tv After Words with Anne- Marie Slaughter CSPAN June 10, 2017 10:00pm-11:03pm EDT
justice department attorney for taft and freelance frank berger who is working in the war department to live in the house. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> on "after words" anne-marie slaughter on foreign affairs in her book the chessboard and the web. she is interviewed by denis mcdonough, and visiting senior fellow for the carnegie endowment for national pieces technology in international
affairs program. >> hello everybody. my name is denis mcdonough i will be your host today. we were joined by anne-marie slaughter. we will discuss her exciting new book. which is called the trust board and the web. is one of several books that she has written. she is currently sealed new america. for my director policy planning of the state department and formerly dean of the woodrow wilson school of public international affairs at princeton. what's important, those are just some of her past assignments. and a very illustrious career. what's important i think in terms of today's discussion is that you will see in her background and in the book that she is both a practitioner as
well as a theorist.for as a teacher. a professor of international affairs. it is an exciting opportunity to discuss her new book, "the chess board and the web".when we jumped right and to anne-marie, tells a little bit about the thesis of the book and way decided to write it now. >> it is great to speak with you denis mcdonough. and to be able to reflect on both of our experiences actually as foreign policy practitioners. i have been writing about networks since 1994. so as a scholar, i have been looking at how the world would move increasingly from being hierarchical organizations like the united nations or the imf or the world bank. an increasingly toward networks, government officials like central bankers or finance ministers but also big networks of ngos. humanitarian disaster, he sold
these nongovernmental organizations playing an increasingly important role. when i was in government and you know you chaired many of those situation rooms meetings. what would strike me was that we knew that there was a world and state reps today think about north korea or iran or sometimes china and russia. that world of state to state relations is still very very important and i think of it as the chessboard world because it is the world of how do we essentially beat our adversaries and we think about a movie and we try to anticipate what mood they're going to make. and that world is there and it is very important. but equally important is what i call the world on the web. that world of criminal networks including terrorists but also traffickers of arms and the world of business which is increasingly big networks
supply chains. global corporations and the world of nongovernmental organizations. i think of all of those actors as webmasters as increasingly important actors. but we don't have strategies how to bring them together. this book is a book that says if we are going to have a world with a chessboard and strategies of how to deal with conflict between states and cooperation between states we also need a set of strategies for how to design networks for specific people. good to reconnect how fluid connect them? how do we run the networks to meet challenges or to advance our goals. and this book is a set of the strategies. >> wealth it is surely a timely book. very much. and you just send in the opening remarks, let me just that was a pretty effective quote - that teed up the argument in the book where you
said on pages nine and 10 that whatever the future brings, we need the ability and the tools to operate effectively in a very different world where states still exist and exercise power but side-by-side with corporate, civic and criminal actors and mesh in a web of networks for this chessboard running up against this web of networks that you talked about. it is a question of either or. is it that you are a realist and you are just playing on a chessboard or an idealist playing on the web? and then the network speed of the question of both weight and how do you see that and how should the reader into the book on this debate which goes back decades and decades among practitioners and students of the field that you and i are both coming out of. >> it is definitely both. indeed, the endless debate between realists and liberal
internationalists about do we pursue our interests or do we pursue our values? those are i think you and i would both agree often overplayed as i strongly believe for instance that we have to pursue our values. that is part of our interest. but i would also say that i would also say that we have to be able to put together chessboard strategies and web strategies and 10 is a question of shorter term and long term. so when you have an immediate crisis with another state, so if you're thinking about the middle east and you are thinking about what do we do with iran or what do we do about syria? they will be an immediate set of choices that are going to involve other states. we pushed back, we tried to cooperate.
