tv After Words with Anne- Marie Slaughter CSPAN July 7, 2017 9:00pm-10:04pm EDT
i want to write that book. why don't i tell the story about my body today? without apology, just explanation. this is my fat body. and it is what it is like to be in this world in this body.>> work more on this weekend schedule good to booktv.org. >> up next on "after words" new america president and ceo anne-marie slaughter examines the intersection of technology and foreign affairs in her book "the chessboard & the web: strategies of connection in a networked world". she's interviewed by denis mcdonough former white house chief of staff in the obama administration and visiting senior fellow of the carnegie endowment for national thesis
technology and international affairs program. >> hello everybody.my name is denis mcdonough i am your host today. we are joined by anne-marie slaughter to discuss her exciting new book, which is called "the chessboard & the web: strategies of connection in a networked world". the most recent of several books that she has written. she is currently the president and ceo of new america. formerly director of policy planning at the state department and formally deem of the woodrow wilson of 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 anne-marie is both a practitioner as well as a theorist. and a teacher or professor of international affairs.
it is an exciting opportunity to discuss her new book and why don't we just jump right in. right up front anne-marie, tells about the thesis of the book and about why he decided to write the book now. >> dennis, it is great to talk to you 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 was moving increasingly from big hierarchical organizations like the united nations or the world bank and increasingly toward networks of government officials. like central bankers or finance ministers. but also big networks of the ngos, when there is a humanitarian disaster you see all of these nongovernmental organizations playing an
increasingly important role and when i was in government, and indeed you know, you chaired many of the situation rooms meetings. what would strike me was that we knew there was a world of state and state reps. today if you 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 due we essentially be adversaries and rethink about a movie and trying to anticipate what move they are going to make. that world is there and it is very important. equally important is what i call the world of the web. that world of criminal networks. including terrorists but also arms traffickers and drug traffickers. the world of business. which is increasingly big network supply chain, global
corporations. and the world of nongovernmental organizations. i think of all of those actors as web actors as increasingly important actors. but we don't have strategies for how to bring them together. so this book is a book that says if we are going to have a world of a chessboard and strategies of how you deal with conflict between states and cooperation between states, we also need a set of strategies for how to design networks for specific people. who do we connect, how do we connect them, how do we run those networks to meet challenges or to advance our goals? and this book is a set of the strategies. >> surely it is a timely book. very much. and just on what you said in your opening remarks, let me just go to, that was a pretty effective quote - that teed up the argument in the book where you say 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. 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 therefore you're just playing on a chessboard or you are an idealist just playing on the web? and then the networks? or is it a question of both? how do you see that and how should the reader enter into the book on this debate which goes back decades and decades among practitioners and students of the field that you and i both come out of? >> it is definitely both. indeed, you know the endless debate between realists and
liberal internationalists about, do we pursue our interest or our values? those are i think you and i would both agree, often overplayed. 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 often it is a question of shorter term and long term. so when you have an immediate crisis with another state, so if you're thinking of the middle east and you're thinking about what do we do with iran or what to be due about syria? there is going to be an immediate set of choices that are going to involve other states. we push back, we try to cooperate, we signal our willingness to cooperate. sometimes that works and
sometimes we don't. but longer term, and if it about president obama's speech in 2009, a new beginning with the muslim world. to really address the causes of terrorism and indeed, lots of other problems coming out of the middle east, you need to build networks. networks of entrepreneurs, networks of civic groups, networks of scientists, networks of actual muslim groups that are pushing back against a radical islamist narrative.and that is where the 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. >> makes a lot of sense. the question that that leads me to raise i think is, something that you call on page 37 of the book, the disaggregation of the state.
