tv Former National Security Advisers Discuss the Future of U.S. Global... CSPAN August 16, 2017 2:57pm-4:26pm EDT
and whenular set of people they say to a governor or president or congress you can't do that because it's not within your constitutional powers will stop >> watch this week at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org and listen using the free c-span radio app. >> next, for former national security advisers on the future of america's global leadership. susan rice and tom udall from the obama administration in condoleezza rice and stephen hadley from the bush white house talk about u.s. relationships with allies and threats post by russia, china and north korea.
>> welcome, everybody. essencepretty much the of what the aspen institute has been and should always be about. , and frankly what our nation should always be about. there is a notion of really dedicated people of both parties coming together and trying to find common ground. it is under the auspices of the --en strategy through strategy group. condoleezza rice is cochair in the first year of the job. [applause] this is one of the first times four national security advisers
will be together. the current one, h.r. mcmaster, is coming in tomorrow. you may notice that susan rice is missing. she will be here in about seven minutes. she is on her way from the airport. just like bob gates last year, there is always someone who wants to make a dramatic entrance area -- entrance. [laughter] turn it over to a person everybody knows, and turns, executive director of the aspen -- nick burns, executive director of the aspen strategy group. tell when you first came here and why. >> the first time i came here was 1972. it was at the end of my sophomore year in college, and i was a student in the aspen music festival school at the time. [applause] experiencing all those amazing pianists, i went back to
denver and changed my major. [laughter] [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. before walter goes away, i think extraordinary leadership with the aspen institute over 14 years, we all ought to pay tribute to him. [applause] thank you all for being here. i'm burns, director of the aspen strategy group. , director of the aspen strategy group. we are resolutely nonpartisan. i was at that first meeting 30 years ago with our chairman emeritus and the former secretary of defense, the founding fathers.
we also have a lot of founding mothers at this institution. we believe that republicans and cancrats and independents come together on behalf of our country to think through the biggest challenges we face, so we are here every august for that reason. i want to pay to the to joe because he is the longest-serving member of this fathertion, and a great intellectually of what we try to do, thank you. [applause] we have a lot of important people here i have to mention. our great former secretary of state madeleine albright. [applause] i have to mention tom. [applause] steele,crown and bob who have led the aspen institute as board chair.
thanks to both of you. this year we are bringing together a lot of foreign-policy experts, but also three elected officials who are going to talk to us sunday evening about the red-blue divide, about a divided nation. we have been running this project of healing america. mayor mitch landrieu of new orleans is here. we are really happy he is here today. [applause] if you have not read his speech about a very sensitive issue in his community, confederate monuments, you must read that speech. he will be joined by a good friend of ours have a senator dan solid -- senator dan sullivan of alaska and congressman joe kennedy to talk about how domestic politics as an impact on leadership position. what we are doing is taking on a big subject, the american liberal order of the last 72 years. , every american
president from harry truman to barack obama has agreed on one engagede have to be with the rest of the world as a leader. that is why we created this set of alliances like nato and our east asian alliances. that is why we stood for free trade and trading agreements for global prosperity. it is why we have nurtured these big institutions that are not always perfect like the u.n., the imf, the world bank, because when there is a national disaster that hits haiti or and ebola crisis, we have to respond. if the united states is the linchpin of all this, we believe in something else, every president and every administration, both parties. we believe in democracy and human rights and a democratic order in the world. that is under challenge right now. it is another challenge by a
rising china, which doesn't share some of those value. it is under challenge by a resurgent russia, which has invaded and crossed every redline by invading and crimea, harassing nato allies, causing trouble in the middle east, and a cyber attack on our election. but it is more complicated than just china and russia because this liberal order is also being this -- being besieged that by a lot of non-governments like al qaeda and isis are cutting into and dividing power and our ability to achieve a peaceful and stable world. i must say this, and i will try to say it in a nonpartisan way. a lot of people are thinking that the united states is not upholding its end of the bargain. there were many great critics of president obama who thought he was too reticent in protecting the united states in some instances. there are many, many more critics of america first, of
president trump. the question i want to ask our , is that liberal order that is so important to our future being weekend, and how can president trump and the congress and all of us strengthen its? that is the first question. the second is, what do we do about putin? you we contain him in europe and engage him in asia and the middle east? and china, the most complex of all. china is not our enemy. it is our partner on climate change, on global economic growth, but our competitor in the south and east china sea. how do you balance that? those are three questions we got we would take a run through. then we will turn it over to you. please feel free to ask any question you would like to ask.
condie it is only fair, is our new cochair. we are very happy that she is succeeding. take it away. >> let the just very much to all of you for being here. what we need to do more than anything is civic and civil dialogue about a number of important issues we face. i want to pick up with your description of the liberal order. i think we have to realize that the liberal order was born, and idea designed after world war ii when people look at the world that they had inherited and said, let's not do that again. it had two important elements. really believeey the international economy did not have to be a zero-sum game. it could be competitive, but a growing economy, and a positive sum game, so my gains are not your losses.
