tv Book Discussion on Invisible Man Got the Whole World Watching CSPAN August 7, 2016 5:00pm-6:01pm EDT
"grit." many of these authors have or will be appearing on booktv. >> book tv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they're reading this summer. >> i have been reading three books right now. eclectic reader. reading "dead weight" about the sinking of the lusitania. just finished "three felonies" a day how policymakers can create legal problems for citizens that were unintended. and a book called "defiant." about the 11 recal transplant u.s. prisoners of world in vietnam, including colonel sample johnson about their experience in vietnam. >> what drew you to those three
books? ijust read all kinds of different things. i am a bit of a hoyt buff so defiant and dead weight are normal. also, the authors of the books have a tendency to draw me in, and eric lar sewn wrote in "guard o. beasts" and i think -- so he has been good. and then the one of three offends a day. a little bit of allyber tarean streak so i want to make sure when it comes to ridge justice reform we do those things right and get something historical be was doubtful. ...
>> good evening, everybody. good evening on this beautiful evening. i'm richard fontaine, the president for the center of new american security, and thank you all for joining us this evening. we're very excited to host this launch in d.c. of anya manuel's book, "this brave new world," which is already getting excellent reviews, including in the wall "wall street journal" u haven't seen it. that should be the second thing you read, after her book, the review in the wall "the wall stt journal." we're really privileged to have steve hadley. both anya and steve are co-founders and principals at the rice hadley gates group, and
i will give you just -- i'll brief a sketch of both of their biographies because they're so well known to all of us in this room. anya is a lawyer, a former investment banker, she teaches at stanford university and in government, among other things, handled the asia portfolio for nick burns when it was the undersecretary of state, and she is on the board of advisers which is not least of her accomplishments. [laughter] steve hadley, of course, served as national security adviser, deputy national security adviser and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs among his many positions and is the chairman of the u.s. institute of peace board. this booking is -- this book is really a wonderful work, and it's important and comes really at an important time when so many of our policymakers, business people and others are trying to determine precisely how to think about india and china and the future of the
global order and where these two very important countries fit into it. and so on behalf of cnas and all of us, we're very honored to have the ability to host this conversation tonight. so without further ado, let me turn it over to anya and steve. [applause] >> thank you, richard, very much. i need to begin by saying i'm a big fan of anja and a big fan of her book which i think is extremely informative and really readable. and a terrific read. and congratulations. i want to start by asking you why you decided to write a book, why did you decide to write this book, and why india and china together? for most people either one of them would have been a daunting task, and you decided to do both. >> thank you, steve.
first of all, thank you to cnas for hosting this. thank you to steve hadley for being willing to do this with me, and thanks to all the friends, old and new, that are in the audience. i'm really happy to be here, back in d.c., and seeing all of you. why this book. asia is a little bit in my blood. i actually grew up partially in pakistan in abbottabad which wasn't famous then for bin laden but led to the wild west of china near the disputed border of india. so this is an area i've been interested in for a long time. i did a lot of work at the state department, mostly on india, some on china. and enclosingly as i watched -- increasingly as i watched, now we do business in both of those places for our clients. and as i see the public discourse in america about asia, it seems we're so worried about china x there's so much about china. and one day they're ten feet tall, and they're coming to get
us x the next day they're the doomed dragon, and their economy is collapsing. neither, of course, is quite right. but there's very little public discourse about india. and i believe that even now but especially a decade or more from now these are the two countries that are going to have a dramatic impact on how we all live as americans. by then they will have three billion people between them, so our companies will be selling to them. they will have the world's largest middle classes, and we can't even begin to solve the world's biggest problems without them. i live in california, a smog loud already travels from asia all the way san francisco. to san francisco. in a decade or so india and china will be the first and third largest carbon emitters, so we need to get our relations with them just right. >> so you already knew a lot about india, a lot about china before you wrote the book. what is it that you learned in
writing the book that most surprised you. >> a lot. [laughter] but the number one thing i would say is we spend our time, all of us here in washington, talking to government officials, talking to business leaders. when i wrote the book, i very much tried also to see the hinterlands of both of these uncountries. -- of these countries. i spent some time in the slums of delhi where people live in core gated iron huts, and they make their living by recycling materials from a trash heap that is three football fields high. and i spent some time interviewing the folks who a'em bl all -- assemble all of the world's electronics, your iphones and android phones. that's not something i'd been exposed to before. we all know there's a lot of poverty still in china and
india. india much worse, so i would ya has 300 million people still under the world bank poverty line which is $1.25 a day, not very much. china has 84 million. so the scale of the problem is much bigger. but it's also in china most of the poor, especially the urban poor, are working in factory jobs or in jobs that are on the books. so in a way, they're actually easier to help. because you can do it through paycheck, and you can give pensions, and you can give health benefits. they don't always have them, but it's possible to do that. in india, all of these guys are working in the informal economy. so what are you going to do? until you had -- india has just introduced a new biometric id system which, actually, puts some of these people on the books and gives them an existence. and mod hi has opened almost 250 million new bank accounts which will allow these people to be
