tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 8, 2016 5:30pm-7:01pm EDT
of -- this whole issue of radicalization, we need to address syria. and we need to address syria with all the players who need -- who have a part in it. one of the -- there were two teeshl mi terrible mistakes in the middle east. one was saddam hussein had nuclear weapons, the second was that bashar al assad would be gone in a matter of weeks. when the administration said he's going to be gone in a matter of weeks and we were accused by the "new york times" of being a little slow, we're going to pick up for lost time and be fast with assad. he is not gone in a matter of weeks. there were other countries with a stake in syria. i think it's the wrong stake. i think syria needs to reflect its sinai majority, even though i would rather people be democrats and republicans rather
than sunnis and shia. but that's the political identity and we have to be realist about that. so i think we need to be -- as we approach syria, we need to understand that everyone has a stake in this even the iranians in this, and we have to manage it a lot better than we have. and ultimately, if you want to stop a war, you don't have a cease-fire. cease-fires don't stop wars. what stop wars are political arrangements that everyone more or less agrees on so people think, do i really want to be the last person to die in this civil war when i know what the outcome's going to be? so i would like the new administration, i'll go further, i'd like this administration right today, like yesterday, make clear what the future is for syria. you know, people make a lot of complaints about the date and peace accords that we were kind of laying out the future of bosnia, who are we to tell them. well, when you kill 200,000
civilians, you lose the right to feel patronized. we need to be a lot clearer with the syrians. it's going to be decentralized. you're going to have upper and lower chambers. i can do it on the back of a used envelope. it can be done because it's been done before. and then when people are focused on the future, then it becomes easier to have things like cease-fires and even elections. elections in the absence of political and democratic structures are just a census. the only thing you can tell from an election in syria is how many sunnis there are, shias, christians, et cetera. i don't think this should be a matter of of retrenchment. i think it should be a matter of much more engagement than we have done to date. i think military should be a last resort and we should not be
talking foreign policy and talking about the military. it should be a last resort and it should be ready for that. when we go in, we need to go in very strongly with a very strong position. >> i didn't bring an envelope, but i will give you one. another place you didn't mention, i want to move to the other chris, but -- when you have a chance to come back, you didn't mention russia and given your experience there, i'd be very curious -- >> very briefly. i mention that i think it's a declining power. and i think it's dangerous as a result. i think putin is particularly dangerous. i don't think we're going to shame him into being less dangerous. i think we do need to look for areas in the world where we can somehow cooperate with him. i would suggest syria as painful as that is. but i think ultimately we need to do, and i hope you would
agree with this lee that countries like poland are happy to be in nato, they would just like more signs that nato's in them. we do need to look at a more eastward projection of nato. but i think it needs to be done with considerable care in a way that doesn't invite a response. and as for -- i wish there was something that could be done about crimea. i don't think there is. but i think there is something that can be done about the rest of ukraine and i think we need to focus very hard on that with our european partners. >> thank you. so chris, is it -- was it 2035 global trends -- >> 2030. the next one's 2035. >> i see. chris, we've sort of spoken about the domestic dysfunction. we've talked about the top of the inbox in a comprehensive
way. you can talk about both of those things very well having been in congress and given your other responsibilities. maybe from the perspective of someone who worked at the nic. can you sort of talk in the longer term, about the trends, whatever is -- whatever are the urgent problems will drive the foreign policy challenges and imperatives for our next president? >> i'd be happy to do so. first of all, i'm really, really pleased to be here at this beautiful and great school. and also to acknowledge what an honor and privilege it has been for me to work for the better part of a quarter century for congressman lee hamilton in many different capacities. just a highlight of my career and his outstanding public service. so let me turn to your question
here. just a word about global trends. it's prepared every four years for the new administration. the next global trends report will come out in december after the election and before the inauguration. and it is looking forward 15 years to what is the nature of the international order, what can the united states and policymakers expect. so i want to speak to four, what we call, mega trends. these are trends that are really unfolding in the international order irrespective of events. events are really important and will drive what these trends mean, but it's i think important to note how these trends will unfold. the first one i want to mention is individual empowerment. and in two respects.
one, the i.t. revolution has fueled that. so with your iphone in your hand, you have more power at your fingertips than nasa did when it did the moon launch. more than ibm had in its mainframes the. and this powerful tool has done astounding things, social media, helping to ignite the arab spring. and social media profoundly changing how businesses and economies as well as political orders behave. it is a disruptive technology in every sense, many of which are positive. some which i'm sure we'll take up in the proliferation panel are very negative in that individuals or very small numbers of people can do very dangerous and deadly things with this power that they now have.
a second aspect of individual empowerment that i do wish to mention is really the astounding growth worldwide of the middle class. hundreds of millions of people, especially on the asia pacific rim and in china, but elsewhere in indonesia, turkey, brazil, india, hundreds of millions of people are now in the middle class. what does that mean? the good news there is for the first time in human history, half of humanity is no longer absolutely impoverished. so it's a good news story for humanity. the political implications of the growth of the middle class, which will grow by several hundred million more between now and 2030, the political implications are that middle class people want. they want better education for their children. they want better health care. they want a cleaner environment.