that is why they wanted to have they set ofnd institutions to do it, and international monetary fund, a starting as the european bank of reconstruction and element, which would become a source of capital for countries coming out of colonialism. in some ways, the most remarkable one, the generalist agreement on tariffs and trade, rules of the road leveled level the playing fields of the international economy could grow. bias nature, it is supposed to get us away from conflict in the international system. they also worry -- there she is. >> susan rice. [applause] >> sorry to interrupt. >> i call susan my little sister
even though we are not related, even though our last names are rice. fact that there was competition over resources, so they weren't going to do that again. there were going to try to create the democratic peace were they could come as of a rebuilt germany as a democracy, japan as a democracy. it was all going to be protected by american military power. that was the liberal order. i think it is being challenged by china, although china has one foot in and one without. -- one foot out. it is being challenged by russia because they don't really have a foot in the economic side, and use its military power for its respect. it is also being challenged by the four horsemen of the apocalypse -- opulent, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism
-- populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism. it is not just transnational terrorism or cyber warfare or big powers like russia and china. how do we deal with the fact that it does seem that there are those who believe that they were left behind by the global order, and they are fighting back? they have found people who will give them an answer as to why they didn't succeed. populists always have an answer. it is the other. the chinese, the illegal immigrants. if you are from the left, the big banks. other thisway, the time around is not just taking your jobs. the other is dangerous. refugees, immigrants. i think the challenge is this time not just one that we foreign policy people can that has tobut one go internally to these societies
and see what is happening. that is why i am glad for the exit strategy -- that we are having this session. this is a really big challenge from the inside and out. i am worried that the liberal order might not survive it. >> thank you. i think we will give susan a breather. welcome, by the way. the question is, susan, is the liberal order weakening, and american leadership of that order weakening? i will go to tom. let me just put a little english on this, america first. part of the problem of a weakening america? >> it is great to be here. to reinforce one thing you said, we have in our country today deep holders asian -- deep polarization. not a lot of conversations takes place across political lines and in the policy world. it does take place in the
foreign policy and national security arena. we are very lucky for that. this institution has been a really important part of that. you have almost two decades straight through of service on the stage here today. i think it is kind of a manifestation of something very important for us to continue in terms of our national security. condie's description of the u.s. led post-world war ii world happenthat this will not without the united states and not continue without the united states. we can't take it for granted. her description of what was put in place after world war ii has led to -- and again, with a lot of problems and challenges and mistakes -- but the overall arc of the story is enormously positive for the united states with respect to prosperity and security, and positive for large parts of the world. i do think it is under pressure.
i think the key element here is continued u.s. leadership of that. the thing after world war ii, among others, was that the u.s. did not act like a normal country. that was not the play the u.s. ran after world war ii. it was an entirely different .pproach we just were not a normal country. the united states engaged in a very special undertaking after world war ii. -- we reallys all have seen now the reemergence of great power of edition. we had an extraordinary. period -- extraordinary
after the fall of the great berlin wall. i think that has come to an end, particularly with respect to russia, who after the return of vladimir putin in 2012 decided to go in a different direction. present a real challenge to the world order and the united states. my own view is that russia has become actively hostile to the united states. we have also seen an ideological challenge to the world order in the values the u.s. pursued successfully. that challenge comes from in liberalism and authoritarian regimes. history is back. with a vengeance here, i think. third, we have seen the breakdowns of the state system in the arab world. that has had enormous external impacts, including the emergence of violence to fill the vacuum
like isis. , anotherd of the day challenge to this really is questions about whether or not the u.s. is going to continue to lead this. during the course of the campaign and the first six months of the them an assertion, there have been real questions raised about the u.s. commitment to the basic tillers of that world order, and terms of alliances, trade, multilateral institutions. ishink the united states incumbent to engage in a very serious set of steps, including significant reassurance with our allies. >> wenzhou and condi -- when joe condie and i were talking about this, we didn't want this to be a verdict about president trump. what needs to be fixed? how should it evolve? steve, and that respect, there
area paragraph saying, here the problems of america first, but another paragraph said trump is bringing new ideas. a lot of americans are concerned that free trade has undercut them personally and their industries that they worked at. it is a very aggressive policy against the islamic state in syria and iraq, for instance. you might be best placed as a student of this not in the administration to give a sense of how you view america first fitting into the continuum of every president since truman. is it i get version -- is it a diversion? >> i would like to blow it up a little bigger than that. the question is, what do we do about all this? i will give you one vignette. the brookings institution brought together five republicans and five democrats before the election to talk about rules-based international order. the whole tenor of the discussion was, we got to defend it. we've got to defend it.
then the election occurs. it was interesting to see the change of mood and dialogue within that group because what we saw with the trump election is a group of people who felt that they were victimized by globalization, threatened by immigration, ignored and excluded from the politics, and betrayed by the elites. suddenly what this group began to say was, well maybe we have got to amend and revitalize that liberal international order to reflect the fact that many people feel left out by it, to reflect the fact that the world has changed -- we now have the advantage of china and india and other new players -- and the fact that we do have this new ideological struggle that tom talked about. interestingly enough, the question is, can this administration be convinced that it is in its interest to lead a
process to revise and revitalize the international order? i was in warsaw to your president trump speak, and he talked about western civilization. talked to some of his people afterwards and said, you know, someone needs to explain to him that this rules-based international order has been a framework for defending all the values of western civilization that he was talking about. he wants other countries to do more, not the united states being taken advantage of. so let's try a recast and revitalized international order that lets other countries have a hand in trying to amend that order so that they and some sense are taking more responsibility and are more bought into it. at that point you may be able to say to president trump, the world is stepping up the way you ask them to come of it they can't do it alone. anted states remains indispensable party to the future. i think that is our challenge. >> susan, you've heard all this.