helped by the state in a way that they weren't before. >> one of the things implicit in what you said, these are countries that have very different approaches to development and seeking prosperity, many some sense -- in some sense seeking power. and i know you avoid the horse race analogy which is better, which is going to win. but do we have a stake in terms of how these countries succeed and whether they succeed? what's the u.s. stake in all of this? >> yeah. we do have a stake in it, and i think we want them both to succeed. it's often much more comfortable to deal with india than with china. i describe that in the opening of the book for the two-state visits. i'm sure many of you were part of them, but there were two business dinners, one for xi jinping, and another one for
moti in palo alto. and the moti one was relaxed, and the president xi dinner was wonderful as well, but it was very formal, and we were working hard to get our relations just right. it wasn't quite as comfortable as with india. so i agree with you, i don't think this should be about the horse race. i think it's very much in our interests for both of them to succeed. because as i said, you can't solve climate change without them. you can't change -- solve a lot of the world's other big problems without them. and in spite of what we've heard in our presidential campaign, our economies don't succeed unless these two growing economies become the engines of, continue to be the engines of world growth. >> let's talk about one of those problems, the environmental issues. china is now the world's biggest emitter of co2, for example, and india is probably the world's fastest growing emitter.
so a common -- and, obviously, it affects what happens in those two countries, it affects the world economy, it affects the united states in terms of the environmental situation in which we find ourselves. is there something that we can do with india and china together that all three countries could do that could make some progress on these environmental issues? >> this is, actually, it's a good question, and this is one of the most fertile opportunities for working together. in the book i lay out a number of challenges that these countries face on their way to great power status and how they are dealing with them. the environmental one is an enormous challenge. so, you know, when you're looking around china, you see these huge coal mines 30 football fields in length. they make those mining trucks look teachny, tiny, and you see china still needs to do this
stuff to help it grow. they can't help it. and in india 13 of the most 20 polluted cities on earth are in india. when i was on the holy ganges river, you see dead bodies floating in -- and others right near them. when i was in government, i had a small part and you had a large part in negotiating the civilian nuclear deal with india. partly that was about our strategic partnership with india, but a lot of it was about getting clean, non-polluting power as india scales up its electricity use. it's a big win-win for both countries. india has these super-optimistic projections about how many nuclear reactors they were going to build.
if you divide those by three, the deal still saves more co2 emissions than the kyoto protocol implemented in all of europe. and i would say similarly, i am a -- i really think what the obama administration did with china on the climate change accord that was announced in december of 2014 and that then helped spur the rest of the world to announce their own binding commitments on emissions was another helpful way that all three can work together. >> more to come on that. you wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" recently on india's corruption. we don't hear a hot about india's corruption -- a lot about india's corruption, though if you talk to business communities, one of the big complaints they have is india's so corrupt, you can't deal with it. china gets a lot more pub publiy for a corruption crackdown. can you talk a little bit about the different approaches in
india and china and what they say about their two political systems? >> yes. the way both cups are dealing with our anti-corruption efforts is a perfect example of the differences of the two systems. so the reason "the new york times", i think, wanted to write about the india story is because there's a personal story there. when i was a young state department official, an indian mid-level government official tried to involve me in a kickback scheme. [laughter] i sort of sat there naively nodding and blinking and got out of his office as quickly as i could. you know, it's rampant. [laughter] and it's a difficult problem just like it is in china. the indian way of -- the chinese story is well known, and the way china has dealt with it so far has been almost completely top-down from the anti-corruption czar, almost
200,000 people investigated, a lot of them have gone to trial. purely top-down. india's solution has been almost entirely bottom-up. so about four or five years ago a lot of citizens were finally fed up with this. a man who looks a little bit like gandhi, he's sort of older and bespectacled, started a hunger strike, and it caught on. and before you knew it, there were tens of thousands of people across india who demonstrated and said enough is enough. some new anti-corruption laws have been passed in india. it's been far from perfect. but the citizen activism is there, and it continues. the problem is neither of these approaches alone are perfect. and when you look at the countries that have really tackled corruption and done a good job with it -- singapore, hong kong, south korea -- what they've done is a little bit of what you're seeing in china and
india but more. so hong kong, for example, established an independent commission that's nonpolitical and very quickly adjudicates all of the cases. there was a massive education program to teach young people that this is not how you should be doing business. and in that case, but not all the cases, there was a rise this civil servant salaries. is so those are some additional steps that i think both india and china should take if they're going to really solve this problem. >> it's doable, but it requires a lot of, a lot of sustained effort and apolitical effort. >> yep. let's talk a bit about china.
