Skip to main content

tv   Condoleezza Rice Amy Zegart Political Risk  CSPAN  June 30, 2018 5:00pm-6:01pm EDT

5:00 pm
he does a good job of capturing both pieces of that. those are the two books front and center for me right now. >> book tv wants to know what you're reading, send us summer reading list via twitter at book tv or instagram at book under score tv or post it to our facebook page book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. [inaudible conversations]
5:01 pm
>> just a second. >> welcome, everybody, my name is adam white, research fellow at the hoover institution and it's my pleasure to welcome you all for today ice discussion, this is the johnson center, before we begin, please silence your cell phones and we will -- i will make a few notes to begin, first this is being recorded, so it is on the record, second they'll be time for questions and answers at the end but to make things fair for anyone to answer questions, please keep questions and top is political risk, how businesses and organizations can anticipate global insecurity. we are pleased and honor to be joined by the two authors, condoleezza rice was the 66th secretary of state from 2005 to 2009 to president george w. bush
5:02 pm
and before that she was president bush's national security adviser. now she is the hoover institution's barber stevenson senior fellow, professor in global professor and the economy and professor of political science in stanford university. amy zegart hoover institution senior fellow and institute for international studies. she codirects stanford center for cooperation and she's a professor of political science, before coming to stanford she was a professor of public policy at ucla and served on president clinton's national security council. today's discussion will be moderated by andrea mitchell, nbc news correspondent and hosts andrea mitchell reports each day on msnbc. she's covered seven presidential administrations, capitol hill, state department, the
5:03 pm
intelligence services and every presidential campaign since 1980. her achievements in journalism are genuinely and why she received 2017 courage and lifetime achievement award from the international women's media foundation. andrea. >> thank you so much and it is a great privilege for me to be here with two scholars, leaders, public policy experts that i admire so greatly. congratulations on the book and we want to talk about the book political risk and then some questions about the news of the day and then questions from all of you and i see a lot of friends and people whom i know well from foreign policy world in the audience as well. so it's great to have dr. rice here and on a day when a new secretary of state has been ceremonial has been sworn in, a new chapter. talking about political risks from your experiences, first of
5:04 pm
all, dr. rice what makes political risk difference from financial and economic risks? >> well, the first thing andrea, you have to call me conda, i have to say a word about andrea mitchell, andrea was part of the press corps at the state department that covered me when i was secretary. truth of the matter is that if she hadn't been a great journalist she would have been specialist. >> thank you. those were the days secretary of state and new resumed practice, traveling press corps. >> how do i define and think of political risks? well, we wrote this book out of a class that amy and i taught together and we taught together in a course called global context which is everything that
5:05 pm
happens in world that affects business and we taught it for mba's, one of the things that wasn't covered adequately in the course were political risks in the way political scientists might think about them. not investment risk and, in fact, political risks seemed to have been overshadowed or shadow the way people taught about political risks in 1960's and 1960's, was socialist dictator nationalize your industry and, of course, today that's a relatively, well, almost unknown to have that be the problem, so we started talking about teaching the course in which we could systemically begin to talk about political risks from geopolitical factors, political risks from changes in technology like cybersecurity, difficulties, changes in the multiplycation of the numbers of actors that are actually
5:06 pm
involved in foreign policy, whether civil society or we will talk about social media activists and so we we wanted to identify for our students the multiple forces of political risk using our government experience, using amy's experience of the intelligence community to really look at how those agencies, those organizations look at risks and try to help business leaders think in the same systematic way. so that's how it came about but as amy will tell you, it was actually our student who said to us, you should write a book based on the course so we did. so the students we taught it for six years and the students asked us to do two things, one to make class longer, students never say that. the other is you should write a book about it. until about a year ago, she said we should write a book and we looked for things that we could use for reading assignments, we couldn't find much so nobody
5:07 pm
that we -- we looked pretty hard and we couldn't find readily available materials so for this class we created all of our own case material simulations and so that was the genesis of the book. >> how has social media transformed the way the business world has to deal with the volatility and velocity of change. >> well, spoke volatility and velocity and its actors that you wouldn't think of. if you're united airlines and two passengers happened to have a cell phone and watched a passenger treated badly by flight attendants, all of a sudden you have experienced political risk that you would never seem coming and now you as a ceo are testifying before congress about these sorts of things and so the social media and amy will talk about social media activism but social media has made really lowered the