your view on our role in the world and what has happened to it. >> i think our role is and remains indispensable. what we are suffering fundamentally is a view of the world and the view of our domestic politics as zero-sum. our leadership in the post world that the postwar world has never been zero-sum. it has benefited from the concept that we can maximize benefits through strong principled american leadership. we now to the extent that have gone through a phase of us , thes them domestically other, it is becoming the same in our relationships with many parts of the rest of the world. even our closest allies are
looking at the united states and questioning whether we are leading a team of principled, like-minded values-based entities, or whether or not we are going to stand in opposition to them, much less our own adversaries. reform that vision of the united states leadership through a combination of reasserting and embracing the fact that america's leadership can be beneficial not only for us, but for others. that we have a system of alliances and trade that has served us very well, and it is not in our interest to see those eroded or jettisoned. that requires a whole new approach, a renewal of our relationships that we have frankly suffered from, i think,
over time, but also over the last six months. >> i agree completely that we need to revitalize and reassure, but we need help from our allies, too. how many of us on that stage gave that 2% gdp to our nato allies and kept saying, please, can't you just carry more of the burden? we all did, and basically got nowhere. large scheme of things, we got nowhere over a long period of time. the u.s. has carried most of the burden. i believe great powers have to be willing to do that. but i have been saying we actually could use a little help here. step up and it will be appreciated if we start to see greater engagement. i always felt a little bit sometimes as secretary of state that the secretary of state --
and matalin would notice -- and ineal line -- and madel would notice -- that the secretary of state is the 911. ofhink some broader sharing the burden would be a very good thing. theye chinese, i would say have really benefited from the liberal economic order. they would not have lifted 500 million people out of poverty without it. they were admitted to the world trade organization probably prematurely. if you look at chinese practices, they are not in line with world trade order -- with the wto's standards. further example, intellectual property protection is a problem. if you have a joint partner with
china, you are likely to see your intellectual property taken and a joint venture suddenly owned. national champions among chinese companies are advantaged vis-a-vis western companies. the chinese have not opened their financial services sector to investment as they are supposed to do under the world trade organization. i am absolutely all for reasserting america's willingness to work with people and all those things. i do think others have an important role to play here, too. that will be reasserting to the american people. >> susan. >> i fully agree. i think we all would benefit. our allies and partners need to play a commissioner role that a commiserate role -- a commiserate role. the reason they call our state department 911 is because there isn't a country that matches our military, economic, oral might
-- and moral might. whether the challenges gathering a coalition to impose sanctions on russia after they invade crimea and ukraine, rallying the world to deal with the ebola epidemic, building a coalition to go after isis, it requires the u.s. to be front and center. it doesn't mean others don't contribute or shouldn't pull their weight. obviously they can and must, and they don't always do so. when we step back, nothing seems to work. i think that has clearly been our collective experience. >> tom, steve? >> one part of this, picking at how to revise and revitalize the national order, i think we want others to do more. that means also we are going to have to give them more of a role and more of a state. that, i think, also means that we are going to have to change a little bit how we lead.
we are going to have to be of a mind of facilitating this kind of participation, not dictating. being responsive to other people's views. a little more enabling and a little less imposing. mary robinson and i were having this conversation. i think we need a little bit of adjustment in how we lead because i think the world has changed. i think to be effective and to get others to take more of the burden as we all think needs to be done, we are going to have to have a different leadership style. >> scholar at the brookings that wee has a saying don't get the retire from this role. we would retire from this role at a very high cost to ourselves and the world. determining the way forward and reasserting and reassuring allies, really having a conversation with them about what it means to be an ally. this conversation i think has
gotten off track. it has become too transactional. these are fundamental obligations we have to each other. getting back into that conversation with the united states and doing it in a style , i manner, and with a vision think it is the right way to go. the united states doesn't get to retire from this role, and it is not in their interest to do so. >> i think that is right. one last word on this. i want to ask you about russia, condie. i think president trump -- i'm a former ambassador at nato for bush 43 -- when we were hit hard on 9/11, the allies came to us and said we want to invoke article five of the nato treaty and attack. we had never invoked it in the history of nato, and we came through on it big-time. at 4:00 a.m.ndie washington time to say that the
allies were going to be with us, and they wanted to go to war with us against al qaeda. boy did i feel at that moment the power of having allies in the world. the chinese are not going to always be there, the russians are never there. i think you said to me is good to have friends in the world. >> it is good to have friends in the world. the reported nine countries represented in that room. to see this point about how we are going to have to lead to stevens point about how we're going to have to lead differently, i could not agree more. leading differently means finding a role for others. that is important. cannot means, i know we retire from this role, but there is a weariness among the american people.
we cannot ignore it. we cannot simply say, we have got to get back there and leave. we have to say we are going to lead because it is in our interests and values, and our allies have to appreciate it and be part of it. that is my point. we really have gotten from the allies, what we mostly get his criticism for not leading. the only thing the world hates more than unilateral american leadership is no american leadership. we need our allies to step up. some of them have. the germans have stepped up. let's not underestimate outside leads the policy degree to which the american people are asking questions about how much more we can do. invasion ofin's
crimea, 20 of our 20 allies have raised defense spending. merkel is leading nato. we have got a dilemma here. putin attacked our election and tried to discredit our democracy. we know he did that. putin still has troops in eastern ukraine, dividing that country. he has been a malevolent force in syria. what is the strategy for president trump? we saw this extraordinary situation where the president was repudiated by republicans in congress. if you were to give advice to him, what would it be? [laughter] >> not to put you on the spot too much. >> well, thanks. whot, be sure you know vladimir putin is.