there has been a remarkable crackdown in terms of china. i think that's what we would have to say in terms of human rights workers, in terms of media, in terms of social media. and i think there was an article in the review, actually, in the "wall street journal." they used the figure, what you see around, that there are about 180,000 incidents of civil disruption in china every year. talk a little bit about the challenge that poses for china, and they really keep the lid on that society, a society that now has, you know, 600 million people on internet, a lot of social media and very engaged population. and how are we to think about the long-term stability of china in light of this, what's percolating there? >> thank you. i'm going to ask the second part of that question right back at you in a minute -- [laughter]
because steve has a lot of expertise on this. as i started digging into it in the book and speaking to interviewing a lot of people, i saw actually three different kinds of dissent. one is the 180,000 protests that you talked about, mostly run of the mill people who don't want their property expropose rated, who are worried about labor conditions at their factory, who want a better environment. sort of daily issues. not political. this is not for freedom, this is for i want to get paid for. i want clean water. want. two, you have some people who are just always going to be outsiders in the chinese system, the uighurs, some christians, other communities that are on the outside and that are in some instances protesting and a lot of other places are underground. and third, and i think this is the most important force that's coming up. when i go to china now and i speak to students, stanford
where i teach has a big center in beijing. when i speak to students this, these millennials have no memory of tiananmen square. >> interesting. >> they have no memory of crackdowns. and they are unbelievably active on social media. just as you said. and some of the things they say are really, they cross over into, you know, there's a guy at berkeley who studies what's trending on chinese social media. and you would be surprised at some of the things that are out there. soen when the -- so when the people's congress is meeting in beijing, you have a whole uptick in who are these people, they don't represent me. when i had a young -- actually, when condi and i were there a few years ago, we had a government translator, and we asked her about this. she said, well, you know, we all know that social media's
monitored, but we keep switching to the new ones until they catch that one, and then we do it. so we thought that was surprising. on the second part of your question, is it going to implode, that i'll ask right back at you. [laughter] i think no one predicted the fall of the soviet union, so i won't hazard a guess here. there has been recently a lot of chatter about china, and it's hard to see how you interpret it. as i'm sure many of you know, in march there was anonymous letter sent that asked shi gyp ping to ten down because he's developing a cult of personality and actually threatened his person. there are constant rumors -- no one knows whether they're true or not -- of attempts on his high and on the life of the anti-corruption czar. it's anyone's guess whether it there is more brewing there or not. i do think if there is a change of government in china, it would
be more likely that it is an internal within the communist party uprising than a tiananmen square type public uprising, but i would love to have you answer that question as well. >> that wasn't in the script here. [laughter] i talked to a -- i was at a u.s./china dialogue a week ago, and a good china watcher from one of the think tanks in washington said he's heard all these rumors about instability and, you know, security threats and all the rest, and he doesn't really believe it. he thinks you would not have seen xi jinping traveling internationally the way he does. so his thinking is it's a big rumor. but i think one of the challenges, and i had a conversation with a senior adviser to president xi on economic policy, and he was giving me a hard time about the american political system and sort of making the suggestion
isn't the chinese better. and i think the risks for the chinese and what i said to him was in the united states what you're seeing is a lot of discontent being played out within our political system, for better or for worse, because that's what our political system allows rather than playing out on the streets in terms of violence in demonstrations which is what we saw in the '60s, and we didn't like that much x., of course, the question for china is if you clamp down too much, what is the outlet? it's the old problem of, you know, you put the lid too tightly on a boiling pot, and at some point, there's a problem. who knows. >> let me add one thought on this too. you know, we speculate about this stuff a lot in the media and policy circles like this. i think it's not in anyone's interests for there to be a drastic, rapid change in government in china. think political turmoil in china
oils the financial markets, crashes the world economy. so i don't think we should be hoping for any type of overthrow. >> and let me ask you something we hadn't talked about, but i think it would fill out the circle. how about political stability in india? a very different political system. any worries or concerns about that? >> well, india, exactly as you said, it's more like the american system. it's resilient. governance may not be perfect, a lot of my indian friends are very frustrated with the pace of reform that moti has been able to achieve, but you -- it's a balance, right? the problem is when you have a democracy, you have to deal with lots of other interest groups. and in india people were fed up with the singh government, and they threw the bums out. now you have a modi government which has tried to do a lot on economic reform but isn't able