they want a more accountable government. they want less corruption. and they want a voice. they want to have agency and participation in their future. now, what this means for governments everywhere are a lot of problems. governments are not going to be able to meet what those populations want. that's true whether it's aauthoritarian governments and god knows it's true with democratic governments. so and let me move on from that to the problem of governments to the next mega trend that i want to mention which is the diffusion of power. we've touched on it with several speakers already. in the world of 2030, the relative role of the united states will be diminished compared to other powers. the united states in many respects will still be the most important player, the first among equals. by china by 2030 surely will
have a bigger gross domestic product and differentials in military, economic and technological power will have diminished simply because of the fact of globalization, because of information technology. the diffusion of power in many ways reflects the diffusion of knowledge where really somebody today with internet access and who is determined to investigate a topic can really know as much, almost as much as senior leaders in government. it is an equalization in knowledge across the board. the third mega trend that i want to speak to -- and this is one where i feel i can speak with great authority, not near certainty, but certainty because demographics, i can tell you how many 18-year-olds there will be
in china in 2030 because they're all born already. but on demographics, some things that the next president and our policy community really will have to think long and hard about is that 97% of the world's population growth will be outside of the advanced industrial economies. 97%. africa in the world of 2050 will have one-quarter of the world's population. nigeria will replace the united states as the world's third most populous country after china and india by around 20535 or 2040. in europe, japan, and korea, the median age in 2030 will be 45. in germany and japan, it will be
50. one-quarter of those populations will be over 65. we don't have examples of such aging populations in human history. and for leaders in europe, if you're running a social welfare state with fewer workers, more pensioners, woo, the problems you face will be profound, as well as from the united states' point of view, how will they be able to invest in new and dynamic economies, military spending, et cetera. china today is younger than the united states in the world of 2030, it will be significantly older than the united states because of the one child policy which is leading to a rapidly aging population. and china could well be old before it is rich and faces the
problems of social services, health care pensions in a vastly different demographic environment. now, in the advanced industrial world, the good news is with the united states of america where our population will only modestly age from 37 to 39 as the median age in the world of 2030. for china, the comparison goes from 35 to 43 and i've told you ant the europeans. what this means is the united states will be the most dynamic, robust economy among the advanced industrial countries. this is very good news for the united states. it also speaks directly to the question of our immigration debate. immigration made and makes and will make this country great.
urbanization, today, half of humanity lives in urban areas. in the world of 2030, that will be 60%. 60%, 50%, what's the big deal? the big deal is it's another 1.5 million people between now and 2030 will be moving into cities. that's the equivalent of ten new york citys from green fields to the present day, ten new york citys every year. that's the extent of urbanization on the planet that is unfolding now. now, the good news is that urban environments are where ideas develop, economic growth occurs, they're the drivers of positive change. there are also the shantytowns and centers of future class warfare, if that change doesn't
take place well. the pressures of urbanization lead me to the last mega trend i want to mention here, and that is the pressure on resources, energy, food, and water. all these middle class people moving to cities, there will be an increased demand for food of some 35 to 40% in the world of 2030. much more than the growth of population which is probably 10% or 12% between now and 2030. that's because middle class people have higher incomes and they want, and they want meat and dairy products and better nutrition. so this will be a severe press on the environment and a severe press on water resources which are under very great pressure already today. let me come back to china. in china, surface water in rivers and lakes, 60% is unfit
for industrial use. and china also has no agreements on water rights with any of its downstream neighbors. and so it's building dams and it has never asked laos, thailand, vietneeietna vietnam, cambodia their ideas at all. it's a huge setup for diplomatic conflict, possibly kinetic conflict in the future over resources. and coming back to lee hamilton's point at the outset, some of the itmplications as to what it means for the president, as you look at these mega trends, what impresses me most
is that for the united states to advance its interests, to address these trends and every international problem which is an international problem, can only be solved by coalitions and international engagement. we cannot address any of the issues outlined here in the absence of strong international coalition, strong u.s. engagement in the world. and i wanted to come back, my very last point, lee, is onto what our first panel talked about, human rights and democracy. the structural conditions in the world of the future are very good for individual rights because of middle class people and their agency, and because of the power of technology in people's hands and their ability
to affect great things, working in small groups, working in corporations or ngos, they do not have to rely on governments for so much as in the past. so let me stop there. >> well, thank you very much. that's very good. all right. we've talked about the future. now, to our history toian to ta little bit about the fast and as you see fit, stephen, presidential transitions, bucket lists, hundred day plans or how presidents envision what their future challenges would be and how they ended up. >> sure. well, i'd like to echo my panelists first and thanking our conveners for putting together such a wonderful event. i also want toty you out there for coming, especially the
stient students. when you look back through what presidents hope to accomplish in their first year, first hundred days, a couple common themes emerge in retro pekt that will easy nate with some of what we've already been saying. new presidents will move too quickly to distance themselves from their predecessors and do so in such a way to undermine their own goals in the desire to appear different or live up to promises they made on the campaign trail. for example, george w. bush when he w was elected, went by what historians call the abc policy. the anything but clinton policy. anything the clinton d the administration needed to move quickly away from.