vladimir putin is someone who likes to humiliate, dominate, and essentially understands power. don't go into a room with vladimir putin unless you are in a pretty powerful position. , when you go to talk to vladimir putin, first let's continue the policy the obama administration began, maybe even accelerate the policy of putting forces at least on a rotating basis, but possibly on a permanent basis in places like poland and the baltic states. you say to him, this far and no further. secondly, i like raising the defense budget as a signal to the russians. third, you have to say to the russians, we know you didn't on the electoral process. it on the electoral process. we will deal with it. we have confidence in our
electoral system, so don't think you are undermining american confidence by what you are doing. he feeds on this sense that he is succeeding in undermining our confidence. final thing, stop flying your planes so close to our ships and aircraft. someone is going to get shot down. once you establish ground rules, now you can talk about areas of cooperation. i would arm the ukrainians. i think you have got to raise the cost to the russians for what they are doing in ukraine. it is not on the front pages anymore. in eastern ukraine, people are dying every day because of those russian separatists who with russian military training and intelligence are making a mess of eastern ukraine and making it impossible for kiev to govern the country. i think it is time to arm them.
you have to show him that you are tough. >> thank you. susan, tom, i think president obama put in place a lot of what condi is saying. is there bipartisan agreement on this? >> certainly a bipartisan agreement on the steps condi described as what we called the european congress agreement. presenceous rotating in poland and forward mount personnel and equipment. we have reversed the trend of the downsizing of our presence in europe. that is vitally important. that, if we are going to tackle the real challenge russia poses, we have to acknowledge the problem. we have to name it as some people like to say on other
topics. the reality is with the president that has not expressed with clarity is understanding of what the russians did to metal email@example.com -- election,dle in our and has been unwilling to make a statement after the expulsion of our personnel from russia, and made no indication that we might respond in kind, because we are the aggrieved party in this instance. we are muddying the water and sending the signal that we don't understand that we face a very serious threat. we need to be very clear and oureful and unified in characterization of the russian problem. i think we have seen from congress useful and credible
bipartisan leadership on this topic. thankfully the legislation has been passed and signed. this should not be the end. penalties should be increased if nothing improves. >> tom, to build on what susan just said, you frame this fall liberal order by recalling the origins of it. are we back to the containment of russian power in eastern europe? is that the strategy that you pursued, you and susan and president obama? >> it is important to recognize the fundamentals. we are in an actively hostile posture with russia. it is not just in europe, it is in syria, afghanistan, and in our own elections and the european elections next year as well and probably our elections in 2018 and 2020 unless we act to prevent it. we are in an actively hostile
posture with the russians. i met with putin the friday night before he was not graded. it was clear he was taking russia and a different direction. ideas were not anachronistic to vladimir putin. he had domestic pressure on him that forced him and pushed them in the direction he has gone. he has his own sense of where russia should be, but a different place of where we had russian generals planning with us at nato headquarters. we had a big change. it is important to recognize that. second, secretary rice describes it exactly right, and i think there would be bipartisan agreement on straightening our position in europe. into a before you enter serious conversation with him about what the rules of the road will be going for it, you have
as secretaryxactly rice laid out. the last thing is the election. it is important that there be a recognition as to what happened. it is important that we have, and i believe everyone else in the administration short of the president has said this, including people here. it is important that we move forward with a set of steps to prevent this from happening in the future. we had a set of events. we know what the playbook was. s dimensions it were from cyber assets to penetration in three dozen states. we need to take steps now to prevent it from happening in the future. we have been put on notice with respect to this threat. >> steve, you are the transitional figure in the
panel. i want you to say what you have to say on russia, that i will ask you about china. >> i may provoke a little controversy on the panel. i agree with everything that has been said and all the measures condi talked about. i am no softy on russia. i have been arguing for those for the last two or three years. making and calling out what russia did in terms of our election and making sure it can never happen again by anybody. once first, shame on him. for me twice, shame on me. i am a little worried. i think we are in a dangerous pe riod with russia. i think putin has decided that americans are anti-russian. there is no constituency for u.s. russian relations in the united states. he says if you think i am an
enemy, i will show you what it is like to have an enemy in russia. we are vulnerable because as much as i applaud the steps of a we have done, i don't think they are enough if putin really decides to process. we are putting battalions in the three baltic states and poland and progress. -- bucharest. battalions are 1200 people, 1500 people. russia is going to have an exercise in belarus that newspapers suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8000 tanks. france,ks than germany, and u.k. have combined. we have to be careful that we don't get in this very confrontational, rhetorical position with russia and not have the resources to back it up. i think we are not doing enough
in europe, in syria. putin is doubling down, and we have pulled the plug on some of the things in syria. we are in an exposed position. we have got to be very tough, stand on our principles, stand on our allies. tothe same time, be willing try to improve the relationship and cooperation. what is the formula america has used for five decades about adversaries, from the soviet union to our most troublesome adversaries? cooperate where you can, where you have common interests. stand on your principles, stand with your friends, and be tough where you disagree. manage those so doesn't come to confrontation and conflict. we have got to get back to that formula. we are not there right now.