which you know, you just said and you have been arguing since 1994 as you 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 in foreign ministry and instead creating networks of both private and civic actors. the question i have is, as we are watching debates play out now, debates in this country that really fueled, i would argue, the election of president trump. among the things that he still argues as president but then argued as a candidate was that they need to return american sovereignty. to america. and the ongoing to be the receiver most recently in the french election for president. where one candidate was arguing
very much to pull back from the european union. and an argument she met at the time, to reassert french sovereignty and one candidate, the winner ultimately, argued the french interests are best served by more aggressively engage in a net worth 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 development of these networks since 1994 when you started and really started digging into this. >> is a great question. and again it goes back to both of these. in the book i reprint that famous picture. you look at it and it do you see an old lady are a young woman? some of us say oh it's a old lady with the big nose and the work. >> i was wondering about that.
i was wondering if that says something about me. >> i'm going to leave that to you and your wife. but some of us see the young lady and some of us see the old woman. >> fair enough. >> my point is you actually have to see both. then when you do foreign policy effectively must be able to toggle between them. because in some cases, the state needs to be unitary. right? 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 secular state and the secretary of treasury, everyone has got to be on the same page. 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
contacts through the government. the department of energy played a very important role, the state department, defense department. but it is what i will call a unitary state. there was somebody in charge and everybody was on the same playbook. at the same time, we had 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 many campuses abroad. again, our civic organizations linking up to networks abroad. we've got to be able to do both and that second disaggregated state, the very academic term but it means that our cities and our states are able to engage others.
so right now on climate change, california and the cities of new york and chicago and los angeles, they are all actively networking with their counterparts abroad to fight climate change. because they can do things on the ground or similarly, if you are fighting terrorism again, you want the ability to help build educational institutions and businesses in states that do not have opportunities to fight the long-term causes of terrorism. so it's really, you have to toggle back and forth. some of time you need to be all hands on deck crisis or 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. the times reported this week
maybe it was yesterday, on the things that the state of california and governor brown are doing as it relates to work on climate. in fact even convening a meeting - ministers of the governor of mexico. 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, do you see risk? is that ultimately, what is the risk and not for us policymakers and us interests? or is it just a fact that it just is the world as it is. -- and that is just the sway california has. but do you see risk in this case of california? >> absolutely.
and this is actually an old question and the supreme court has revisited this several times and i'm sure that they will be another suit. right now about what individual states can do. early on, the supreme court informs or issued a ruling that said you know, state can't engage in treaties with other states. so california can not 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 leading trade delegation to china and other parts of asia for their states. and california actively intervened and issues going on in the eu and as there was a lawsuit brought about that. brought about their about california's tax, ability to
tax and california's power was upheld there. so this is again, it is back to sort of seeing the united states as both 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 states around the world. think about the sister cities networks. just as one example. i think chicago has more sister cities than any other city in the country. but all of our big cities have those relationships. that is a form of soft power. that is people learning about the united states, also helps with 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. right? 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. right? the states are very sympathetic to american debtors. after the revolution. but that could get us into war with britain. it is a balance, i tend to favor more autonomy for states in cities because again in the web world, you simply have to allow more independence. but i am mindful that you would not want california going and making a deal with china that might imperil our defense capacity or frankly, undercutting other states economically. >> is remarkable, a remarkably diverse system as we dig into this. i want to come back and a couple of questions i think
china is fascinating and north korea would you referenced a couple of times. just want to dig in for a couple more questions on networks themselves. the fitting of the one who has been looking at this for a long time ahead of your, ahead of anybody else. i can talk about this 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 pull out one example. you talk about pass networks. but in each of the kind of networks that you bring up you highlight the importance of diversity. march i think is pretty interesting. and i think as you hinted at in your remarks so far that a network state ultimately is
going to be a diverse state. and there is strength in that diversity. on page 134 if i can find it, you write that in the context of a taft network you write, taps are best carried out by small diverse but cohesive groups. diversity of team members provides multiple talents and perspectives while smaller sized build sufficient trust and spirit for the group to act as one in the death seamlessly to changing circumstances. if my memory serves me, you draw the set of conclusions out of a really effective set of networks that a former colleague of ours by the name of sam mcchrystal, a highly decorated man in the us army. 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. one could argue that this debate 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 as was evident in the brexit vote. those who want to get out of the european union. there is a debate about diversity threatening 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. you argued it is both and that she said, both a chessboard and the network. that is to say and the web. but is it, is there a pushback on this trend because people are feeling their sovereignty right away? because their feelings are and