even against wishes of some of the other members of the administration like condy rice. there was also now a growing to play down the threat posed by terrorism. when it's coming from clinton administration officials were unheeded or cast aside. they had other priorities. by contrast a more effective strategy, need look no further than the bush family. george h.w. bush announced a pause in u.s.-soviet relations and believed it was necessary to take a step back and reflect on the tactics and the policies between the u.s. and soviet union, but the assumptions towards the soviet union and whether they could trust in the leader and whether or not the
strategy and so forth and so on. many historians look back on this as a wise decision that helped calibrate the priorities moving forward. gave them great confidence to not involve themselves in the revolutions that swept across in 1989 and let them really sort of understand and reflect on the goals they wanted to achieve and the best way get them. they are taking a break and pausing and reflecting that can actually be affected. prudence is not a word that is celebrated, but there is virtue to it. the second theme that emerges again and again comes out when you look at the history. be careful what you say on the campaign trail. at this point this advice is still under relevant to the
front-runners and it bears reflection as well. a good example of this is john f kennedy. he plasted eisenhower's vice president for being soft on communism and no more so than cuba. they had gone with fidel castro's revolution and it's a big issue. kennedy slammed the administration for not being strong enough on cuba and not being aggressive enough and not taking initiative he inherits the hair brained scheme to overthrow and topple the government that began under eisenhower and became the bay of pigs fiasco. what historians are coming to see is not only did they feel the need to be strong and be this risky maneuver, but it's
thinking in critical ways. it limited the range of options that he had available to them about how to deal with the regime and led him to feel that his credibility was at stake and his credibility could only be preserved through a bold and decisive action such as that intervention. it ultimately led to poor planning and hasty analysis of whether that would work. that is to say as much as possible to really think through the priorities and how that will help you assess the means that you have available to them. just to echo jessica's point earlier, one of the great administrations was recognizing early on that international climate negotiations were going to be at base shape by the fact that they could put nothing
before congress. the most daunting national security challenge of our time. the entire international architecture that we now to have solve is based on the fact that is really striking. and telling that the obama administration needed to think through a new policy and institutional structure to build on that. and moving forward, just using this pause, you can tackle the problems without being narrow that they fight on doing. >> that's terrific. >> we are doing our best to squeeze in. more than 12 minutes. we have until 5:15. super. when you talked about succession
and the eagerness to distance one's self from one's predecessor, i'm curious in your research whether that's consistent even if the transition is a friendly one. >> very much so. when george h.w. bush came into office, he was vice president of the reagan administration and jim baker called it a hostile take over. they wanted to put in the team as well. they say look, we will come in and run our own ship and take time and really reflect on what that is going to look like. we are not going to try to distance ourselves from our predecessors or blindly accept what we are inheriting and take this as an opportunity to think through what we want to achieve and have available to us and the
people we are going to rely on. >> i will say it's a time that i think is particularly vulnerable to mistake. you have a few people who have been confirmed and some pick and can't sign the memo. basically nobody know what is their telephone number is and their desk. people pick up on signals that the president has given and his inaugural and racing off with initiatives. my first experience in government was in the carter administration. we spent years trying to undo mistakes that were made in that period when really none of the
systems that before you run off with them are in place. it's a really vulnerable time. whether it's friendly or not. >> it's important who you pick as your people and you have a process in place for collecting and analyzing information and making decisions based on the information. the first was an absolute mess when they were on the nfc that said the phrase that comes to mind is unremitting tension. so many people who were chosen to be there and the lines of authority were drawn up and who
will be in charge of doing what. can you have some idea of who will be involve and how to allocate responsibility that can ease over some of the inevitable tensions. >> can i add? all day although i missed the first panel, we haven't talked about europe. it's not in the war crisis pile, the eu is facing three of the most existential threats. at once. and i think it's capacity to meet all three. you have to say not so great. to the extent we have a world order and we have an important partner, europe is it. the survival is enormously important to the success of what the u.s. wants to achieve others
that we have thought about. while it's not our inbox, europe is facing besides the crisis of continuing euro crisis and the serious threat of british exit and it's a very tough place. >> i would just say theability to dress almost any of the issues we talked about today. it either relies or much more difficult to the cooperation. of course i do agree with you about the neat to reposition in a smart way. and pulling on the frontline states. we now have more time for questions and i'm sure there several. if i could ask you to wait for
the microphone, please stand up and identify yourself and ask away. >> hello. my name is dan lopez and i'm a student at the school of environmental affairs. my question is for chris with the organization and the pressure on resources. when we look at those in projections of 2035, how does climate change exacerbate or factor into the models and more to another point. would you consider climate change to be a national security or national, international perspective we should be considering looking at the forward trends? >> the considers are straight forward. yes. climate change has a dramatic impact on fashl securinational