>> before we get to china, i just want to add to that. if i were advising the current president, i would give him the same advice, but it would be easier to get to a place where we could engage in a conversation with the russians and would not have the kinds of restrictions placed on the president out of the sanctions if we had been tougher on this and straighter on this and clear on this. becan get to a place to tougher and deal from strength, and we would have a better opportunity to have a conversation with some domestic support if we acknowledge these problems. >> steve, my sense is you have articulated a bipartisan consensus that exists in washington. final question, then we will take questions from the audience. harvard,colleague at
the late steve odland. framed our the relationship with china two years ago. he said, china is not our enemy. beingwill likely end up our most if not are most important global partner on climate change, stabilizing the global economy, the role of women, cyber in the future. here is the problem, china is also a competitor with us for strategic power in east asia. steve asked the question of my students i want to ask of you. he said this will be the toughest american challenge on foreign policy in the 21st century to balance these two and not to end up in a conflict with china and be dominated by china. if i can say this in a nonpartisan way, president obama
achieved the climate change agreement with president xi jinping. now president trump faces a difficult issue in the east asian sea. tweets, id the recent follow all of them on twitter. >> i will try to frame this. a lot of people have a lot to say. it is a competitor. one of the problems is, the soviet union was a competitor, they do not really have the resources that was required to compete. in china, we have a competitor that has resources like crazy. this is a different kind of competitive threat than we have ever faced. we need to start on that. it does require balance. revitalized international order. we need to find a way if we can
bring china as part of that process to revising that order because if we do not give them a seat at the table, they will take the lead and try to create a competitor. that is not in our interest. second, on issues like the south china sea, i think the framework for handling it is pretty clear. we have got to stand with our allies in terms of south china sea. we have to be present economically, militarily. i think we can manage that because china's integration in the international community and the fact it is dependent on international prosperity and growth for the legitimacy of the regime means china doesn't really want to have a trade war. we have got some leverage there. we can negotiate in some sense with shrewd diplomacy. two issues i am worried about. one, i think the solution is easy. one belt, one road.
this enormous infrastructure project that is reaching westward. it is a good thing. those in central asia and elsewhere need infrastructure. we ought to join it. we ought to get all of our friends to join it. if we all get around china and help them on one bill, one road, because if you have 50 people hugging you, it is hard to move. what am i worried about? we used to say the taiwan relationship could destroy u.s. china relations. i am worried about north korea. i'm worried about a confrontation between the united states and china and north korea. the last two administrations have both tried to have a discreet conversation with china about what we do on the peninsula. beinstinct is china may finally ready for that conversation, but we have to have it. if we don't manage that issue
correctly, we could have a confrontation with china. >> tom. the relationship with china is not only the most complex but the most consequential bilateral relationship we have in the world. that requires us to do just as steve said when he was talking about russia, maximize cooperation where we can, manage competition, and avoid confrontation. i think in the last several years, we have managed to strike that balance white well. not only on climate change, but on peacekeeping, global public health, a whole range, nonproliferation, nuclear security, a whole range of areas with painstaking and sometimes frustrating diplomacy. , and i spent a lot of time directly engaging our chinese counterparts.
we were able to expand the areas of cooperation in two rounds that were previously unthinkable. we managed to whittle down some of the areas of friction. one area that is mitigated is in the cyber realm where we were able to negotiate an understanding with the chinese that they largely adhered to that they would cease the theft of our intellectual property through cyber means for commercial activity. we reduced the level of nefarious activity from the chinese type. that is something we need to watch and manage. i agree there are areas of real concern. i am quite concerned about the south china sea and potentially the east china sea. we have not yet, particularly in recent months, figured out how
front and center we will put that issue in the bilateral relationship. north korea, as important as that is, cannot overshadow our attention on that issue. steve, i would be interested in hearing how you play out the scenario of the u.s. and china in direct confrontation over that. i think what we risk is our very understandable frustration with the failure to address the problem sufficiently relating to miscalculations on our side or the part of the north koreans such that we end up on the slippery slope. we can spend more time on north korea, but i think those are the two issues, north korea, south korea see, where the competition -- south china sea, where competition could end up in confrontation. >> i imagine some of his son to ask about north korea. tom and condi, last words on the china relationship. >> a couple of things, number
one is that the china relationship has to be nested in your overall asia policy. from this perspective, condi said it exactly right earlier. few nations on the face of beer have benefited more from the u.s. led support of security and economic order over the last 75 years. the last four years for the chinese have been externally -- extraordinarily beneficial. that is built on the platform united states put in place in asia on which social and economic development has been built. the first strategic point is that continued presence by the united states, continued commitment to our role as an important power, the premier power in the pacific is absolutely essential. if you ask what happens absent that, you have a place full of
conflicts and real challenges with respect to economic and other development. rateecond is, we have walk -- been cooperating quite well on global issues. we have these regional issues that are quite significant. i would go back and add the economic issues as well. we don't want to get to a trade war with the chinese. we have serious economic problems with the chinese right now. there is lack of reciprocity, lack of access. it is becoming increasingly difficult for the united states to do business in china. there are real technology transfer issues. these have to be confronted. china has a big investment in the global economic environment. they have a big investment in us. they are most important market.
-- their most important market. the south china sea is where we need to maintain our presence and insist on the right rules of the road. north korea is probably the most perilous security issue facing us over the next year or so. slow-motion cuban missile crisis. there are a number of steps we can take in addition to what has happened right now. it is the principle security conversation with the chinese. dd one thing, there is a wildcard, and that is china's internal the -- development. that is something we cannot control. the low cost of labor, heavy exports, heavy government investments, strategy they have pursued to lift 400 million people out of poverty. that model has kind of run out
of steam. they have had great reform plans. they were able to close state owned enterprises, and they were going to introduce more market forces. when you start to introduce market forces, you introduce a lot of voices. that does not sit easily with a top-down political system that is getting more and more concentrated in the hands of the very few if not one. the internal the balance of china are something we do not control -- developments of china are something we do not control. how that will play out in their policy in the south china sea or trade policy is hard to say. this careful management is going to have to be constantly attuned to what is transparent in china. >> thank you. thanks to this great panel. you have seen these for outstanding people have the toughest job in washington. 24ional security adviser,
president george w. bush, two for barack obama. thank you. [applause] >> now it is your turn. if you would just motioned to me if you want to ask a question. my only request is that you stand up. there will be a microphone that comes to you. give us your name. be sure the question is a question mark attached to the end, and we will all be happy. >> i am a mom and a local. i have a question for your strong intellects. who is intellectually on your level in this administration, who is advising? i say this thing perspective, heavy study steve bannon and his philosophy on the neoliberal order? have you looked at the dark side of some of the supporters? everyone is talking about the left behind american worker.