we signal our willingness to cooperate. sometimes it works and some not. but longer term and if you think about president obama's speech in 2009, a new beginning would be the muslim world. to really address the causes of terrorism and indeed, lots of other problems coming up the middle east. you need to build networks. networks of entrepreneurs. networks of civic groups. networks of scientists. networks of actual muslim troops that are pushing back against a radical islamist narrative.and that is whether web strategies come in. that is where you bring in business and civic groups and governments and you design a network a particular way and you run it. so it really is both ands. >> the question it leads me to believe something that you call
disaggregation of the state. as you just said you have been arguing since 1994 as you have been looking at these networks. you say that the proliferation of these networks is a result of what i call the disaggregation of the state. meaning that different parts of governments were peeling away from the chessboard model of foreign policy. directed by the head of state and the foreign ministry and instead creating networks of both private and civic. the question i have is, as we are watching debates play out now, debates here in this country that really fueled i would argue, the election of the president. among the things that he still argues as president but then argued as a candidate was that a need to return american sovereignty. and the ongoing debate that we see even most recently in the
french election. for president. where one candidate was arguing very much to pull back from the european union.in an argument she made at the time to reassert french sovereignty. and the winner ultimately arguing that the french interests are best served by more aggressively engaging that network of the european union. what is your sense of kind of where this ebb and flow goes as it relates to the arc of this debate and the development of these networks since 94 when you started and really digging into this. >> that is a great question. and anyway again, goes back to both and spirit in the book i reprint that same picture. you look at it and see an old lady or young woman. some of us look at and say oh it is an old lady! you can see the big nose and the warts. that's clearly what it is.>> as not to ask about that. because of the lady.
i didn't know if that says something about me.or what! [laughter] >> i'm going to leave that to you and your wife. but some of us have young lady and some of us see the old woman. >> fair enough. >> my point is you actually have to see both. then you can do foreign policy effectively.you must be able to toggle between them. because in some cases, the state needs to be unitary. if we are under attack that is no time for different government agencies and different citizens and different corporations to be networking around the world. in those situations, the president is the commander-in-chief and the secretary of state and the secretary of treasury. everyone has to be on the same page. so when we are really under threat and again, i would say dealing with north korea. right now or again when you were working with iran, there
were many different contexts through the government. it was what i would call a unitary state. there was someone in charge and everyone was on the same playbook. at the same time, in a globalized world and interdependent world, our networks are a great source of power and advantage for the united states. the fact that our corporations are doing business around the world. the fact that our movies and entertainment are seen around the world. the fact that our universities are attracting students from all over the world. and running campuses abroad. again, civic organizations linking up to networks abroad. we have got to be able to do both. and that second disaggregated states, it is a very academic term but it means our cities
and our states are able to engage others. so right now on climate change, california in the cities of new york and chicago and los angeles, they are all actively networking with their counterparts abroad to fight climate change. but because they can do things on the ground. or similarly if you're fighting terrorism again, you want the ability to help build educational institutions and businesses in states that do not have opportunities for you to fight the long-term causes of terrorism. so it's really, you had to toggle back and forth. some of the time you need to be really unitary. all hands on deck. prices are conflict state.and in other cases it is critically important that we stay open to the world and able to participate in networks. >> it is remarkable. it is great that you brought up the case of california and
climate change. i think the times reported this week.maybe even yesterday on the things that the state of california and the governor are doing as it relates to work on climate and convening a meeting in fact of ministers of the government of mexico. of mexico city or the state of mexico. and ministers of the government of canada in california, it strikes me as a really remarkable thing. the question is, d.c. transport do you see risk in that? or is it just the fact that is the world as it is. and if this was an independent country will be the -- do you see any risk in this case is
california? >> absolutely. and this is actually an old question. the supreme court has revisited this several times and i'm sure that they will have another shoot right now about what individual states can do. so early on, the supreme court informs or issued a ruling that said state can't engage in treaties with other states. so california can actually you know create a kind of nafta formally with the governments of canada and mexico. on the other hand, and again this was happening in the 1990s where governors started leaving trade delegations to china and other parts of asia for their states. and california actively intervened and issues going on in the eu and there was a lawsuit brought about that. brought about their about
california's tax. the ability to tax and california's power was out there. so this is again, it is back to sort of same united states as a unitary country but also a country of 50 states at the same time. we benefit as a nation having our states be able to forge relationships with other countries or other states around the world. think about the sister cities networks. that is one example. i think chicago has more sister cities than any of the country. with all of our cities have those relationships. that is a form of soft power. that is people learning about the united states and also help with for trade and culture and the flow of ideas. but what you have to make sure is that a state or a city can't get you into trouble. the reason the founders insisted that the foreign
affairs power be located with the federal government was that they didn't want back in the revolutionary era, they did not want states refusing to pay british creditors. so states were very sympathetic to american debtors. after the revolution. but that could get us into war with britain. so it is a balance. i tend to favor more autonomy for states and cities because in the web world, he simply has to allow more independence. but i am mindful that you know you would not want california going and making a deal with china that might imperil our defense capacity or frankly, undercutting other states economically. >> it is remarkable, remarkably diverse international system as we dig into this.