makes the trend in a lot of ways more difficult. with food and water, change in climates and cultural patterns, any change to what is the historical norm will make life more difficult. if there is a drought in northern india for a couple of years, hundreds of millions of people will die. with respect to energy, and referenced earlier with significant trends and upon d dropping prices for solar power and moving rapidly towards a grown energy future. and a government incentives that can influence that, but the technological trends are
powerful and in this respect moving in the right direction. following hydro carbon crisis to slow down and not reverse it. per i'm yvonne, a first year public affairs student. as the chinese national in 2012, chinese major newspapers have been publishing articles on this year and will be the toughest year for chinese economy. this never ended until -- it's still going on. they published a new article on this coming year. 2016 will be the toughest year for chinese economy. this trend is going on and in the u.s., it's interesting. everyone is talking about the
rise of china and the power of china. i guess my question is, is the u.s. government prepared for a declining china? what would happen if there is one of these days chinese citizens are so tired of chinese governs giving away blank checks to african governments and giving away money to everyone else. solving the problem domestically. what if there is another civil riot in china? is the u.s. government prepared and how would the u.s. government possibly react to that? >> no. >> i agree with the premises of your question. you talked to washington and china is this enormous thing that is somehow threatening our position in the world. yet i think when you talk to
people who are trying to understand the issues, they are concerned about the trends that you are talking about. a weakening of china. by the way, it's not just for china to suffer, but a lot of other countries. in the position of russia, talk about negative demographics. china got into that situation and would you see a rise in nationalism and a government trying to get more favor with people. they will be tougher with the neighbors and vietnam and things like that. and i don't think apart from that, too many people in
washington are understanding this. they had a comprehensive approach to china and be careful to set priorities with china. we ought to be more careful on the name calling. dwleeng is particularly helpful and i think generally speaking we need to look for patterns of cooperation with china. there a lot of problems internally in china. they are upwards of several helped million chinese who pointed out these problems to the government. i'm not sure what we can do in that regard. dare i say i think we have to be very ridge is vigilant about china and patient with the enormous shifts that have gone
on in the last few decades. this is always going to be easy for everybody in china. i'm thinking of rural areas that have a sense of being left out of this miracle. you can imagine the social tensions going on in china and i'm not sure we have adequately understood that such that our policy can be affected boo the trends. >> you can see and get a clear or picture of when it might look like from how russia is behaving. one way, the best way to keep your population's mind off of the economy at home is to think about vrchls abroad. the problem is that stirring up nationalism in a controlled environment is jumping on a tiger. it's hard to get off.
. >> one on the demographics, the following number of 18-year-olds in china is rising labor prices with strict supply and demand and that's bad for china's economy because although the manufacturing jobs will move to the vietnams and bangladeshes and indonesias of the world, they are already. china is caught in an economic bind. >> it's called the middle income trap. and also the global trends report, we reference it here and we look at scenarios for 2030 and china figures in a huge way in each of these and if you want a world that is on a positive track or the world is starting to get on top of its problems, it is really all predicated on the united states and china
finding a way to work together constructively and containing differences on those that remain. >> and that conclusion is represented in the intelligence committee. that's important for people to understand and probably the working assumption one that are fated to be adversaries and not seen as in the country's mutual interests. please, sir, and then to the back. yes? >> thank you very much. adam with the assistant professor here at sgis. i would like to ask a question with a focus on the contemporary context in east asia aimeda the
ambassador hill. i would be interested in hearing from the panelists here today. we talked about a number of trends that affect east asia in terms of hard military power and the demographic trends that they pay close attention to. they are an integral part of the conversation and they talk about climate change and water. in your estimation, sthou that u.s. alliances in east asia, particularly with south korea and japan are facing these head winds need to evolve with in partnership with the united states and to some extend with others. in the context of a brief answer, how do they need to
evolve? they need more structures in the region. too often issues are handled bilater bilaterally. that is a tough channel in which to deal with issues. there is no mechanism for parking problems. for all the fun many americans have at the expense of europe and alphabet soup of all these organizations, et cetera, the europeans are not just a crazy confluence that created all these things in europe. they have tried to do is to figure out means to resolve conflict. if there is a land dispute, they figure out some committee that is embedded in somewhere in the kabouls of the eu or say okay, that committee will study that for the next ten years. they managed to deal with it.
i think europe has done remarkably well and i support the point that we shouldn't lose sight of it or think it's a disneyland where you go there for vacation, especially when the exchange rate turns better. they have done a lot in the structures and there is much to be admired. what i look at, i tried to work the so-called trilateral thing with the japanese and koreans and i felt i was like a mediator between them. that needs to get better and people there and not just uses, people need to support it. as are if the u.s., we ought to stop this bat mouthing of multilateral structures and start coming to grips with the fact that many of these are absolutely in our interest to foster and develop.
>> waiting patient lly. right there. >> i'm in the republican environmental affairs. my question is for the panelists. as the stock of world power falls in the coming years, what will be the role of the institutions in solving challenges? will they be ob so lot or have to adapt to be more inclusive to the coming power structure? >> sounds like it.