to move as quickly because there are interest groups within both the central government, other political parties, but most importantly, the states in india have so much power and are so important in this tuition of power that it's harder -- in this division of power that it's harder to achieve things quickly. but much more resilient. >> so i'm going to put you down for india is stable instability, and china maybe is unstable stability. how's that? >> that sounds okay. [laughter] >> leapt me ask one -- let me ask one last question, and then we'll go to questions from from the audience. you say in the book that india is, quote, one of the worst democracies in which to be a woman. is that true and how do india and china compare? >> yeah. i think it is true. i learned much more about this in my research for the book. so in india a lot of the right laws are on the books. so pretty decent anti-harassment laws, pretty decent maternity leave, all of the things you
would expect. frankly, a lot of times better than in the u.s. however, especially for the poorer segments of the society and the lower castes, they are not enforced. sometimes ever. right? they are not as well enforced as they should be. is so in typical indian style, people often take things into their own hands, and there are citizens who do something about it. and one of the stories i tell in the book is of a gang of women called the gulabi gang who wear hot spank saris. -- hot pink saris. they're big now, tens of thousands of people have joined this across india, and they -- oops, sorry. microphone. they, in the villages where there is -- if they know that a woman is being beaten, for example, by her or husband and the police doesn't do anything about it, they'll go with sticks this their hot pink saris and
beat up on the husband. it's a very indian solution. [laughter] but when you compare india and china on these issues, there's just no comparison. so the communist party has actually been very good for women, especially if you're looking at women in the work force. i think something like 70% of chinese women work compared to 58% here. 25% in india. many, many chinese women are at top -- not so much at the top of the political establishment, but in business more chinese women self-made billionaires than anywhere else on earth. 30 million chinese women-run companies. female entrepreneurs. those are really big numbers, and that means something. >> yeah. thank you. questions from the audience. sir. we've got a microphone, here we go. it's on its way to you.
>> doug brooks, international stability operations association. i love the logo on the book but, of course, to be more accurate, the gears from india and china would actually be meshed together as well. >> yes. >> you haven't talked at all about the relationship between india and china and how that's evolved over the past three or four decades. >> thank you. it's a very good question, and it's evolved a lot. i think when i was in government a decade ago, the indians were not too worried about china. it was, you know, we have similar histories, the history of being oppressed by outside powers, and china's mostly a partner be, we were trading a lot with them. that's changed. and now when you go to delhi, people worry very much about what's happening with china, and they have, i think, a very similar view to china than what you see in the u.s. we want a positive relationship. you want a good economic relationship. india has the same enormous
trade imbalances with china that we do. on the military side, i think they're getting increasingly worried. there are some skirmishes, none of them have been fatal yet, but if you look it up on youtube, there are actually videos of chinese and indian soldiers throwing punches at each other up on that border in the high himalayas that is unsettled. and when you talk to the indian military, they are more and more worried about the number of chinese ports that are being built around what they see as a string of pearls near their neighborhood. and about the chinese sub marines that are increasingly active in the indian ocean. so it's a huge turn around from, i think, where we were a decade ago. >> sir, over here on right-hand side. >> stanley -- [inaudible] i'd like to hear more about this asian -- [inaudible] for example, the population
growth. from what i've seen in the chinese press, they project their population to decline to 500 million by the end of century. so i don't see how china and india get to three billion. i've seen similar figures for japan. similarly with the economic growth, that has been a lot of debt fueling that. that debt is now becoming burdensome. you read the chinese press now, they're talking about nonperforming loans. kaiser has these articles on defaults. so if that debt now starts to unwind, that means people will be thrown out of work. so where does this growing asian century come from? >> uh-huh. let me start on the demographic question, and you're quite right. i think it's very difficult to predict demographics a century out. my book, when i'm looking at future prognostications, i am