5:08 pm
barriers for the number of actors, kinds of actors who can become sources in a sense of political risks for businesses. >> i can tell you you want to talk about my favorite. >> favorite case now which i had to cut out about 5 times in the book because she kept talking about it and kept talking about it. [laughter] >> which is sea world. one of the examples we use -- >> i was going to ask if you didn't bring it up. >> yeah, i'm so glad you were going to. so one of the early cases that we looked at with sea world which was great example of social media activism really transforming the risk landscape so this is a company that has lost 50% of its shareholder value, lost 50% within 18 months and still hasn't recovered all because of 76,000-dollar documentary called black fish, right. black fish was created when there was infrastructure of animal rights groups and then jump intoed the fray and led to
5:09 pm
government action, california coastal commission got into the act, regulating breathing of ocra whales and we are seeing more of those kinds of risks that as we say in the book, this is not your parents' risk landscape anymore. >> what about when you bring president trump into the mix, what about managing risk when you've got ceo or a commander in chief who is on twitter and is doing unpredictable things in major policy areas, you can talk about tariffs. >> well, political volatility obviously is an issue for those who are trying to manage through political risks but i will say something more structural is going on. it's not just president trump but something more structural that's raising the risk profile for most companies and that's if
5:10 pm
you think about the international order, the liberal international order that was premised on free trade, open markets, increased flows of goods and services, it counted on american military power to protect that international order and people took it for granted for years particularly after the collapse of the soviet union, looked like one international system, one international economy. everybody was playing essentially by the same rules. well, now that system is under a lot of pressure from populism and nativism and one of the things that i would say to companies is, you don't take for granted anymore this system that provided the backdrop in which you were making all of your investment stations, you really now have to recognize that the system itself is under a lot of strain and that's the source of volatility and if you come to
5:11 pm
something like tariffs, american presidents have used protective measures for decades. they -- antidumping actions against companies, protective measures like tariffs, but they were usually used in a way that there was a little bit wink and nod that had a lot to do with domestic politics of a presidential candidate had promised in an election that he was going to protect a certain industry in the state of west virginia because it was important and so there was this sort of let's do a tariff and everybody kind of understood that it was really about domestic politics but nobody really thought that ronald reagan or george h.w. bush or bill clinton or george w. bush or barack obama were protectionists and so everybody kind of understood the constraints or limitations on
5:12 pm
tariffs of that kind. well, now, when you get tariffs imposed by a president who has definitely taken a protectionist stance, people say, well, is this the beginning of it, the end of it, how extensive is this really going to get and so the uncertainty around tariffs which people kind of thought they knew the rules of the game about how tariffs were used by the united states because after all the united states was the defender to have liberal international economic order, it suddenly becomes source of greater uncertainty and you are seeing it in markets, i think you're seeing in response to various countries and so, yeah, the twitter account is, you know, ill rather the president didn't have a twitter account, i would rather congress didn't have twitter accounts. i'm a dinosaur in that way but i think it's the structural change in many ways more an important source, more important source of volatility. >> amy, another example would be brexit. they were predictions how close
5:13 pm
the vote was going to be but the actual vote and the aftermath and the political difficulties in the uk right now with another major resignation cabinet minister resigning on monday, someone who has talked about only months ago as potential leader is now out, so you've got this order now within the eu and uk markets. >> brexit is an interesting example of challenges of anticipating risks. if you look at the polls in the weeks before brexit, more than 3,000 polls, roughly evenly split in terms of remain versus brexit, so it actually was a very close to call case but the markets didn't call it that way, political experts didn't call it that way, why is that the case? the book we talk about how this is, perhaps an example of something that effects many
5:14 pm
people which is optimism bias, we are more optimism about out comes than we should be whether this is the research that she liked the most, nfl team, we think -- >> if you're a cleveland browns fan, you have optimism bias. there's no doubt about it. [laughter] >> there's a range of research we are more optimistic about own future, investments,polis, how is it that you can guard by optimism bias and one of the things that we look hard at, some of the intelligence agency experiences can be brought to bear is how do we guard against analytic mistakes because turning 100th anniversary of his birth this month and he famously analyses is how we try not to fool ourselves. how do you undertake analyses in a way that you're not blindsided by optimism bias and other things like it. >> what is the answer to that? yeah. [laughter] >> read the book. >> read the book.