to me and many of my brown friends, it is not so soft and fuzzy. there is another element to the rallies. i want you to speak to that. >> who would like to? [laughter] >> any comment? >> i will take it, certainly. there are some very good and intellectually excellent people in this administration. rex tillerson is a very smart guy. let me tell you something, oilmen know the world like other people don't. they deal with difficult laces and difficult people. maybe one of the great intellects of the last half-century in the american military. so is h.r. mcmaster. there are very good and smart people around the present. i do know steve bannon's work. not particularly fond of it. i think we have to recognize
said, when one has a populist message, other things tend to go with that message. what we are seeing on the foreign policy side so far is that the foreign policy looks more traditional than i think many of us would have thought early on. if you look at the fact he finally got around to affirming article five. it took a while. we finally got around to it. we do believe in a one china policy. it took a while. we got there. when you look at the discussions about what will have to happen to nafta. during the campaign, president trump said this is the worst trade agreement in history. when you look at what they are actually talking about, it is pretty modest. they have learned a particular reality, which is the one steve after september
11, we closed the border with canada after september 11. three days later, no one could make a car. nafta is a fact. if you take these issues issue by issue, i don't know that the syria policy is that different, or the north korea policy, is that different than what one could expect. thewe going to reaffirm broad context for all of these decisions? the liberal order, american leadership, what does america first really mean? are we really going to not care whether or not states are democratic? democracy promotion, democracy support, it is not just the morally right thing to do, but democracies don't fight each other. they don't send their 10-year-olds as child soldiers. they don't traffic their women into the sex trade.
they don't attack their neighbors. they don't harbor terrorists. democracies are kind of good for the world. when you talk about american interests and say you are not sure we ought to promote democracy, i am not sure you have a weird concept or grasp on what constitutes american interests. i am more worried about the large piece of this. on the individual policies, we are seeing not that much divergence. it is a really good national security team. >> there is a pretty good book on this issue democracy, as i understand. >> by condi rice. [laughter] >> can, right here. >> thank you -- next question right here. >> thank you. i wanted to ask the panel to reflect on the issue that steve early talked about. the changing nature of american
leadership. there are areas where other countries might be willing to do if they get a clear signal the u.s. was willing to let them. i'm talking international finance and international financial institutions. there have been like the world indications that other countries might want to step up to the plate and do more and frustration that they were not able to do more that led to the creation of the asian infrastructure bank i china and the new development bank by russia, china, and you, and so on. what might it look like if the u.s. were willing to let others do more in leadership? what would be the element that would be that leadership change? >> thank you very much for that question.
countries like turkey, why -- a -- say, >> the question was asked by a woman who knows of which she speaks. admire for your purposes. look, i think this is a real conundrum because for the united states, we want to see the refreshing institutions that came out of the postwar era that we were the birth mother of. we do not have alternatives to the united nations, to the bretton woods institutions. you are pointing to a very
particular and important challenge. in the current context, it is even harder in my estimation for the united states to truthfully embrace the kind of reform that many countries think is necessary. for example, look to the united nations. the united states really want to give up our veto on the security council, which many would love to see? do we want to expand permanent membership and with it the veto? -- andry, these issues practice, these are very difficult and consequence of choices that would lead to a dim munition of our international power. i think the financial somewhatons is a
different questions and one that i think we need to come to terms with. if you are sitting in our seats in those jobs and most of us had a turn at who is going to be the it wasllback president, our job not to lose that leadership, right question mark but it is going to be lost at some stage. the question is, will we do it in a way that preserves our ability to be a preeminent force in these institutions that are so important to us. ans is a great place for aspen strategy group or a like-minded bipartisan group to becausewith solutions the sitting administration will always find it difficult to be the one to basically abdicate the seat. that youthink, to say need to have a sort of redefinition of americans role does not mean it has to be redefined on every issue. susan and i would probably agree
that others would have a different view. , think it is very important just the development of the past few days. one thing i learned was the china of resources that was making available through their national banks, development inks, very quickly are going to dwarf what everybody else is doing and that is before you get the investment structure bank in other things. so, we can treat this as a threat and grudgingly sort of surrender some control, or weekend you it as an opportunity. one of the opportunities that came out from the session on development that was very interesting and i think it was john podesta who described the developing world criticisms of the existing sort of bretton institutions. too conservative and all the
rest. there is a problem with the chinese, they don't have the make kind of standard to sure investments are done in a transparent, non-corrupt way and support the country. is there way that you can in some sense partner between the two, co-invest the between the two so we can use our institutions to get the chinese institutions to accept more international standards but also showed the resources that china seems to be willing to apply to the problem. that is the opportunity. we should be looking at those opportunities. they may turn out to be not in our interest. but not to be open to them i think would be a mistake. >> thank you. am a washington swamp lord.