looking at 10, 15 years out. and by 2030 a lot of people assume that china will have around 1.4 billion people, india around 1.5 billion. so india's going to pass china because, just as you say, china is aging. also by that time about 70% of india will be of working age. but a much lower percentage of chinese. so india, just as you said, now has huge opportunity to reap its demographic dividend. for china, it will be harder and harder, and you see the chinese system already adjusting to this. so enormous pension reform that's trying to prepare for this wave of retirees, a lot of emphasis -- health care spending is going up by 10% every year both for the retirees and for folks, and because they understand they need to make a turn around from an economy that
has been built mostly on investment and manufacturing and building. and that has run its course, and now we need to move to a service economy and to a consumer economy. on the debt. i am not an economist. i talked to a number of economists, both chinese and american, in writing book. and some are very worried about it just like you are. others tell me, especially well-respected chinese economists, that, yes, the debt is a big issue, needs to be worked out, especially the debt that the state and local, municipalities and the regions took on in china. but that it is slowly being worked out, that some of the localities are now able to raise bonds in the way that you're doing in the united stat. and that, and one economist said this to me be, absolute worst case scenario -- let's hope we
don't get there -- but because china has its own currency unlike greece, you can always print money and print your way out of it. now, let's hope we don't get there. but i think by and large the consensus is that this debt is a big problem but will slow hi work itself out and not cause an enormous crash of the chinese economy. >> to these two gentlemen here. we'll take the one in the red tie first and then you in the blue tie second. >> hi. my name is michael larkin, i'm the asia director for young professionals, international affairs. and in a brief preface to my question, about two weeks ago i had an opportunity to participate in a discussion about the asian quad which is this idea that the u.s., australia and japan should more technically partner. one of the surprising themes of the discussion was if you only focus on the strategic element of china, you miss all the other important trends in multilateral relationships, especially in the
u.s./india relationship. and i was wondering if you could possibly discuss some of the political, economic and maybe even cultural track two diplomacy trends that will increasingly bring india and the u.s. together beyond this idea that india and the u.s. are coming closer just to counter china, the rationale being potentially you could put the relationship on -- the u.s./india relationship on an untenable path if it's just about military counter oring of china. >> i agree with the premise of your question. i think we need to as much as possible incorporate china in everything we're doing. so the trend you see because people are increasingly worried about china's aggressiveness is for u.s., india, japan, australia and others to band together. a decade ago i don't think we would have considered that quad
doing joint military exercises, or we did consider it, and we discarded the idea. now that's happening much more frequently. i think it is important even though china has occasionally made it difficult for us, it is important to include china as much as possible both on the track ii dialogues that you talked about, for orr issues beyond -- other issues beyond military and especially on the military issue, because that's going to be by far the hardest thing to resolve. one of the -- i teach now at stanford with gary ruffin, he used to be the chief of the navy. one of the things that he's quite proud of, and i think it's a great initiative, he helped persuade the pla that when chinese sailors meet sailors of other nations including the united states, that they're allowed to peek to them by radio -- speak to them by radio, which they weren't previously allowed to.
tiny step, right? not such a big deal. but that alone has gotten, has made accidents less likely, it means that everyone's on the radio practicing their mandarin and practicing their english, and you're much less likely to shoot if you all talking to each other, practicing your languagings. i agree we need more and more of that, and it would be great to do more on a trilateral basis. not as many dialogues as we'd like to see and also with australia and japan. so we should do more. >> sir. >> charles -- [inaudible] on the board of directors of the eurasia center and eurasian business coalition. begin what you mentioned about the -- given what you mentioned about the ports of the chinese or building, etc., and their very dynamic involvement in investment banks, etc., for infrastructure on the new silk road, can you talk to whether
the indian economic and governmental community is equally committed to or aware of how the new silk road investments over the next probably 50-plus years can also benefit india and south asia? because it's not just a road, it's a web of infrastructure and investments, etc. >> sure. thank you. i think india is ambivalent about the one belt, one road initiative in a similar, for similar reasons that america is ambivalent about it. so on the one hand, first of all, looking at it from china's perspective, it makes perfect sense, right? you need to get to a situation, if you're china, where you move beyond having to bring all your material, 80% of your oil through the malacca straits. you need other ways to get things into and out of the country. and asia needs a lot of infrastructure investment.