i want to come back and a couple questions i think china or north korea which your reference a couple of times also. i want to dig in for a couple more questions on networks themselves. the fitting of someone who has been looking at this for a long time. ahead of your, ahead of anyone else. i know that it was talked about yesterday. i guess he knows something about them. he has a pretty powerful network himself. but you break down different kinds of networks and i think the reader will be quite engaged by that. throughout, i just want to put one example. you talked about networks. but in each of the kind of networks that you bring up you highlight the importance of diversity. which i think is pretty interesting. and i think as you hinted at in
the remarks so far a network state ultimately is going to be a diverse state. and on page 134 hereby can find it, you write that in the context of a taft network he put that their best carried out by small diverse but cohesive groups. diversity of members provides multiple talents and perspectives while small size build sufficient trust and team spirit for the group to adapt seamlessly to changing circumstances. if my memory serves me, they set of conclusions are really effective set of networks that a former colleague of ours by the name of sam mcchrystal, a highly decorated man. he used to carry out different counterterrorism operations in places like iraq and afghanistan.
but i am interested, if you want to spend a little time on the differentiation of networks that may be interesting but i'm also interested in this diversity. because one could argue that the debate that we just referenced a minute ago in this country and in europe for example, between those who want to stay in the european union, those who want to was evident in the brexit vote. those who want to get out of the european union. there is a debate about diversity getting something particular about them on the chessboard. something that they identify as uniquely their own. so the question i have is a little bit like the question about sovereignty. he argued it is both and that is to say both the chessboard and the network. that is to say and the web. but is there a point on this trend because people are stealing their sovereignty,
because they are feeling certain things if they don't identify as their own. this inherently powerful diversity.maybe retrenching against that. is that a fair conclusion? or do two different one? >> i think that is right. let me start at the end and work backwards. i think what - to oversimplify, you have states that are you know, were closed and more homogeneous. at least over 10 years, 50 years you sort of think about this great wave of globalization that we have been through that really starts in the 70s and 80s and takes off with digital technology where suddenly the world really is a
web. look at a map of the internet we are all connected and you cannot even see national boundaries because the internet does not recognize them.that process brings all sorts of benefits but it also has brought lots of immigrants. lots of changing cultures, lots of suddenly kind of new ways of working and being that many people find quite frightening. one of the ways of understanding our politics in european politics is exactly this desire in my vocabulary to kind of close backup and be a chessboard state. we are friends, we are the united states. we are britain. this is what defines us. this is our people, these are our customs, this is our culture. here we are on the world stage. and again, you do have to pay attention to that. part of that is just real
anxiety and a way of life that was familiar and comforting that you can be proud of. many people feel it is slipping away. so you have to pay attention to that just like you have to pay attention to our ability to defend ourselves as a state. but the other way to understand it, and this convective point about diversity. it is, it is the countries that have the most diversity internally and are most connected then to opportunities and ideas abroad that will force the most. again, this is not all good or all bad. because some people give and said again, like being connected to countries where there are criminals you know like drug runners or again, arms traffickers. all of that or terrorists. we do not want to be open to those countries. those contacts, those networks bring danger. fair enough.