[laughter] to givest of all it one a speech. you guys are good. i've worked with all of you in some capacity. you have served your administrations well. itst of all, nick, we hope fulfills the nato agreement. >> for all of the wrong reasons, it it has. question: first of all, is the cyber five attack an article of all is thet cyber attack an article five attack? >> i think the administration done deeply into that. it would depend upon the nature of the attack and how destructive it might be, right? direction is to have the physical laws of the world apply in the digital world as well. the point you're making his important, which is that this is
a critical new domain of vulnerability for the united states and the world. coming from a number of sources. that areationstates engaged and all manner of activity from informational warfare like russian activity to espionage to north korean actions against sony. we have hybrid organizations which are kind of in the second column of nationstates, hard to attribute. you have criminal gangs, right? who are engaged in this. you have vulnerabilities sure employees bring to the workplace everyday that need to be addressed. with the country need to address this is a bigger issue. thelast three or four times report given his global ao the congress in nonclassified presentation has
said -- and i think actually bmi coached, they said the number one threat facing the country is in the cyber arena right now. when jim klapper first did this i said, are you sure about this? he said, i am sure about this. he turned out to be right. ofare nowhere near, in terms mind share, resources, expertise, anywhere in where we need to be in confronting this. it is very uneven. we have a ways to go. susan and the president requested a panel on cyber security last year. we are nowhere near where we need to be. we have some real challenges coming just in the technology development area. we could have tens of billions of devices that could be hijacked by maligned actors and
used to attack systems. we have a lot of work in this area, tom, and it is very critical. host: right here in the third row, six people in. hello.n: i am bruce mcgarrett. i wonder, given our i think insulated view of ourselves and our economy in the world, what play asrmany and japan a role moving forward against russia and china and could they play a constructive role? >> i think, certainly in terms of germany, germany has been politically and diplomatically on the frontlines when it comes to the issue of ukraine. ally.y is a critical
is still a shadow of a legacy of world war ii. the germans far less than japan, is both it is a shadow that perhaps not as much a problem for their neighbors as it is for them and their populations. when german stock about germany, they do not like to talk about german power. i remember i was on the delegation that did the unification of germany. and when george w. bush would say george h bush to helmut kohl, he would say "within a nified europe." because germany was not supposed to act on its own. germany tethered was a problem. if somebody wants to say something really nasty they will say, "it is not brussels, it's berlin."
to haveny likes american partnership and what they do to play the quite good role they can play in europe. in japan, even more so the case that there is still a lot of from world war ii. again, because united states has been a partner for japan, japan has been able to play a role. so the united aces not get to retire from this role, either. is going tor japan step up, it is always better in partnership with the united states just to keep the balance right in the region. host: susan, do have a comment on this? completely with what condi just said. ] aughter >> we tended to look toward 70's, 80's, 90 as our primary partner. , especially for
susan and tom, germany has become our lead partner. one thing i think has been a problem with president trump is as ane describes germany economic competitor and does not talk about it as our leading strategic partner in europe. angela merkel is our greatest ally in europe. if i could say one thing to donald trump it would be, you need a better relationship with a glut merkel. she -- with angela merkel. she is our key ally. >> i think germany is absolutely critical. nick, i agree with your characterization completely. the other thing we need to commit to is the idea of europe that is strong and unified in shares our values. what is going on in hungry and you see russia working very hard ,o exacerbate these divisions
then you see. and with brexit, how do we keep britain fully involved in how do we envision a future in which they might come back? >> this is what i think is very important, it is important to have this conversation with germany about the nature of an alliance. with the critical role that chancellor merkel has played. because we have not really, of late, been fully embracing of the european institution. we embraced a number of individuals and organizations -- wecal parties who are undermine these institutions, frankly. right? it is important to be more involved in europe. the ukrainet on becoming involved in the mentor process, i think actually having a view on how the brexit
negotiations should turn out. the united states as a viewer and should not a shy about expressing those views, frankly. host: with time for one more question. i would like to ask our pamphlets, any final thoughts on american leadership? this is the core of what we are talking about this weekend. former member of congress jane harman is a member of our route. she is our friend. thank you. >> thank you. fabulous panel. conflict andlevel the organizations they grew out of it is multilateral. yet president trump sees things much more in bilateral terms. by cutting out tpp he said he could cut better deals with the countries. my question is, is the bilateral approach a productive approach in an age like this? >> in, is it sufficient?
this is a good final question for each of you and stick it where you want to take it. if there issues you want to cover that we did not cover, please go ahead. >> i will answer jane's question in a roundabout way and start with something madeleine albright said. if i get it wrong, please stand up and correct me as you are free to do. americans do not much like multilateralism. it has too much -- too many syllables and ends with an " ism." and that is the problem. look, we all grew up in the cold war era. we had the rules-based international order in our bones. we understood what happened in war. war ii and the cold and how important that was in these -- andd deep
how important that was in the era of peace and prosperity it ushered in. people now don't have that shared experience and we are not teaching them that history and they do not understand what we've really in our bones. terms of ther and issue of roles-based international order and america's role in the world. sense grown upme on the fear of 9/11 and the lack of instant success in iraq and afghanistan. they do not understand what we did after world war ii in terms of germany and japan to help remake those countries as some of our most prosperous allies. so we have a huge gap in him for we are going to reassert american leadership in any form, if we're going to lead the revitalize international order, we have got to take the case to the american
people. i think we can because i think where there is a crossover point is what condi started off on. donald trump can reflect the american people's views that friends and allies need to do more. if we can say we're going to lead the process of adapting the international system which has as a cooler allies that will step up and will be allowed to step up and take more responsibility, i think we can sell that to the american people. host: on your question on bilateral versus multilateral trade negotiations, president obama led an organization to put pulled out. and we it was a terrible mistake economically and strategically because it was really part of what i talked about earlier which was the u.s. presence which has been the work of multiple administrations on a bipartisan basis for a long
time. pulling that economic presence out, that alternative if you will to other things, is a critical mistake. it will takes years to replace it. condoleezza rice talked about the nafta agreement. a thing.te on the leadership issue, i think there are two things. , she is exactly right. there needs to be a full appreciation and endorsement by leaders of the international order of the united states and have a keen explanation and presentation of what that has provided. the point, the west and democracies have to work, right? and, they have to work for a broader part of our population and at the end of the day, if
you did and assets and liabilities chart. there are a lot of financial people in this room. we have a long list of assets. on the liability side is the future of work and expanding prosperity. at the end of the day, that may be the most important thing after national security. jane, to your question whether the economics or securities sphere, i think nick was hinting with his reformulation the question was necessary but are from sufficient. if you do not like the term "multilateralism," i would prefer the term "collective ." ion we need that whether we're talking about terrorism, pandemic flu, proliferation, climate change, all of these are challenges that only can be dealt with effectively through collective action.