so it's actually a positive hinge that china is willing to make the asphalt smoother and the rails faster and make commerce better. that benefits all of us. and i think india sees that. at the same time, it's worried because the largess, of course, the big, first announced deal under one belt, one road was an announced $46 billion in infrastructure be aid to pakistan. it's not clear when all $46 billion will finally be invested but, obviously, that worries the you would januaries. and they're -- the indians. they're asking the chinese, come and invest here as well. some of that is happening. increasingly you see modi and xi talking about chinese investment in india as well. i think that's a very positive development. another thing i think is a very positive development is that china has been willing to do a lot of the investment not unilaterally as they could, but through the asian infrastructure
investment bank, the aiib. whenever i see the ceo of the aiib talking -- you've met him a lot -- i think he's quite sincere, he's very, very smart, and he talks about having standards that are as good or better than the world bank in terms of labor standards, environmental standards. and i see this really as, you know, we used to say when you were leading our foreign policy and when we were in government that you want china to come in and be a responsible stakeholder. i think this is an example of china wanting to be a responsible stakeholder, and we should welcome it and support it. >> sir. >> hi. i'm -- [inaudible] so my question is the story of india is being written far away from delhi in the -- [inaudible] so does your book look at these
shifts as well? and are you looking at should u.s. and china look at talking to these state governments rather than government in delhi as well? >> yes. the answer is, yes, we should. and when we help our clients, american companies do business in india, we often tell them that, you know, it's an enormous country, very, very different standards, very different chief ministers in the different indian states. some of them on a very pro-growth platform and some of them. no so you're quite right. -- so you're quite right. often we tell people, look, you want to think about four or five other indian states rather than just going to delhi. >> sir and then ma'am. here. >> i'm tom bradley, a grad student. i'd like to ask you, freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce
on the high seas has been an important, vital national interest to the u.s. since we became a nation, and we've demonstrated it for over 220 years now pretty well continuously. the south china sea is probably the most valuable commercial route, ocean in the world. with china's increasing assertiveness in the east china sea and the south china sea, what advice would you give a president concerning how to maintain freedom of commerce on the high seas while not provoking china to do something more aggressive? and do you think any of them are smart enough to take the advice? [laughter] >> a one-two. steve, can i put this one to you? because you've done so much work on this issue, and then i'll add. >> well, you know, the problem with this issue, i was at this
track ii u.s./china dialogue a week ago, someone said, you know, the problem with this issue is the united states has framed it as a freedom of navigation issue. and china has framed it as a sovereignty issue. as have a number of its neighbors. and, of course, the problem of framing something as a sovereignty issue is you almost make it impossible to compromise. because who wants to go down in history as having compromised their nation's strategy? their nation's sovereignty? so i think we have got to insist on international standards and freedom of navigation and the like. what we are doing is this some sense -- is in some sense my understanding is we failed to do this as often as we should have in the south china sea, and we're trying to make up for lost time. one of the things we can do is lower the profile. do it. we don't need to talk about it, don't need to be provocative about it, but it does need to be done. and i think the second thing we
need to do is have in place, of course, as anja talked about it, communication channels and conflict avoidance procedures in the military chain and the civilian chain so that you don't have a situation where two sea captains get into it, and the two countries are forced to do a confrontation that neither wants but neither can avoid. and finally, i think the third thing we need to do is find a way to park some of these sovereignty issues. now, this is really not for us. this is for china and its neighbors. but, you know, dunn xiaoping addressed these issues, and they basically said they're too hard. we these to leave them to future generations. i think that's probably the right approach. whether we can get back to that is going to be difficult. >> i would just add within word. you asked about advice for the next president. one of the things america doesn't do very well is long-term, subtle policy. it's very hard because of our electoral system and especially
in a year like this, all the rhetoric has gone crazy. let's hope the policy doesn't actually go that way. but once we announce a policy, we need to be very consistent about how we do it. so we shouldn't have freedom of navigation operations and then not have them and then have them again, you know? right now we didn't have them for a few years, and now we're back. and my view would be the next president should do it as well. but the worst thing you can do is start and stop because if i were on the other side, i would be a little confused about where lines are. i think we should be very clear, ratchet down the rhetoric be very consistent. >> i'd say one other thing. you know, china has a certain incentive. xi jinping has an incentive to be strong on sovereignty, strong on territorial claims. he doesn't want to open himself politically, and he's right to be criticized for being soft on those issues. but if he knows he's going to
have the economic reform program he wants implemented, he's going to have to have good economic relations with his neighbors, with us and the europeans. and that if there is a confrontation on the south china sea, those economic relationships are at risk. so i think xi jinping has a tricky task in front of him, and my hope is that, yeah, he pushes a bit because of domestic pressure, but he recognizes there's in some sense economic back pressure, and he doesn't go too far. because he doesn't want to jeopardize the economic future of his country. be we'll see. it requires some skillful diplomacy, and as anja said, that's kind of in short supply during an election campaign. there was another -- yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] foreign affairs committee. since you're based in the heart of innovation, i have to ask you about technology policy. could you talk about what you sew are the big issues -- what you see are the big issues