5:15 pm
>> well, you can try and actually systemically put in place people who are supposed to do that. there are risk management units within a lot of companies. we think that actually people should do more simulations where you actually put yourself in a position and actually have to make decisions and see what falls out of those decisions. you can certainly always ask yourself the question why might i be wrong which people have a tendency not to ask very often and you can have others who you actually encourage to ask you why might i be wrong and so i think there are ways to get away from it but i just wanted to say one other word about brexit, people are now really having to make decisions, businesses are having to make decisions under a lot of uncertainty when i really bet financial apparatus there because it was the window to european union and might not be
5:16 pm
the window to european union anymore. i was actually recently in london and i was one of the service personnel was a french young woman and she said, so how did you end up here, she said, well, the job market is a lot better for younger people than people in my hometown, she said, but you know, i'm not sure i can stay and so even for workers, the uncertainty of what is the divorce within the european union going to mean and yet companies and individuals and workers are having to make decisions on a daily basis and highly uncertain environments and -- >> one of the big questions of the administration is the upcoming summit with kim jong un and you have the president recently describing him as honorable, honorable so far. how do you -- how do you protect against raising the
5:17 pm
expectations, optimism bias and elevating expectations to the point where there's a real risk of not achieving those. >> the first thing i will say is that when i first heard that the president had immediately accepted the offer of kim jong un to meet my first reaction was, oh, my god, what was he doing, well, nothing else has worked, you ought to try this. frankly maybe they do have and i will just say the following if i were talking to folks who have to manage this, the first thing is, we do know that there's a north korean pattern to try to negotiate with the north koreans but the father, we know that there's a north korean pattern of they get in trouble, they get isolated, sanctions start to bite, and then they go on charm offenses, they come to the table, they make promises and then they don't live up to them or as happened with us, they
5:18 pm
actually do live to a number of promises like dismantling pyongyang or destroying the cooling tower but then you learn that they have a hidden highly enriched uranium program and they won't admit to it and you have to end negotiations. so it's not a good history with the north koreans, ask madeline albright in the clinton administration and so forth. a couple of things that looked different to me this time. kim jong un is a different leader, maybe that's it. do i think that because north korea was getting close to a capability to be able to reach the territory of the united states with a nuclear weapon that people began to take the american president more seriously when he said that's not acceptable. it was one thing to say that and i know this isn't good from an alliance standpoint but it was one thing when that threat was regional, it's another one when it threatens california or alaska and people including the chinese began to taking more
5:19 pm
seriously the threat that the united states might actually go to war. secondly, i actually think and we have changed in secretary of state and i think secretary pompeo will be a good secretary but let's give rex tillerson credit for the isolation campaign that he organized against the north koreans including the expulsion of north korean workers from 20 countries that was hard currency for the regime. the regime was also starting to run out of spare parts, military spare parts and oh, by the way, some of the luxury goods, one of the most effective sanctions that we had was on brandy and cigars because that's what the regime wanted. so they've set the table now. they've set the table, i think, in a very effective way. the question is how do you now deliver and i would say three things, the first is remember that others have equities here like the japanese, so be very careful not to go around other
5:20 pm
equities and secondly, i would say take your time, don't be too quick to promise things like removal of americans, military forces because american military forces on the korean peninsula are stabilizing not just for korean peninsula but state as a whole so don't in the structure be careful of structure and the third point you made, kim jong un and that regime never forgets the nature of who you're dealing with. this is a regime that murdered an american less than a year ago, this is a regime where the leader killed his half brother who was under chinese protection in malaysia using gas, this is the country that have death camps for its own people and never forget who you're actually dealing with here but if you can get inspectors on the ground, do it. our intelligence on north korea
5:21 pm
is never terribly good. inspectors on the ground can matter but take your time and one other thing, don't try to negotiate it at the table with kim jong un. let the experts do that. >> let me ask you about iran because we expect that there maybe a decision next week which will, in fact, disappoint the europeans, break out or at least decide not to continue waiving the sanctions, maybe small chance of compromise where they would give some time for the europeans to fix the problem to the president's satisfaction if they could. in any case, it's more likely that he has instinct on this. you worked so hard to bring the p-5 together on sanctions, sanctions that really began which eventually led to them coming to the table.