more often than not, it is us against the pack which is the whole point of how our leadership is so indispensable. i share the applied concern in your question, which is that if we look at everything through a bilateral lens, which is inherently forcing one into a transactional mode, then we are back to the mentality that i fear is undermining our leadership. the last point i would make, i think one of the threats to the liberal world order into american leadership is our own domestic politics and the fact that we are now so internally divided that we cannot even agree on the necessity of responding to a critical withcious external threat
russia being the most proximate example. we have got to get our act together internally, domestically, or we will be absent in ourselves from -- accenting ourselves from international politics and that is not something we can face. [applause] >> can i just say before condi answers, one of the things walter and jim bob and others have done is, can aspen be a bipartisan -- nonpartisan place question mark can we overcome these divisions? there is a direct question the between that. it is a great point. actually, multilateralism is really bilateral is some strong together. i think it takes both. some of the great institutions we created our ones in which we
believe that collective action would bring about a positive sum game not a zero sum game. that was the great insight after world war ii. that, it takes confidence. it takes confidence for the united states to enjoy 55%, 60% of the world's gdp to say, we're not going to protect that. we're going to build a free trading system in which everyone can prosper. it is the confidence and which russia -- we're going to take a pledge and you bet we will trade if necessary new york for london. that is the confidence. what i am concerned about is our confidence these days. part that the american people are wondering how much longer does this have to go on but the american people also do not like what they see when we
do withdraw. they do not like seeing syrian babies joke on gas. they don't like saying people beheaded on television as isis rises. they don't like to see the russians on the march. there is something to appeal to americans to say, yes, i know we have been added a long time but we cannot retire. but the confidence piece of it i am concerned about because i think what we are really saying is a flip between those who are ining easily and capably this global elite and those who are not. if i teach a course in stanford at the business school, i will have a student with roughly the following characteristics. born in chile, went to college in oxford, first job in shanghai, now they are in graduate school in berkeley and their next job will be in dubai. they moved easily around the world.
most people never move more than 25 years -- miles from where they were born. we are getting a flip the between aspirations, fears, prospects of people were moving easily in this globalized environment and those being left behind. those who do not have the skills and cannot keep up and cannot find a way to the dignity that comes with a decent job, they are saying no. if we are continuing down a road in which we're going to have third graders who cannot read and 18-year-olds who cannot find a job and 50-year-old who are opioid-addicted we're going to be two countries. one capable, one not. for a country held together not by at this analogy -- ethnicity humbleou can come from circumstances, do right things doesn't matter where you come
from, matters where you're going. that split will be devastating and then we are not going to lead because we are not going to lead from confidence. this starts at home. not america first. that is terminology i do not like. but it does start at home because it was a confident america that built the liberal order and it has to be a confident america that sustains it. [applause] >> wonderful. thank you for being here. walter, thank you for convening us. thank you. [applause] conversation]
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> here is a look at our primetime schedule on the c-span networks. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, a look at the changing role of the world's largest cities. on c-span 2, it is book tv, with authors and books on military history. and on c-span 3, american
history tv, with events from the recent gettysburg college conference, and a talk examining abraham lincoln as a war president. coverage of the solar eclipse on monday starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern with "the washington journal" live at goddard space flight center in greenbelt, maryland. our guests are a nasa research space scientist and the chief scientist at goddard. at noon eastern, we join nasa tv as they provide live views of the eclipse shadow passing over north america. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, viewer reaction to the rare solar eclipse over the continental united states. live all-day coverage of the solar eclipse on monday, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. listen free on the radio app. this saturday, we look at preparations for the first solar eclipse over the united states
in 100 years, plus programs on the nasa budget, mars exploration, and more, beginning at noon eastern on c-span. book tv features an in-depth conversation with a nonfiction author about their writing career. join us on september 3, when our guest's latest is "if you can keep it." other books include "amazing grace," plus a best-selling biography of dietrich von offer. -- bonhoffer. will discuss "the year of voting dangerously." michael wetzel talk about books including his latest, "the undoing project." he also wrote "the big short." join us for in-depth the first sunday of the month at noon eastern on c-span two. , family,r today
friends, and political leaders attended a memorial service for heather heyer in charlottesville, virginia. she was the 32-year-old woman killed saturday when a crowd intentionally plowed into a crowd demonstrating against the white supremacist march. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> my name is kathy. susan and i, heather's mother, have been best friends for quite a while, and we are so close that we call each other sisters, so i have been asked to welcome every one of you here today. we are here to remember heather heyer. and to say goodbye. some of us are here as family. some of us are friends old and new. some of coworkers, but that is more like family to heather.