between us, india and china? in particular, if you could hit on internet governance and cybersecurity and the deal that was made with president xi on not conducting espionage for business purposes. >> thanks. thanks for coming. i said to someone earlier when we were upstairs on roof that i thought the technology companies' relationship with china and the business community's relationship between china and the u.s. used to be one of the backbones, used to be manager you could rely on -- something you could rely on that would make the relationship stronger. i just spoke to a ceo conference of a venture capital firm on friday, and the sentiment is universally negative. very, very worried, very frustrated at what they perceive to be china's unfairness at how they treat our companies. unfairness in the way that the
laws are implemented, are enforced against western companies versus chinese, native companies. and it's a whole litany of complaints that i'm sure you know. the industrial espionage, i think, was the number one thing that made it difficult for the u.s. business community to support china. and it's taken a real toll. we know many companies that have personally suffered from this. it is an enormous problem. so the fact that xi jinping came in september and for the first time acknowledged openly that we're going to do manager about this -- something about this, the agreement, i think those are all steps in the right direction. we need a lot more dialogue, and i'm not privy to what's going on behind the scenes. i'm out in california as a private citizen, but i understand that there's dialogue that's continuing. it's slow, it's pain beful, it's study, but that's the work that it takes for this copied of relationship. so we should -- for kind of relationship. so we should definitely continue the dialogue on that. but i also think that this is,
should be a wake-up call to china that the part of america that has always been pro-trade with china and open relations and making the relationship work is in a way turning against or frustrated, frustrated with the relationship. and both sides need to do something to fix it. >> i think we have time for about two more questions. this gentleman here and richard. we'll give you the last one. sir. >> hi. again, my name is jake -- [inaudible] i'm with the department of defense. my question, you already touched a little bit about the security relationship between the united states and china, a little between the united states and india. my question that if these three states here are defining sort of the way forward in the 21st century in the asia-pacific and beyond, where does that leave the current international security order defined by the u.s. relationships? and, in fact, where does it leave u.s. allies like somewhere
pan, australia, south korea or thailand? -- japan, australia, craw or thailand that are increasingly caught between the interests of powers or that are considerably greater than them in terms of geopolitical weight? >> good question. let me be clear, i'm not advocating that we change our alliance system, and this is the 21st century where there's a, there are three superpowers and we rule the world together, india, china and the u.s.: that's highly unlikely to happen. i think our current alliance system will continue largely the way it is. i don't think we will enter into a formal alliance with india even though the partnership has become so much closer over the past decade including on military side. i think a formal alliance is not something that india wants and not something that we would want. so i don't foresee an enormous change in our asian alliance structure. what i do think we need to do is think carefully about especially
in this election time where the rhetoric has gotten so heated and it has become so unpopular to talk about cooperation with china in particular. we need to think about what happens when you actually go down that path. if you have a trade war with china or a, god forbid, a military confrontation, do we want a new cold war? do we want a relationship that is more similar to what we had between the u.s. and the soviet union? or do we want something where, certainly, we have disagreements, certainly we're going to have national interests that diverge substantially from one another, but by and large we lower the rhetoric. we solve our problems as much as possible behind the scenes and where we emphasize cooperation because it actually is in all of our interests to make sure that this triangle gets along. >> richard, question. >> all right. thank you.
i wasn't going to ask the question, but i couldn't resist. after hearing this great conversation or, i wanted to ask about the role of pakistan in the thinking of both indians and chinese today. because i think if this conversation had happened sometime in the recent past, pakistan would have predominated more, it would have been more of a topic. the indians would have thought about pakistan more concretely and more often as an element of this competitive relationship. they have, they also would have thought about their relationship with china in part through the prism of pakistan and pakistan's treejic relationship with -- strategic relationship with china. are you sensing that pakistan is retreating from the forefront of foreign policymakers' minds in both beijing and new i delhi? how do you see that fit into the three countries that you're talking about today? >> thanks. you and i go to all the same dialogues. [laughter] we might have a similar view on this. i do think that india is looking
up strategically. where they used to be really preoccupied with their neighborhood, worried about pakistan, to some extent china, but now they're seeing themselves as having a global role. and modi has been really critical to shaping that and to being much more prominent on the world stage. and so i think, yes, obviously, pakistan will continue to shape a lot of india's thinking because the terrorism comes from pakistan, the nuclear weapons are still a concern, especially the new, smaller ones they're building m but it's not predominant. and the more and more when we talk to indian government officials, they want to talk about china, and they want to talk about the world beyond asia. and i think that is a positive thing that we should welcome. >> we've come to the end of our time. i want to thank richard fontaine and cnas for sponsoring this event. thank you, anja, for coming and
giving us a chance to speak with you. >> thank you. >> and thank all of you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> this is booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here's our rhyme time lineup. -- prime time lineup. tonight, starting at 7, dinesh d'souza. at eight, cass sunstein discusses what we can learn about history, presidential politics, law, economics and culture from the movie "star wars." on "after words" at 9 p.m. eastern, "wall street journal"
columnist kimberly stras el on the tactics she says the left is using to disrupt the political process. and at 10 p.m., biographer jean edward smith remembers the tenure of president george w. bush. we wrap up our sunday prime time lineup at 11 with a critical look at the involvement of the federal government in education with vicki alger. that all happens tonight on c-span2's booktv. >> booktv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they're reading this summer. >> well, i read constantly. i grew up in a small town, and the library was an important part of my life. the way i saw the rest of the world was not by travel particularly, but what books i checked out at the local public library. so all my life i've been a realizer and still want that book -- a reader and still want that book in my hand. i'm old-fashioned in wanting the hard copy.