and you have to protect against that. but those connections also bring us exports. and talents. the diversity that brings you new ideas. all of the people who study innovation say look, innovation and creativity comes from the collision of unexpected things. so if we are all the same people and the growth in the same place and rethink about the same stuff, we are much less likely to come up with something new then when you reach out to the people you don't know so well and you expose yourself to new experiences and new ideas and you put those together with your older ideas. that is the magic of the spark of creativity. when you look at that from this perspective of a country, the united states where a country of immigrants, a country that has connections all around the world. again through culture, business, people, educational system.in the world of the
web, that openness is our greatest asset. but in the world of the chessboard we want to be enclosed enough to make sure we can protect ourselves. that is the balance we have destroyed. >> it is remarkable. i am persuaded by the argument. but i think on one of the more powerful things and they very well argued book is the argument you made based on -- you're not talking in terms of a bronze geopolitical questionnaire. although, he is leading really remarkable unit in foreign countries as they do but it seems to me reading this book that general mcchrystal would argue on the tactical level what you just argued on the
interstate strategic level. is that a fair reading of his experience? >> yes. and it is a great example! i have to say, i wanted to write this book in 2011 right after i came out of government and i taught a course called making networks work. i selected all of this material and i've been writing about networks for decades. and them i wrote an article in the atlantic about working family and got knocked in a different direction. and while i was working on issues of women and men and work, there came mcchrystal's book team of teams. i was thrilled because he describes exactly being in charge of special forces in iraq and he has got to fight al qaeda in iraq. and he opens with this description of an attack and then very quickly the people
involved figure out what happened and reconfigure and repair the damage to their network and then go on. and you're reading this and you think he is describing our special forces. he's not. he is describing al qaeda in iraq. he is saying that kind of stability and adaptability and nimbleness was characteristic of the al qaeda in iraq network. we cannot match it. because even though our special forces is the most nimble part of our military, we were too hierarchal. at first we had a command of beings. he was on top and they're all these different groups. intelligent scripts and a logistics group and communications group and he
figures out how to make that command into a team of teams. when he has got different groups. each one is connected to all the other groups but in ways that are flexible enough so that as he describes it he said the network can become one big entity where everyone is connected to everyone else. and he describes the strategy of shared consciousness. so everyone has known everybody else knows. but then it can come back together and his team of different teams. each of home can act independently. when he calls and powered execution. and that is a strategy he has used on the battlefield. he uses now as a business consultant and it is a great example of thinking very strategically about the type of network you need for a specific task. and i described it as a task network.
i can also talk about resilience networks and scale networks. but his is a very compelling concrete example of this idea of a strategy. >> what struck me, in terms of our times together in the government, in the military it seems to me the experience they just talked through of general mcchrystal, was not exception but rather the rule. really remarkable way of after action in each of their undertakings.so as to ensure that they are drawing the best lesson and making themselves that much more nimble. and it seems to me that it comes through in your book for the big strategist that you say
that too often now we have strategists that are stuck on one side of the other of this. divide between the chessboard and the web. but sometimes may be the public perception is that our armed forces are quickly chessboard actors when in fact they are precisely and maintain the attributes that you just talked to about being so beneficial. agile, open to rethinking, diverse, task oriented but also learning from each of those. iterations of the task. i thought it was really, that is what came to me as i read that portion of the book.
called it hybrid warfare, not sure who they are fighting, they are networked, you must be networked to respond to them, you have to be prepared to fight so the military has been on the frontlines of the transition. i found myself in the state department frustrated that it was such a hierarchy and what you want to do even within government was to pull together a kind of network of experts and people who knew what you needed to know the way you did at the national council but we were still very much, at the state department, geared much more for
state world than the world of the west. secretary clinton and president obama tried to change that in terms of appointing special representatives, women or civil society or youth for business, but they were pushing against a ferociously difficult, very set over and man. >> it seemed there were embassies, you would be closer to this, embassies where, you know, certain ambassadors did a very good job trying to make them obtain that stand, you see some of those embassies working extraordinarily well, where they not only have their political
counselors reporting what happened, you also have the commercial service, all of your other services working as a team, a more comprehensive picture of this. but maybe in places if you go back to 2010-2011 where we weren't as effective in farming the kind of information outside the network in a particular country, maybe one of those places we weren't as effective, for example in their world, across the board starting in tunisia, but pretty aggressively into egypt and eventually syria. we were analytically surprised
by the steps and pervasiveness that led to the arab spring. may be a more effective team drawing on the networks on the ground in those countries would have had us a little more ahead of the curve, what ends up being one, more fundamentally fundamentally changed the situations or systems or networks we witnessed. think that is fair? >> there were ambassadors like the first in sweden who became our ambassador to britain. he really got this.