things that they don't identify as their own. this inherently power diversity there. maybe retrenching against that. is that a fair conclusion would you see a different one? >> no, i think that is right. let me start at the end and work backwards. i think what you two sort of oversimplify, you have states that are, more closed and more homogeneous. at least over 10 years, 50 years, you think about this great wave of globalization we have been through that really starts in the 70s and 80s and takes off in the 90s with digital technology.where suddenly the world really is a
web. look at a map on the internet and we are all connected and you cannot even see national boundaries because the internet doesn't really recognize them. that process brings all sorts of benefits. but it also has brought lots of immigrants, lots of change in cultures, lots of suddenly, new ways of working and being. that many people find quite frightening. and one of the ways of understanding our politics in european politics is exactly this desire in my vocabulary, kind of close back up 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 and 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 and
that you can be proud of but many people feel is slipping away. so you have to pay attention judges that you have to pay attention to our ability to defend ourselves as a state. but the other way to understand it, and this goes back to your point about diversity. it is the countries that have the most diversity internally and are most connected then to opportunities and ideas of broad that will flourish the most. again, this is not all good or all bad. some people hear that and say you mean like being connected to countries where they are criminals. you know like drug runners or again, arms traffickers, all of that. or terrorists. we do not want to be open to this 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. and they diversity that brings you new ideas. all the people who study innovation say look, innovation and creativity comes from the collision of an expected things. so if we are all the same people and we grew up in the same place and we think 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 and that is the magic of the spark of creativity. and 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 our 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 have to be close enough to make sure we can protect ourselves and that is the balance we have to strike. >> is remarkable. i am persuaded by the argument. but, i think one of the more powerful things and a very well argued book, is the argument you make based on -- experience with this particular network. which you're not talking on in terms of a broad international geographical or geopolitical question there. although, he is leading a really remarkable unit in foreign countries as they do it. but it seems to me reading this book that general mcchrystal would argue on the individual 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 and i collected all of this material and i have been writing about networks for decades. and then, i wrote an article in the atlantic about working family and kind of got knocked in a different direction. while i was working on issues of women and men and work, there came mcchrystal's book team of teams and i was so thrilled. because he describes exactly being in charge of special forces in iraq. and he has got a fight, al qaeda in iraq. 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 are reading 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 could not match that because even though our special forces is the most nimble part of our military, we were too hierarchal. so then he describes special forces and he says first we had a command. there was, he was on top and there were all of these different groups. intelligence groups and logistics group and communications group and he figures out how to make that command into a team of teams. where he has got different groups. each one is connected to all
the other groups but in ways that are flexible enough so that he describes it, he says the network can become one big entity where everyone is connected to everybody else. and he describes a strategy of shared consciousness so everyone has to know what everybody else knows. but then it can come back together in this team of different teams. each of whom can act independently. what he calls an 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 call it, i described it as a test network. also talk about resilience networks and scale networks.
but his is a very compelling example of this idea of a strategy of connection. >> what struck me in terms of our time together in the government. in the military, it seems to me the experience that you just talk through of general mcchrystal was not exception but rather the rule. the military had a really remarkable way of after fashioning each of their undertakings.so as to ensure that they are drawing the best lesson and making themselves that much more nimble. and it seemed to me that it comes through in your book for the big strategist that you say that too often no we have
strategists that are stuck on one side or the other. of this divide between the chessboard in the web. but you know, sometimes maybe 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 as 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. just that we see that time and again from our colleagues on
the military side of the operation. >> we really did and in many ways, that is because the military has had to make the transition from the chessboard world of mixed state to state battles to the war. the conflicts against terrorist groups on the ground where if you think about afghanistan or iraq, they were never fully fighting as states.i mean they were fighting the taliban government of afghanistan. but once the government failed and they were fighting remnants of the taliban on the ground and parts of al qaeda and that is right there. the chessboard world which of course during the cold war was up against the soviet union in the classic chessboard conflict between nato and the warsaw pact and you are still imagining national armies clashing with each other.