and i'm reading at the moment, i often read biographies, history, things that you might expect somebody who's interested in government, politics to read. but the one at the moment is douglas macarthur, a biography. he certainly predates my time, and i didn't know a lot about him other than he's been somewhat controversial, and this is a new book to me written by arthur herman, and i'm learning about douglas macarthur, the general and military leader. i'm just a few page, i'm probably 50 pages from being done with this book, and i'm trying to get it done this week before i get on the airplane so i don't have to carry another book that i'll soon be done with. >> what else. >> just this week i was in a meeting with john meacham, historian, author, describing a book, and this is probably the next one on my list, franklin and winston, a story about two
world war ii leaders, great britain and the united states. i think john meacham is very bright and smart, and i love to read what he writes. it's one i haven't read, so that's probably next on my list. but i keep track of what books i read and, again, not a lot of fiction. but things that have to do with the work i do here and particularly things about people in the history of our country, history of the world that, hopefully, are inspiring and give you insight into how they conducted their lives and how they did things that perhaps make a difference. but, you know, current politics, i just finished reading alter egos, a story about the relationship between secretary clinton and president obama. and particularly as it relates to national security and skate department kind of -- state department kind of issues, two rivals in a primary who come together in the same administration. so an opportunity to get a feel for what was going on in
washington, d.c., a place that i work, but certainly don't have the insight behind the curtains as to what goes on at the white house or the state department in this administration. another national security book just read this summer, michael haden, former national -- michael hayden, talking about being faced with terrorism and its threats. this one's called "playing to the edge" about his time at cia. so, again, same kind of venue. mostly history. some, as i say, sometimes current things. lincoln's boys caught my attention, read it this summer. it's the story of john hay and john nick lie, the two individuals that president lincoln then, before he was president met in illinois. they came with him, and it's a story about their lives as two young men working in the lincoln administration particularly during the civil war and what happened in their lives afterwards.
so, again, that kind of -- i like, as i say, i like to read history. less interested in, like, the battlefield be, but much more interested in the people that serve in that capacity. and then probably my favorite book of the summer has been "hamilton." and i've decided that ron chernow is a great author, and i'm going to look for his books to continue to read. in fact, i have several of them that i haven't read and now am interested in doing so. this caught my attention because of the musical. the musical, "hamilton," is based upon this book and happened to see it sitting in a bookstore and interested to see what caught, in a sense, kind of today's culture, today's audience with the musical based upon the life of alexander hamilton, our first treasury secretary. and so this is, this is probably the one i enjoyed the most. unfortunately, it was the longest, the thickest, and it often turns out to be that way.
i'm always complaining that the thickest books seem to be the best. >> booktv wants to know what you're reading this summer. tweet us your answer, @booktv, or you can post it on our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. >> here's a preview of some of the books being published this fall. coming up in september, fox news host bill o'reilly along with martin du guard are releasing another volume in their killing series, this time looking at war with japan during world war ii. candace my lard looks at the exploits of a young winston churchill during the second boer war. maureen dowd shares her thoughts on the 2016 presidential election in "the year of voting dangerously." eagle forum founder phyllis schlafly makes a conservative argument for supporting donald trump. and two-time pulitzer prize-winning historian alan taylor examines the revolutionary war and its
aftermath in "american revolutions." some books being published in october, ruth bader ginsburg releases her memoir, "my own words," a profile of alan greenspan as well. also coming up in october, "let me tell you about jasper," the latest from dana perino, co-host of fox news' "the five." be guardian editor at large gary younge reports on gun violence in another day in the death of america. and historian h.w. brands gives an account of the rivalry between president harry truman and general douglas macarthur. ..