a number of the ambassadors president obama appointed in the digital world got it, and office of network engagement, thought about how to build networks in new zealand, but what you didn't have, the middle east is very well chosen, at the ambassadorial level, foreign service officers don't -- many of them are superb but coming up to 30 years, that means even when they reach out to business, to religious groups, they themselves are diplomats. i can imagine a foreign service where you would have business people going in and out of any level or people who work in nonprofits going in and out, we
do that at the top level. those people would bring their networks with them. to be very precise, why didn't we have deeper contact, say, with entities that were fusing religion and politics in many of these countries or with other people who were more sympathetic? we had relations with the government, say egypt, the egyptian government, the chessboard world and the egyptian government didn't want us connecting to lots of these other people and we were not set up to do that. it goes back to sovereignty, the traditional world of chessboard interaction is we are sovereign, we have an embassy in another sovereign country, we have very formal relations and we try to
reach out to society but we often don't have nearly the same range of contacts that our business people do come our journalists do, our civil society does. we need to tap networks of those contacts to have not only better information but better ability to engage and shape events as they happen or protect american interests. >> let's look at it from that end and take another example you and i are both involved in which is irani and elections in 2009, where i think as referred to at the time of the green movement rose up, criticizing conduct in the government come of the outcome of the election which at the time reelected lockwood ahmadinejad. there was a debate publicly and
in the government about how deeply united states should involve itself in that ongoing political disputes in iran. how much from standard chessboard state to state relations between the united states and iran was basically covered by experience since revolution in 1979 and hostage crisis, ongoing tension we have had, the question is how much this build over across into this network or this web, civil society in iran, where independent iranians irrespective of, quite
independent of the united states or anybody else expressing frustration with their government, if i remember right, at the time it really involved in my own mind, how much, what the risk to the united states is or the risk the independence of the green movement appearing to be influenced by, or run by the united states if we appear to be spilling into the web or the network of that activity. there is an argument the other way as well. what is the right answer? if you have the right balance seeing our interests across the web. what is the right answer? the policy outcome to protect
our interests and a different outcome in iran? is that the right outcome for our interest to be shooting for. >> that is a great example. i remember it well because president obama was reaching out to the government of iran, the start of trying to engage iran, the policy of engagement saying we can't get anywhere if we don't talk to people, he was building relationships with the government that in the end become the foundation for the uranian nuclear agreement, considered one of the great achievements of the obama administration. he is reaching out to a government that is shooting its own citizens in the streets, from the us point of view in the
world point of view, we looked like we were in the wrong side and we gradually froze relations for a while and denounced that. the key here, you are absolutely right, that the network engagement i would like to see in that context cannot come directly from the us government. to be supported by the us government, the people who mounted the green revolution is because of that. the government, their government, the uranian government said you are stooges, cia spies and are delegitimized but here is what we could do if we reorganized the government way i would imagine it, build network strategies and chessboard strategies, you would have in the us government reached out well before that to universities and businesses and
religious groups and the uranian diaspora, they are complicated because they carry passionately sells politics with them but you would have figured out, how do we help support a network, that does not mean we construct it or fund it because that goes back to delegitimization but the us government has enormous convening power and the ability to reach many parts of our society and you could have supported the growth of youth groups in the united states talking to youth groups in iran. civil society, a lot of our foundations can fund. it is not directed by the united states government but it is encouraged by the united states government. we might have had the ability
through these networks to save the american people, united states people are with you. we support you without coming from the government but from the government point of view, we would be better positioned and frankly better able to communicate the full range of who we are if you encourage those networks even though you don't have formal diplomatic relations at the same time you have this chessboard strategy. >> if you are effectively practicing state craft in an increasingly interconnected world, more interaction in the web doesn't weaken or undercut or lessen your options.