5:22 pm
you know how hard it is to reimpose sanctions, what is the downside given how european companies may react, how iran my react? >> well, i think it's well known that i helped to start the p-5 plus 1 but this is not a deal i would have personally signed. i think that it was -- we left a better deal on the table. we were anxious to get a deal, that said i probably would have stayed in the deal because of alliance management issues and essentially when the united states signs a deal in one administration, i like us to carry through with that obligation in the next administration. i think as matter of good foreign policy but, you know, this isn't coming out of the blue. the president didn't say what he was going to do, on day one i will, on day one he didn't and people had time and the europeans have known for a long time that this president doesn't like the deal, he wants out of the deal.
5:23 pm
everybody poo-pooed what netanyahu said. it did tell me a lot about the deception that iranians were engaged and i don't think the baseline on which this deal was negotiated is the true baseline of where the iranian program was and so i think if the president pulls out people know it's coming and i hope that macron and merkel spend sometime talking about how to improve deal particularly in terms of verification, so i don't think it'll be tend of the world if he pulls out. >> one thing that we do learn from the israeli material is they've archived it, they've got it, how quickly they could restart it, amy. >> absolutely. what's new about the israeli
5:24 pm
revelations is baseline, but that information about where the program was should inform our policy. it's no surprise that the iranians were cheating, that there was a deceptive program, similarly there's been no surprise that the north koreans have been engaged in deceptive nuclear programs for a long time. question is fundamentally is you have been talking about and others are we facing the same regime with the same tactic that is has three previous presidents or is this fundamentally a new opportunity that the president confronts and we don't know yet. >> let me ask you something that's really been bugging me for the last couple of days which is that the white house put out a statement saying iran has as a result of the netanyahu revelations that it proves that iran has a robust covert nuclear program, they didn't correct it
5:25 pm
for 90 minutes. it was put out by the white house press office, they only corrected it when a lot of us brought it to our attention but they never put out a corrected statement. they then called it a clerical error. >> they do have clerical errors. >> is that -- in normal white houses they would have -- >> hopefully somebody would have caught that it was -- should have been past tense and not present tense but human beings make mistake. i'm not going to try to judge the motives. they did ultimately correct it and i think everybody knows that according to the iaea iranians are living up to at least the spirit of the law and -- but i
5:26 pm
want to to repeat, if the baseline was wrong and we now have evidence on the israeli dossier then the entire agreement is in question and i'm less worried about had, has, hadn't, didn't than whether or not we had the right baseline and if we were deceived about the baseline then this agreement is not doing what it's supposed to do. >> you actually think when he was referring to baseline you think they had more centrifuges or robust program? >> i think they had a more robust program and that i think is also at issue here, how far have they gotten before this -- before this happened. >> andrea, you raise a really important question about process. so now the administration is raising potential of removing
5:27 pm
itself from iran deal and negotiating with north korea at a time when we've had unprecedented turnover in the white house and a time where large percentage of top positions remain unfilled and a time where the president likes to tweet and questions about process, the process proceeds over a longer and more gradual freedom of time, proceeds more outside the public spotlight so diplomats have a time to work details out but we are not in that world so there's a question about how much can the administration handle with the same set of issues and same set in compressed period of time. >> also an investigation under way, serious one that involves the issue of russia. >> although i will say, you know, i have to say i'm pretty impressed that they manage today get mike pompeo to pyongyang and out and we didn't know it. so -- >> to my great dismay.