versus now and of course it starts in vietnam with guerrilla forces and in modern warfare, the military because of hybrid warfare. much more you're not quite sure who you are fighting. they are networks, you must be networked to respond to them. but at the same time you have to be prepared to fight and the military really has been on the front lines of this transition. i found myself locked in the state department frustrated that it was such a hierarchy and when you want to be able to do even within government was to pull together a kind of network of experts and people who knew what you needed to know and the way you do this at the national security council. but we were still very much, at least at the state department, cured much more for the state to state world that we were the world of the west.
secretary clinton and president obama tried to change in terms of appointing special representatives, women or to civil society or to youth or to business but they were pushing against a ferociously difficult, very sad government. >> it seemed to me that there were embassies that you would have been closer to this but they were embassies where - certain ambassadors did a good job trying to make their country team, a team of teams. and effectively and you write about this. we see some of those embassies working extraordinarily well where they not only have their political counsel is reporting what happened, but you also
have the commercial service. you have all of your other services working together as a team so you end up getting a more comprehensive picture of this. maybe, maybe in places you know if you go back to 2010 and 2011 where we weren't as effective in forming the kind of information and intelligence out of the home network in a particular country.maybe one of those places where we weren't as effective on that front is for example in their world. where kind of across the board starting in tunisia but then also going pretty aggressively into egypt and eventually into syria. we were i think analytically as a government surprise by the steps and pervasiveness that
led to the the arab spring as we called it. but maybe a more effective team of teams where they are drawing on the networks on the ground. you know, in those countries would have had us a little more ahead of the curve. on what ends up being one of the more fundamentally changed situations or symptoms that were networks that we witnessed at least when we were there. do you think that is fair?>> i do, i think that is right. and actually there were investors like the ambassador was first in sweden and became the ambassador to britain. he really got this. in fact, never the ambassadors
home president obama pointed that came from the digital world got it. he had an office of network engagement. he thought about how to build networks with the ambassador of new zealand that did the same thing.but what you didn't have anything your example in the middle east is very well chosen, you had that ambassadorial level but often the foreign service officers, and many of them are superb! but there career. right? they come up through the foreign service for up to 30 years. and that means even when they reach out to business or to root civil society groups or religious groups, they themselves are diplomats. i can imagine a foreign service where you would have business people going in and out at any level. the people who worked in nonprofits going in and out. we only do that at the top
level. those people would bring their networks with them. and 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 didn't because we had relations with the government. take egypt, we had relations with the egyptian government. that is the chessboard world. in the egyptian of course did not want us connecting to lots of these other people. and we weren't really set up to do that. so, if goes back to your point about sovereignty. the traditional world of chessboard interaction is where, we are sovereign come live in embassy in another sovereign country and we have very formal relations and we tried to reach out to society. but we often don't have nearly the same range of contacts that
are business people do. our journalists do, civil society does.and what i am saying is we need to tap networks of those contacts to have not only better information but venerability to engage with crises and shape events as they happen. early protect american interests. >> solicited from that and for a second and take another example that you and i both involved in which is iranian elections in 2009. where i think as what was referred to as the time of the green movement, rose up, criticizing the conduct of the government -- there was a debate publicly and in the government about how deeply the
united states should involve itself in that ongoing political dispute in iran. so how much from the kind of standard chessboard state to state relations between the united states and iran which were kind of basically covered by the experience since the revolution there in 1979 and the hostage crisis and ongoing tension that we have had with the iranian states. and then the question really is how much did spill over across into this network or this web of civil society in iran. where independent iranians, irrespective of or surely quite independent of the united states or anybody else were