>> yes. i would say you need to practice statecraft and web craft. statecraft does have to come from the government. web craft can come from the government, it and be encouraged by the government but it can also come again from a mayor or a foundation, great example to go back to climate change is mayor michael bloomberg after he stopped being mayor had done a lot of work for bloomberg philanthropy to bring together mayors from around the world to reducing carbon emissions in their cities and so he now has the global covenant of the mayors on climate and energy connecting 7000 cities, almost 1 billion people in that covenant, note the language of a covenant, sounds like a treaty, something only governments can do. all of those mayors can take
action regardless of whether donald trump pulls out of the paris agreement on climate change or not. that is web craft. the obama administration would be supportive of that, the trump administration less so. i think ultimately, that is enlisting the power of the american people, it could be business, civic organizations, mayors or governors in ways that advance our interests globally in ways that most often with the chessboard, there are places where there will be a conflict and the government is in control but overall we have enough challenges that people practicing web craft with or without the government is a complement to what the government does.
>> i did notice michael bloomberg even said earlier this month in relation to cities, it didn't matter to him. or rather didn't matter to the outcome of reduction of carbon emissions in the united states, whether donald trump continued in paris or not saying the effectiveness of this arrangement among cities, he argued that we were going to see the kind of carbon reduction in visions in making paris agreement. and independent analysis of that, strikes me as pretty remarkable. >> i have a former student working on that and he backs that up. he says fundamentally if you look at the cities around the
world, they are the concentration of 60% to 80% of the world population is growing in cities, that is the place where you have the densest carbon emissions. the idea is people in charge, the citizens of those cities support a mayor, we are going to reduce carbon emissions like the city says we are going to impose traffic controls or emission controls because we have to live in this city, they should be able to take that action. again, the supreme court will probably look at this, hard for me to imagine if the supreme court says no, you cannot improve your life in a city as you do with police or traffic or anything else under local control because the federal government does not want to commit the nation to reducing emissions because you are not imposing it on people outside
your city. to take another example that may be less controversial, things like global health, where the gates foundation worked with big pharmaceutical companies, the world health organization, thousands of smaller nongovernmental organizations to immunize and vaccinate children all over the world, we all benefit from that, and they can take off, that came from the gates foundation, it involves business, involves government, but doesn't depend on government and those are examples. >> not your last book, in your book, a couple books ago,
america's edge. this quote, the emerging network of the 21st-century exists above the state, below the state and through the state and in this world the state with the most connections will be the central player able to set the global agenda and unlock innovation and sustainable growth. the state with the most connections is the central player, and the strongest state. what is the strongest today? what do we do with a state like north korea, arguably the least network, and least prone to
persuasion and pressure even from the most important friends, namely china. is there an odd outlier by keeping itself out of the network north korea is making itself particularly resilient, if not just stubborn and isolated, also more difficult. >> it is exactly the way i think we need to think about power in the networked world or the web world, traditionally power, the size of your military, your territory, your population and in a networked world it is the number of connections and the quality of connections as well
and i don't think there -- there is not necessarily one center because multiple states that are connected and think of a map of the internet, think of a number of portals, and lots of smaller ones, the united states today, if we don't harm ourselves by closing ourselves off from the world, if we remain open to the world while still protecting ourselves, we are the most connected state by virtue of our people, business, our tradition of civil society. not all states have the density of civil society we do as was pointing about us in the 19th century, still true and educationally, those connections are hugely valuable if we know how to support them and cultivate them and use them but
i would note that china has an explicitly networked grand strategy, strategy of one road, says openly we are going to build our power and spread our influence by building trade networks and people networks and cultural networks and building physical infrastructure to do it. railroad that goes all the way to europe, highways that is their strategy and the eu has a similarly networked strategy, we can exercise our power through influence and we need to build those webs. canada has the same thing, talking about building networks around the world and i worry the united states in this moment, america first and closing off our borders and building walls