>> the very brief answer is yes. these institutions must evolve to reflect power relationships and the new international order or they will become irrelevant or at the very least delegitimiz delegitimized. there have been reforms at the world bank and imf in that direction. the congress of the united states in the last omni bus appropriations bill, that was a step forward. both the bank and the fund have a long way to go to still reform. with respect to the un, the great irony here is that the united states supports the reform of the security council. we embraced india as a member and we are open to japan and brazil as permanent members. the other four permanent members do not want reform.
they view that and undermine their own voice and influence and the problem is most acute with the closest allies written in france. >> while we support all of them, we say it shouldn't get bigger. you can't get that big or it can't function. >> we won't give up the veto. >> we have a contradictory. >> elements that do not seem to cohere. >> it's easy to be before reform when there is no chance. >> yes, please. here. we will get that next. >> we coordinated the international studies. my question is for the panel as
a whole. this is the provocative presentation and i was struck by a contradiction. the foundation and one of the main foundations is our lifestyle and consumption patterns. they work against global warming. they work against the middle class and what i am wondering is to what extent people think about how the u.s. could model a different set of consumption patterns that might be more sustainable within an expanding world with less predictable weather patterns and more competition for resources. >> let's get both sog so that everybody gets a chance. >> my name is luke and i'm with
the department of political science here. i have a follow-up question with the ideological division between democrats and republicans or conservatives and liberals over the role of multilateral cooperation and engagement. it's not just that republicans and democrats are deeply devoided on this issue and this is reflected in the patterns, but that americans boy and large are ignorant when it comes to american foreign affairs. i'm curious what each of you might suggest in terms of how we might address the issue. the ideological issue between republicans and democrats on the multilateral engagement and how to bring americans more successfully into an area of tell us making that suffers from a severe deficit.
>> thank you. these two questions are somehow related. we will go in reverse order to give everybody a brief final word to address the questions or say something else. it's remarkable that we're going to have to defend things like nato. this is the world order that was constructed by grand intentions that was filter and expressed through international institutions, not only the un, but the world bank and they became the trade organizations and they allowed economies to insulate and develop growth
plans and the patch work of alliances and asia specific and helped to continue a world that was far more people in a grant sense than what came before it. in the case of the 1930s and 40s with traumatic consequences in the whole world. in general terms, putting countries through the thickets and bounding them to them and constructing the brought outlines. they have rebounded to the u.s.'s benefit and often to the detriment to the other countries. it has been beneficial to the u.s. as a whole. they can explain why they were created in the first place why they have been forcefully sustained and why it's in the interest. that's something i think about all the time and i don't know if that matters.
i echo your concerns as well. >> yes, mega trends accept the observation and i agree with it. the growth of the middle class is much more dynamic in the asia pacific rim than in the united states. these challenges you outlined are very appropriate and to the point. with respect to the united states, there important changes under way. our carbon footprint today is about the same as it was 20 years ago with a much higher level of economic output. important changes are taking place in how we generate power. the fuels we use and in the
longer term, i'm optimistic about how the united states will address question. on the question of the political divide, i am very optimistic as well. we live in a noblized world. how important that is. schools of international studies. a pardon from that, you can't live anywhere had this great country without having profound influences in your life. the investment bite european and asian countries in the south and the midwest, the presence of communities. that would have been unheard of. a decade or a generation ago. we will have a sustainable basis
for u.s. engagement. >> quick low, i want to say that there differences among countries as to how the countries see the world. we have to be careful with the idea that somehow we can handle everything through multilateral channels. we are a country where our values are very important to us. we have a certain missionary we will have in pressing these values. i guess the issue is how we can turn the values into more international values. without appearing to be stacking the deck against countries or weaponizing the values by internationalizing these values. i think issues like human rights need to be full low embedded in the international structures.
we have done a good job of that and even though countries say you masqueraded american values as international, i don't think so. we have done okay with that and we need to keep in mind the complexity of that process and the degree to which some countries will reflect that process. how we can kind of manage this in a way we do not appear to stack the deck? >> very quickly, and the think energy is the most urgent by far. i am less optimistic than chris because while we have lightened our footprint, the rate of change is lower than the rate of change in the environment. there three policy levers and you can use regulation and
support for r&d and price. so far the national level we have only used the first two of those. the most powerful one sit there is untoughed. we will have to put a price on the content of energy and harness the power of the market place and so much will flow from that painlessly. but getting there is obviously a huge problem. the u.s. has a very unusually powerful concept of sovereignty and it's wound up in our sense of ourselves. i don't see it is equal anywhere except china. that makes it really hard to
work on the multilateral institutions unless we are the preimmanent power which we no longer really are. not because of that, but because the world was changed. it maybe seems like an inadequate answer, but the answer is education. you can't inform people. people are not listening. they may know they are wealthier. a farmer knows he is exporting and the markets support the price of the product. i think this one will be a long, tough road. americans are asked what they
ask basic questions. they are located on a map and 17% of americans can do that. this is going to be really tough and i think it comes back to this sense of sovereignty that goes all the way back to the very, very beginning in our history. i don't think it has a simple answer. >> well, thank you all for a very rich discussion that talked about the very different dimensions that influenced the next president's inbox both globally, internationally and also very interestingly domestically. please join mow in tanking the panel.