expressing their frustration with their government. it seemed that if i remember right, the debate at the time really revolved around, at least in my own mind, how much, what the risk of the united states or the risk of the independence of that green movement of appearing to be influenced by or run by the united states or funded by the united states if we spill into the web where the network and that activity. there's an argument to go the other way of course as well. what is the right answer their? for the right balance of seeing our interests across the, across the chessboard, across the web. what is the right answer of the policy outcome? to protect their interest and ultimately have a different
outcome and i ran for is that even the right outcome for our interest to be shooting for? >> yeah, that is a great example. i remember it well because of course, president obama was reaching out to the government of iran as really, the start of trying to engage iran, the policy of engagement of say we can't get anywhere if we don't talk to people, he was building relationships with the government and relationship so become the iranian nuclear agreement that i think is one of the great achievements of the obama administration. and so he is reaching out to a government that suddenly is shooting its own citizens in the streets and from the us point of view and really the world point of view, we look like we are on the wrong side.
and we gradually then froze relations for a while and denounced what that government was doing. the key here i think you're absolutely right. the network engagement that i would like to see in that kind of context, really cannot come directly from the us government. in other words, to be supported by the us government for the people who not revolution that is the kiss of death because of their government, the cia spies. they believe that your demise. here is what we could do if we reorganize the government sort of the way i would imagine built network strategies as well as chessboard strategies. you would have in the government reached out well before that to universities and businesses and religious groups and frankly, some of the
iranian ãalthough clerks are complicated because they have these politics with them and you have figured out how do we help support a network that does not mean that we construct it, that we find it because it goes back to delegitimization but the us government has enormous convening power. and the ability to reach too many different parts of society. and you could have supported the growth of youth groups in the united states. talking to groups in iran. businesses again, civil society. a lot of our foundations can fund that. it is not directed by the united states government but it is encouraged by the united states government. that would have meant francis, we might've had the ability through these never to say to the iranian people, hey, the
united states people are with you. we support you without this being coming from the government but from the government's point of view, the us government point of view, we would be better positioned and frankly, better able to communicate the sort of full range of who we are as a people if you would encourage those networks. and even they don't have formal diplomatic relations at the same time, you have the chessboard strategy. >> at the end of the day, if you are, you would argue that if you're effectively practicing statecraft in the increasingly interconnected world, more interaction in the web doesn't either weaken or undercut or lessen your options on the chessboard, it increases them. >> yes.
i was a need to practice statecraft and web craft. and statecraft does have to come from the government. web craft can come from the government, it can be encouraged by the government but also it can come from again, a mayor, it can come from a foundation. for example to go back to climate change. mayor michael bloomberg after he stopped being mayor had done a lot of work through bloomberg philanthropy to bring together mayors from around the world to reduce carbon emissions in their cities. so he now has a global covenant of mayors on climate and energy. that connects over 7000 cities! almost a billion people who, in that covenant, and note the language of the covenant. the something treaty, right? it's on as of the 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 are not. so that is web craft. the obama administration would have been very supportive of that, the trump administration less so. i think ultimately, that is enlisting the power of the american people. again, it can be business, civic organizations, it can be mayors or even governors. in ways that advance our interests globally in ways that really are, most often compatible with the chessboard. there will be some places where there is going to be a conflict and ultimately the government is in control. but overall, we have got enough challenges that people practicing web craft with or without the government is a complement to what the government does in the chessboard world. >> i did notice that michael bloomberg even said earlier