is the opposite of what i think we need to be doing. that is on the connected side but you are absolutely right that when we look at north korea, what you see is a state that is so disconnected that there are very few levers of influence. china is the one state north korea trades with and depends on but the flipside of that is if the north korean regime collapses a lot of north koreans will end up in eastern china, something china worries about. we have very little ability to exercise leverage except through very traditional chessboard means where we threaten the use of force, we have sanctions, we have imposed those sanctions, north korea, depending on our trade, there are ways to find
connections and use them that are more specific and a number of administrations tried this, north korean leaders closing off those networks, thinking about where it gets its military supplies and nuclear supplies though that is hard to choke off but fundamentally it means we have to work through the states that have the most connections and that is china and china has its own agenda and that is why that problem is so very hard. >> the one we are watching in real time is interesting to see, however trump administration's team is working on this. doing as you say, working
aggressively with the chinese. it seems to me if i were to boil down this, it is more dynamic, more influential and better able to protect its interests but you also mentioned the fact that there is, we are in a current political mood and period in this country where some of those actions toward greater network, greater network posture of the united states and so forth lead to some, as you referred to earlier, dislocation, that is leading to political pushback against these networks. the question i have. maybe this goes to the work you are doing in new america and elsewhere, what is the secret to
maintaining the us dynamism that comes from the united states being as networked as it is even as we are pushing up against a very difficult, very powerful and arguably very understandable increased skepticism about whether this networked world is leading to good opportunities for americans across the country who feel they are not getting a fair deal. how do we square emerging domestic political challenges with what appears to be what you argue in the book and we just discussed in the last nearly an hour, a geopolitical imperative that we remain? what is the secret there? >> there are a couple levels. you have to make an argument for
openness that explains to americans why ultimately that is our greatest advantage. for many of us who grew up in the cold war this is obvious because the soviet union was -- there was an iron curtain. they were closed, we were open. we didn't have to justify being open. we were an open society, open to other nations which they were a closed society. they had to put up walls to keep people in, not to keep people out. people wanted to get out of very closed, very hierarchical dominated societies to our open society and open world. it seems very obvious. you have to say to people across the country ultimately we have to still be open, we have to be
open to trade because we are a nation of 350 million in a world that is going to be 7 to 9 billion. the us economy is going to be like the netherlands to the rest of the world and economies like that succeed by trading and the exchange of ideas and people and goods, you have to make that pay and explain why it is in our interests and say we have to protect ourselves. it is not all connections are good ones, not all networks are good ones. we have to close off criminal networks, we need to protect ourselves, you have to strike that balance. overall open is better but you got to protect ourselves and so you absolutely have to connect the disconnected in our country, one of the ways you understand what is happening in europe and
happening here is there is a perception that global networks benefit people like you and me believe countless people behind and those people are often disconnected. they are in hometowns, lots of ambitious people have left that have been shrinking and dying and the people in them feel disconnected from this world of opportunity that so many of us talk about. from each other, they are disconnected from other places in their state, disconnected from the economy and they are disconnected from a lot of organizations that used to take care of people. everything from salvation army to ymca to little league, all that fabric of vibrant civic
life. one of the things we have to do domestically, i often think if someone left my own hometown in virginia, hardly abandoned or disconnected but many of these smaller cities and communities as a nation we need to be thinking about how to you connect the kids in those places to opportunity again? how do you connect the businesses in those places to a national economy? how do you connect the possibility of smaller farms and people who are not just in the little communities but in rural areas around them, how do you make sure they are connected to the value of these broader networks in ways that distinguish the games from them much more fairly? >> it seems to me that your book here tease up very nicely. your next book, which i hope you write this challenge, the big
challenge of our time where people do feel, first time in a long time in our country, feel disconnected from the kind of opportunity that the united states has made possible, all of our forefathers who are immigrants and came to this country and had a shot together opportunity. it sure feels like the question of the day for the united states and sounds to me and that answer you have a pretty good answer. i hope you write it down in another book but until that comes, i urge everybody to take a look at the newest book, the chessboard and the web. great to be with you. >> i enjoyed it, great conversation.
>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening. welcome, i am nancy, the owner of the store along with my dad. some history, my grandfather found at the store 90 years ago in 1927 in an area known as book row for a