>> american history tv on c-span 3. this weekend saturday night at 8:00 eastern. lectures in history. >> we see new factors making emancipation desirable and old obstacles with the result that by august if not earlier, lincoln decided when the time is right, he will announce a new aim for the war effort that would add to the union human freedom. >> the history professor on the evolving war goals of the north during the civil war. at 10:00 on real america -- >> how was it possible for america to achieve such production and at the same time build an army? and the amazing reports came in
from the agency of the united states. 20% of industrial manpower was woman power. regions of american women to stop my advance across the world. fore seeking a round for the grim tasks of war. they are working in war manufacturing with germany that lost the war. on american artifacts. we visit the daughters of the american revolution to learn about an exhibit with the 125th anniversary founded in 1890. >> one thing that stands out is the creation of the imagery. it's an old concept that goes back to ancient times where a
warrior is made got like by lifting him up and celebrating him. >> they are worth highlighting the key assets. especially those who did so while they occupied the white house. james madison who followed jefferson as the fourth president of the united states owned over 100 slaves holding a large percentage in the white house. he is responsible for imposing and expanding the 3/5 compromise that guaranteed they held that to preserve and upheld slave owning interests. >> the african-american studies at california state university fuller on the 12 american presidents who were slave owners, eight while in office. for the complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org.
>> i enjoy seeing the fabric of our country and how things work and how they are made. >> i love american history of t. the american artifacts. and with american history tv, it gives thaw perspective. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> with global and international studies, they offer advice to the next in the world. they include richard lugar and they interacted with iran and
pakistan about the nuclear programs. this is an hour and a half. >> the strategies and challenges. we will look at challenges the united states faced up to now. we are going to look at the new and emerging challenges that the next president will face and how he or she might deal with them. i'm deana from the department of political science and indiana university. i must say that one could not have assembled the individuals with the greater expertise and experience on issues relating to nonproliferation and these four gentlemen. we are very fortunate that they agreed to participate. that said, it's my pleasure to introduce them. i have been instructed to be
brief and these could go on for maybe an hour. on my right here, senator richard lugar from 19 sfoechb 2013 a2 1977 to 2013. he chaired from 1985 to 1987 and 2003 to 2007 and was the ranking member ever since 2007. much of his work is devoted to the challenge of dismantling nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. to this end, the senator who has you know is a republican. he worked with senator sam nunn from georgia, a democrat and the
chair of the senate armed services committee what became known as the nunn lugar act of 19 eighty-one. this was an example of bipart anship. it created and the purpose was to secure weapons of mass destruction. there were many, many other accomplishments with the reduction programs that reacted in the deactivation and icvms and close to 500 submarine launched. they gain senate approval with the weapons treaty signed with
russia. the new start treaty that significantly reduced the strategic nuclear weapons. this is research professor of management science and emergencying at stanford university. and senior fellow at the freeman institute for international studies and the center for international security and cooperation at stanford university. by training, the professor is a nuclear scientist from 1986 to 1997. he directed the laboratory that most of you know had the chief mission of ensuring the safety and reliability of the american nuclear arsenal. in recent years, they worked with the laboratories to secure the enormous stockpile that
russia inpert and he is compiling and editing a book. that hasn't come out yet. it has. he compile and edited a book between american and russian laboratories since the fall of the soviet union. the problem of reducing the risks of nuclear terrorism worldwide and the challenges of india, pakistan and north korea as well as with the nuclear aspirations of iran. the professor has been an important contributor to public debate about issues and the us and beyond. publications include an article entitled stop killing iran's nuclear scientists. before we get to norge, potter who is next to the professor is
the professor of nunn proliferation studies and the founding director of the james martin center. at the month ray institute of international studies. the iran corporation and the national laboratory. professor potter is a prolific author and written or coedited at least 20 books and contributed articles to more than 120 scholarly books and journals on nuclear terrorism and nuclear arms control and nuclear nonproliferation and especially the russian federation. he is an exceptionally well
informed researcher when i am dealing with nuclear weapons and proliveiation. and last but not least is dr. george who is vice president for studies for international peace. that's a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting dwl cooperation and international engagement of the united states. this is one of the world's most influential think tanks. this is south asian security. he is the author of a prize-winning book. published in 1999 after a nuclear device. more recently he hub englished a book on the subject of a polishing nuclear weapons.
he works tirelessly to educate the american public on nuclear issues. whenever i teach on the subject, the doctor's articles almost always make their way here. one that i am likely to align is a portion of a study he coauthored. this is one of the most impartial and objective analysis that i encounter and i looked through a lot of them. he helped them make up their own minds and not how to think. so the panel, as i assumed the previous panels have been. this is somewhat unusual for an academic conference. i have been asked to make marks that i will keep brief.
my mandate is to engage them in a conversation which i will do. on a variety of issues related to nonproliferation and arms control. especially and by no means exclusively, i see some students here. i'm going to give each concluding remarks that you want to offer. let me start by framing the subject in the panel. there has been no development that posed a greater threat to american and international security than the actual or potential spread of nuclear weapons. the community has taken steps to deal with and address this threat and reduce it.