this month i guess, in relation to this ongoing -- it actually didn't even matter to him. or rather, didn't mention the outcome of reduction of carbon emissions in the united states. more than the president continued in paris are not saying that because of the effectiveness of this arrangement among cities that have argued that we were going to see the kind of carbon reduction envisioned in the making of the paris agreement. i have not seen an independent analysis but it strikes me as pretty remarkable. >> i have a former student who is working on exactly that. and he backs that up. he says that fundamentally, if you look at the cities around the world. of course, they are the concentration of 60 to 80 percent of the world population
and growing in cities. that is the place we have the densest carbon emissions and really, the idea is people who are in charge of the cities. the citizens of the city support a mayor who said, we are going to reduce carbon emissions just like a cities as we are going to impose traffic controls or emission controls because we have to live in the city. then, they should be able to take that action. again, the supreme court will probably look at this but it is hard for me to imagine if the supreme court says no, you cannot improve your life in a city as you would do with police or traffic in the office under local control because the federal does not want to commit the nation to reducing emissions because you're not imposing a people outside of your city. you know - go ahead. >> no, please! >> and this may be less
controversial. take neuva global health. where the foundations have worked with big pharmaceutical companies, the world health organization and thousands of smaller nongovernmental organizations to immunize and vaccinate children all over the world.now we all benefit from that because if there immunized, it is much less likely that certain global epidemics can take off. that came from the gates foundation. it involves business, it involves government but doesn't depend on government. and those are examples again of what i would call web craft. >> in your last, not the last book but in your book, a couple books ago. what you called america's edge, this quote -, the emerging
network world of the 21st century exists above the state. below the state and through the state. in this world the state with the most connection will be the central player. able to set the global agenda and unlock innovation and sustainable growth. again my question to you is, is - when using the state with the most connections will be the central player. is that to say the most network state will be the strongest state? what is the most network state today? and then, what do we do with a state like north korea which is arguably the least networked. but therefore, also apparently least prone to suasion and pressure even from its most
important friend, namely china. so is there an odd outlier here that by keeping itself out of the network, north korea is making itself particularly resilient or if not, just stubborn and isolated, is it also then more difficult to move? >> it is exactly the way i think we need to think about the way we need to think about power and the network world or the web world. traditionally power is you know the size, the size of your economy, military, this is your territory and your population. in a networked world is the number of connections and i would say the quality of connections as well. and i don't think that there
can be, there is not necessarily one center. because there are multiple states that are connected and again, think about a map of the internet. you have a number of portals that have a huge number of connections and lots of smaller ones. but certainly, i think 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, our business. our tradition of civil society. not all states have the density of civil society that we do. that is what was point out about us in the 19th century. it is still true and so those, and again educationally, those connections are huge valuable if we know how to support them and cultivate them and use them.
but i would note that china has an exquisitely networked grand strategy. the strategy of one belt, one road says openly, we are going to build our power and spread our influence bodybuilding trade networks and people networks and cultural networks. and they are building physical infrastructure to do it. they have a relevant was all the way to europe, highways, that is their strategy. and the eu has a similarly network strategy where they say we can exercise our power through webs of influence and we need to build those webs. canada has the same thing. again, talking about building networks around the world and i worry that the united states particularly at this moment, america first and closing of our borders and building walls is the opposite of what i think we need to be doing. so that is on the connected side.
