troops in germany. I spent a lot of sometime with the leaders of the military, nato, and our forces in europe. They see Climate Change as a significant National Security issue. Its not just a nice diplomacy think as well. So yes, youre right. Thanks for bringing it up. Just to tag on to that, more of a question than a comment. The u. S. Is in a sense with this administration seeding leadership on global efforts to fight climates change. Maybe im the last to know, but i get a little bolt from Scientific American news. I subscribe to other things. We passed 4150 parts per million, another horrible milestone and rising. China steps in, who china, of course, now ramping run production of green toings, photo volume dayic and so forth. Do we lose economically and other ways . I dont know but im sad to see American Leadership on that vanishing. I have to agree here. I think it shows Great American leadership in preparing to pull out of the paris accord and to end this dahlians with pseudo science that mass raits raids as Climate Change among diplomats who dont understand science. I think Angela Merkel understands science more than you do. She has a ph. D. In chemistry. Have a ph. D. But i do have a ba. So i do know what im talking about. You can accept every alarmist populace. It is fundamentally against the National Interest of the United States to compromise our Economic Growth for a problem that cannot be solved. As youve said yourself, without india and without china and they are not going to do what would be needed to be done under a sort of Global Governance that would reduce emissions. We have solved the Climate Change problem. We just dont allow ourselves to say that. The United States is the only civilization, so far, but will there are be others, to expands the economy while decreasing pollution. It has cleaner burning fuel. The Obama Administration didnt want to see drilling expand on federal lands. The technological advances that are happening are enabling this, so the parts per million will keep going up, partly because Carbon Monoxide has a halflife of a million years. We do not have the science or technology to control the weather or move carbon in the atmosphere in that rapid fashion. There are possible impacts, ice berg, see levels, it is. It is cheaper and probably wiser to focus on mitigating the impact of those things rather than shutting down our economy and costing hundreds of thousands, millions of job losses and undermining our international strength. I see the greater National Security threat as doing silly things like converting our navy to green fluid rear than using sensible fuels that will enable our navy to do what it meads to do, which is get to some place quickly and provide support for our troops. Obama wont put that through the senate or he wouldnt put that through the senate. So weve undermined our own constitutional working through some of these things. I think hes doing exactly what the United States should be doing which is leading a pushback against this and leading a march towards technologic technological. People want to see their economies development and thats fast imfuels. This could definitely be a debate for another day. Lets get one last brief question. My question is for mr. Pollack. I sim pa the thighs at a general level regarding your point earlier in terms that historical terms, an jis used with great care. Im curious as to why you think the american left should discontinue the use of the term resistance, although you can use the word refuse loose to sell books. Also youve made analogies associating berkeley with north korea. You compared paying for sex to be sexual advances without consent. I might be leading some out but i would just like for you to unpack your deployment of those terms. No . I mean, what is the point . Im just curious you dont you dont like what i said. Ok. Why you think the left should disinvolve resistance if youd like to use it, you can. You can go on offending you can go on ail nating the targets of that resistance, like people who are alarmed that the public figure cant speak on a public campus. Feel free to use them. I find it offensive. I was speaking in the context of what advice i would be giving to democrats if i wanted to win. My advice is look at the one out of six Republican Voters identified in the usc poll as unhappy with trumps personal characteristics but voted for him given the alternative. Dont give them nazi occupied yu6r7 and roitsds on campus and trumpputin 2016 and not my president. All that stuff is about giving voters a better november. Trump spoke to Congress Several weeks ago and sketched a vision of the fluch. You might not like that vision of the future but it is a vision of future. Americans like to look forward. Americans like financial growth and optimism. What people liked about trump was the idea of greatness. Democrats have ideas like that in their arsenal. They really do. And unfortunately, they have shelved them. Theyve butt them in the back of the tool shed. Look some of these counties that trump won went for obama. And youre not going to win those people back. If youd like to do it, i have this argument with journalists quite often. We often fight against Mainstream Media and they fight against ourselves. But i have a lot of friends in those organizationings. Sometimes i say to them, if you want to write my paycheck, keep doing what youre doing. If you want strump to govern successfully between this term and maybe another one, but if you want to expand the map, follow Rahm Emanuels advice in chicago and put away the funny hats and talk to people about what they care about. On that note. Thank you for a great policy pan panel. Thanks very much. There will be a 15minute break and some refreshments in the courtyard there. Have a good rest of the conference. I was wondering if your book gave you any thoughts about whether health care is a free market, whether we can solve our problems in health care through free market sources. Well, i think what weve seen as the answer is probably not. I mean, i the beginning of the book, i put a somewhat tongue in cheek list of the economic rules of the dysfunctional health care market, where if you think of Health Occasion as a purely a business proposition that the market will solve, you know, you get to crazy places like, you know, a lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure. I am not saying for a second that anyone really thinks that, but that is where Market Forces put you right now. Watch after words sunday night at 9 00 p. M. Eastern. To experience a fulfilling, purposeful life, one thing youre going to have to do is this. Live a large life. You are your own stories. And therefore free to imagine and experience what it means to be human. We have a responsibility in our time as others have had in theirs. Not to be prisoners of history but to shape history. A response to fill the role of path finder. Holding fast to your compass of values, faith, honesty, patriotism and loyalty. Again this year watch commencement speeches on may 20th, 27th, 29th memo day on cspan and cspan. Org. Sunday on q a, the compares sons between President Trump and Andrew Jackson. I dont think he represents the positive values that jackson represented. He certainly represents some of the negative values that jackson represented, but i think i would tell President Trump that if he wants to be like Andrew Jackson he has to put nation in front of his own personhood. Has to put nation in front of his own family. Had to put nationhood in front of his own interests, because thats what jackson did for most of his president si. And now a Panel Discussion on the state of the individual Health Insurance market and the longterm challenges it faces. Speakers discuss topics including prekpiszing medical conditions and the funding of highrisk polls, the role of states in light of republican efforts to paem and replace the federal health care law. Better . Awesome. Hi. Im going to start over. Im sara dash, president and ceo for