i would say and this is a judgment question, the first and foremost was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that went into effect in 1970. this treaty as most of you know, limited the state's nuclear weapons to the five that possess them at the time they were opened for signature and provided for international inspection of the nuclear activities of all other states that aspired to maintain a program. 1 yon states, vast majority are now a party to that treaty. and an extremely recent step was the launching in 2003 of the prolivation security initiative. this was a bloebl effort to stop the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction to and from both states and non-state
actors. this initiative is endorsed and supported by more than 100 states and quite a substantial number. the last of which was signed in 2010. that has helped to curb nuclear proliferations. they would like to acquire them. this reduced what they like to call the proliferation. they possess these weapons and the bilateral treaties have substantially reduced what is called vert ral proliferation. the cooperative reduction
program that was so important in establishing made a profound contribution i would argue to international security by reducing and securing nuclear weapons and colors as well as other weapons of mass destruction in the form of soviet union. important as these steps have been, the world is i would say far from secure from the threat that some of these weapons might be used. we are over the challenges inherent in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seem to be increasing rapidly. for example, if we take the period of president obama's tenure in office. we witnessed the following highly troubling developments. i hesitate to use precise numbers in the presence of this expert panel, but i will take the plunge and say according to one estimate boy the summer of last year, iran reached the
point that the time it would take for them to fuel a nuclear warhead was as little as two months. that time ark peers to now be extended only to one year. during president obama's time in office, north do rhea expelled international nuclear inspectors from the country. it tested three nuclear devices including one that claimed to be a in a hydrogen bomb. they claim it is capable of hitting the united states. pakistan acquired material for more than 200 nuclear weapons and blocked negotiation of a composed material cutoff treaty that would ban the production of any more for nuclear weapons. it also failed to prevent the groups fm attacking tightly guarded military targets, some of which are located near the
facilities. both the assad regime and islamic state have been using chemical weapons. all be it crude ones, despite the claim to have destroyed all of those on syrian territory. in belgium, the government said they were seeking to attack, sabotage or sabotage. one such facility was found in the apartment of a suspected islam i think state militant. two employees at another nuclear facility travelled to syria where they joined isil. and the same terrorist network that carried out the recent attacks may have been planning
an operation at a belgian nuclear facility and possibly that uses highway-enriched uranium. they will be opening the summit in washington and this gathering of world leaders will focus on the subject of securing nuclear colors. these are just a few of the kinds of challenges the next president will need to confront and it's not to be an exhaustive list. let me begin posing questions to our panelists. i would like to start with the senator and you have been working on the problem of securing weapons for 2.5 decades or more. how is the community doing with regard to this issue?
is the problem being addressed in promising ways and if so, how? >> without going through the whole history of this situation, let me say in 1986, president reagan felt that after a meeting that there was a possibility the united states and form er sovie union might ask. i was selected as one of those as was sam nun and wish to become my partner in this. also bob dole and senator bird and leadership. we went over and met with a lot of them.
this was not to be. we were not close really. it took several years. during that time, sam and i visited with a good number of russians met and we heard stories about the former soviet union. when 1991 came, they had a group of these russians that came to sam's office. the men are around a round table and said to us you folks in the united states have a lot of problems. the people that are guarding the fifls that are you located, those folks are deserting in good numbers and they are not getting paid. some of those weapons might be unguarded and could be an accident. there could be a firing. this was so-called 40 years of
destruction. they thought there was in the united states and the former soviet union had close to 10,000 nuclear warheads enough to cover every military installation in either country. likewise, most of the major cities. in indiana for years, i had no idea that a couple of those weapons were aimed at indianapolis and could have e blit rated the whole place. when you ask how things moved, they moved from a time in which i was shocked when i went down into a pit where they pulled a missile out in siberia where the guards were located and there were pictures of american citizens. was that one of the targets and it was. they qualified without any doubt.
a bipartisan situation that lasted over 20 something years, they suggest at least 7500 warheads aimed at the united states have been removed and correspondingly they have reduced roughly 1500 war reads. none the less, they are close to five digits and that's a big difference. unfortunately the situation came to a conclusion in june of 2013. i went to russia in 2o 12 trying to plead that we needed to keep talking and the foreign office said no, no more americans. i'm tired of you folks. that's the end of that trail. that's the one story. huge amounts.