but you are absolutely right then that when you look at north korea, what you see is the state that is so disconnected that there are very few levers of influence. and china is the one state that north korea really trades with and depends on but the flipside of that is that if the north korean regime collapses, led north koreans will end up in eastern china. something that china worries about. but it means that we have very little ability to exercise leverage. except through very traditional chessboard means like where we threatened use of force. we have sanctions, we imposed those sanctions but we don't you know, north korea is not depending on our trade. what i would say about that is there are ways to find connections and use them that
are more specific. and a number of administrations have tried this. looking at where north korean leaders bank for instance. and closing off those networks. thinking about obviously where it gets its military supplies and nuclear supplies although that is hard to choke off. but fundamentally, it means we have to work through the states that has the most connections and that is china. and china has its own agenda. so it is by that problem is so very very hard. >> the one that we are watching obviously real time, it is interesting to see how the trump administration and their team is working on this and doing precisely as you say. working aggressively with the chinese. it seems to me if i were to boil down this argument is that
more networks stay and the more it will ultimately be dynamic and better able to protect his interests. we also just mentioned the fact that there is, we are in a current political mood and. in this country where some of those actions toward greater network, greater network posture of the united states agreements and so forth lead to some as he referred to earlier in our conversation, dislocation. dislocation is leading to political pushback against maintenance of some of these networks. i guess a question i have, and maybe this goes to the work you're doing in new america and elsewhere is 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, a very powerful and arguably, very understandable increased skepticism about whether this network world is to good opportunities for americans across the country who feel like they are not getting a fair deal. how do we square the emerging domestic political challenges with what appears to be and as you argue in the book and we just discussed for the last nearly an hour, a geopolitical imperative that we remain engaged. what is the secret there? >> i think there are a couple of levels. one is you have to make an argument for openness that
explains to americans why ultimately, that is our greatest advantage.and i think for many of us who grew up in the cold war, this is obvious. because you know the soviet union was sealed. there was an iron curtain. they were closed. we were open. we did not have to justify being open! we were in open society. we were open to other nations. they were a closed society that had to actually put a false to keep people in! not just to keep people out. and people wanted to get out of what were very close, very hierarchical dominated society to our open society and open world. so it seems very obvious. today you have the safety people across the country look, 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 seven to nine billion. the us economy will be like the netherlands to the rest of the world. and economies like that succeed by trading and again, the exchange of ideas and people and goods. you have to make that, you have explained why is our interest. but also to say of course we have to protect ourselves. not all connections are good one. not all networks are good ones. you need to close of criminal networks. you need to protect ourselves. you have to strike that balance. the overall open is better but you have got to protect ourselves. and then you absolutely have to connect the disconnected in our country. one of the ways i think you can understand what is happening in europe and happening here is that there is this perception that global networks benefit people with you and me.
but they leave campus people behind. and those people are often disconnected. they are in hometowns, that factories have left, lots of input will have left that have been shrinking and dying and the people in them feel disconnected from this great world of opportunity that so many of us talk about. there disconnected from each other, they disconnected from other often, other places in their state. disconnected from economy and frankly there disconnected from a lot of the organizations that used to take care of people. everything from salvation army to ymca and little league. all that fabric of vibrant civic life.
i think people feel disconnected from the kind of opportunity that the united states has made possible for people like all of our families, all of our forefathers who were immigrants who came to this country had a shot to get their opportunity. it sure feels like the question of the day. it sounds like a pretty good answer. i mope you write it down in another book. until that comes, i urge everybody to look at emmanuel -- anne-marie slaughter's book. thank you for being here with us.
>> someone like steve jobs can come sell the product and forever be associated with it when that is a shade of the story. he was hands on and had a lot to do with it but the truth is even the iphone wouldn't have happened without scores of people working around the clock. >> mother board magazine senior editor on the creation of the i-phone in his book the one device. he is interviewed by new york times reporter steve lore. >> part of the story is the software was born behind steve jobs' back. the crew of guys called the onery team started investigating and they had a crazy projectory they were using to hack products together. >> watch "after words" sunday
night on c-span2 book's tv. >> next on "after words," physician and journalist, elisabeth rosenthal examines health care in her book. she looks at the rising cost for medical services and offers guidance to consumers on how to better navigate the health care system. she is interviewed by dr. david bloomenthal. president of the commonwealth fund. >> hello, libby, it is a pleasure to be here with you. i want to congratulate you on an incredible readable and thorough review of the problems of our health care system and proposed solutions. i have a ton of questions for you based on my background as a physician and a health policy analyst and of course as an occasional patient. first, i would like to ask a