now we are at a different point as they mead in washington starting tomorrow. the fourth time around the track and a lot of the discussion will come down now to things much more like what you have described in belgium recently. i don't want to skip over everything intervening but nevertheless the fact is that in belgium, during the last attack, the belgians wisely just shut down two situations that are power stations, dismissed all the employees. and say why would they do that? well, because at least in previous weeks they'd found that there had been two employees at one of these places that had gone to join isil. and that there was a matter of fact a real problem there could be out there at these stations people that were not very loyal to the belgian government and
could create even more of a problem than had already occurred there. in essence, many people taking a look at this summit are saying, we're at a point where you can count major nations that have warheads and this is bad enough. but now we're at the terrorism stage. the extent to which people are able to get to radiological material. the point to which some terrorists might, in fact, try to dree yate so-called dirty bomb. some radiological material that would not really create a nuclear explosion but in essence maybe render a square mile of new york city uninhabitable for decades. this type of situation is too frequently discussed and too frequently it comes up with too much of an answer. what is to be the answer, one would have of this nuclear summit conference now? is there a new international
agreement? will there really be much of an inspection internationally respected by all the nations involved? i would just conclude this long answer by mentioning that sam nun and the nuclear threat initiative and this is a group which jessica matthews has been involved and i have appreciated being a member of the board for a long time and especially the work that's occurred recently and the publication of this nuclear security index which includes theft and sabotage. now, this is an essential book for anybody deeply interested in the subject because it goes through really what's happening in all of the countries on earth that have any sort of potential for difficulty. it sort of rates them one by one in terms of the amount of safety obtained and the amount of
danger that is there is still there, as a matter of fact. i appreciate this because it's a situation in which nti has collaborated with the economist magazine, with data which is tremendously important for each student of all of this. plus, at least end caters of how extensive the dilemma is, how many countries are involved. often is mentioned in summary of this conference coming up, this conference over the weekend, that there were at least 35 countries that had substantial amounts of nuclear material a while back. 11 of them have given it up, apparently. 24 still remain. and, you know, united states and russia have the most but nevertheless 1,800 tons of nuclear material is out there in one form or another. much of i have not safeguarded as it ought to be. and finally, if you have isil terrorists you don't really need a kill ton or a few ounces.
the question really, how are you going to deal with terrorism and people in european countries, quite apart from the middle east, who are prepared really to do in the citizens of their country. so let me pause at that point so that my fellow panelists for whom i have enormous respect. this is a thrill for me just to be included in this panel. >> great. professor potter, senator lugar alluded to the fact that abruptly i think rath ler abruptly in the middle of 2013 the russians, maybe early in 2013, the russians informed us they're not interested in anymore collaboration with the united states in securing their nuclear materials and if you open the front page of today's "the new york times" you will see that president putin decided to boycott this round of the nuclear summit. in your opinion, is this -- what does this portend in terms of
soviet -- russian activities in this -- yes, i know. an important slip. russian activities in this sphere. is it something that we should be worried about, this unwillingness to bork with the united states anymore on this issue? >> thank you, dina. before i respond to your question i do want to put it in some historical context. i must say it's a tremendous honor to appear on a panel with a number of my good friends but also one of my real heroes, senator lugar. as he knows and as sam nunn knows, i have as the privilege to nominate the two of them for a nobel peace prize on a number of occasions and very deserving and i wanted to first really applaud the tremendous efforts that the two senators have been able to promote over their many, many years in government and out of government. >> thank you. >> let me kind of recast the or
respond to your question, dina, again, acknowledging that both of us once upon a time focused on soviet affairs roother than just russian affairs and the point that i think is tremendously important looking at the nature of u.s./russian relations to date, particularly as they pertain to nonproliferation is that for many decades beginning probably one could say with the negotiation of the nonproliferation treaty which was concluded in 1968 and as you noted entered into focus in 1970, but particularly after the so-called peaceful nuclear explosion conducted by india in 1974, the united states and the soviet union began a very concerted and routine collaboration, cooperation for
nonproliferation. every six months at the assistant secretary level they let m tote compare notes about their different proliferation activities and concerns. at the london suppliers group immediatings that proceeded the london -- proceeded the lon gone suppliers group, they cl collaborated than did the united states with the traditional allies including french and the germans. you could add the japanese. in the npt, the nonproliferation treaty review process, the united states a ten soviet union routinely acted in concert for the most part because they were both nuclear weapon states and they were not anxious to see other nuclear weapon states emerge. and that applies also to other force such as the international atomic energy agency but what's particularly important to note is this cooperation persisted across democratic and republican
administrations and even during the most frigid moments of the cold war so after 1979, when the soviet union invaded afghanistan, all other bilaterals were shut down. the only one that persisted in the security realm was cooperation, continuing in the nonproliferation sector. so there's that really powerful historical message which i think is unknown to american and russian practitioners today because these routine meetings ceased in the latter part of the 1980s and while you had other forms of cooperation, they were of a different nature. so, i think it is indeed most unfortunate that the russians will not be -- mr. putten or a designate will not be at the nuclear summit. it's most unfortunate that russia believe that is it no longer needs to formally
cooperate with the united states. but i think if one tries to identify an area in which it still may be possible despite the chill and the nosedive in u.s./russian relations i would say nonproliferation remains one promising area and to give you just an example, next week in monterey we will have very senior u.s. and russian officials joining with experts from both countries to talk about these matters, particularly as it pertain to north korea and dr. hecker will be one of the participants in that meeting. so i would say that by way of background. if you could indulge me, if i can make just one other set of points and that has to do with nuclear terrorism and nuclear security. about ten years or so ago i co-authored a book on the four
faces of nuclear terrorism. and as has been kind of alluded to, these different facets or faces of terrorism involve what people, you know, talk about as a dirty bomb or at least some form of radiological dispersal device by conventional means and we can talk about the attacks or sabotage of nuclear facilities and of concern to both the russians and the americans. one can talk about an improvised nuclear device which is a real nuclear explosive, even if it's not a sophisticated one of the sort that dr. hecker could probably readily produce and then there's also -- >> in his kitchen. >> -- potential for the theft or seizure and use of nuclear weapons from actual arsenals. those are four very different forms