5:28 pm
[laughter] >> but he got there and did not know he was about to meet with kim jong un. >> i used to go to russia and didn't know i was going to meet with putin supposedly. you know that game. the head always says, well, maybe i will have time for meeting or maybe i won't. i suspect that's what happened there. >> well, you have extraordinary audience here who has a lot of questions and i hope that some of them will be focused on political risks because it's an extraordinary book, wonderful book of case study. yes. i think we have a microphone. >> just wait one second. >> c-span are here, book tv, one of my favorite programs. i hope everybody will be micked. >> my name is lauren thompson, facebook made compromises to get in china. do you think that's a bad precedent for other american
5:29 pm
businesses entering other places in the world? >> well, others -- facebook has not been trying to get there and i think in part because the chinese government is getting very, very tough about the internet, social media, there's a reason that the principle, the principle social media forms in china are chinese. now some of it has to do with the -- the chinese will tell you that alibaba or 10-cent simply understand the chinese market better and that's why americans have not been able to do very well there. .. ..
5:30 pm
>> tiny party to shortly long -- institutionally to age out people and having to collect. and it is a very clever response to a authoritarian regime to institutionalize some of the things that you think me democracy stronger. but residence xi mom that
5:31 pm
because if you are omnipotent he better be on mission because authoritarian parties are incredibly efficient are good at making bad policy and good policy like the bad policy like the one child policy you end up with 34 million men without a mate now is a place to do business but it no longer has any peace within it is a big risk. we met john mclaughlin. >> hi there. the whole nature of international business is changing and maybe one of the main characteristics there are
5:32 pm
no national companies left anywhere 40 different countries give part to the iphone. so for a company with that type of profile and dimension in scope how does that change will go with lung -- political risk compared to 25 years ago? >> one of those key variables with what we talk about talk about the problem before you can address it has created a landscape? first are changes in politics and then the third set of
5:33 pm
changes that companies are global in a way they haven't been in a very long time. they are longer and leaner and more global or more opaque that means the risk is. maybe to have a disruption of one part of the supply-chain leader politically does induced or national disaster somewhere and that is quite high so the string of rare event get a likelihood something will go wrong somewhere tomorrow we found this little company in the netherlands that make socially responsible for phone they have 27 employees 39 minerals that come into this phone this little tiny company has parts
5:34 pm
that traveled around the world for the user ever turns on the first time you don't have to be a big company so that conversion of the megatrend for international security is much more intertwined with economic and business and technology. >> and in terms of volatility so would read nationalization as the president says to bring it back to america but if said german all makers we nationalize their production in the unemployment rate in right to work states like alabama and mississippi would be seen percent and not 6% so
5:35 pm
sometimes when people think about national policy they don't think about what you mentioned john that really there are very few company that is dependent only on the economic infrastructure but when 911 happened to close the border to canada within nobody on just three days that we could make a car so you get national policy but is where integration and globalization are a factor not a policy and very current and troubling is when nafta was negotiated with
5:36 pm
every former living president part of the policy was to stabilize the economy of mexico not a zero-sum game but the fact is exceeded for 20 years that it was never properly articulated years to be such an issue for people i speaking to in mexico or former ambassador now has a 20-point spread and we will see an election that will see a rejection of 20 years of all-american pro- u.s. i was in mexico and they said three years ago you said you regulate your market, open your economy engage in
5:37 pm
free-trade we have elected for pro trade f-uppercase-letter president and then you say nevermind? you are about to have shot a light on your border because now it will find socialist so that is a risk because when you start to engage in rhetoric sometimes there is an echo in other countries so hopefully the mexicans can find their way out of. >> i am from george washington university.
5:38 pm
so does come as a bit of a surprise to hear we have optimism bias. [laughter] so could you address if you were doing an assessment right now specifically d.c. was bipartisan with the republican party in this difficult. i think we are increasing polarization but not just political acting there have been a number of contributors we want to blame our leaders in washington but there is a lot more going on. i was a kid growing up we watched the brinkley report every night but the fact is we
5:39 pm
saw the same moonshot the same civil rights movement and the more it was vetted information that is what they did between the raw data now i can go to my website and never encounter anybody using me if i do now i think they are stupid and that is on both side is on one side or the other so i don't know how to get back of understanding knowledge. i understand politics devastating effect because united states is a country where being american was not a matter of the city or religion or blood but it was built on
5:40 pm
the idea to the humble circumstances and do great things didn't matter where you came from or where you are going did not matter. and now we have ourselves in a situation where every identity group and by the way there is a hierarchy so my grievances are higher than yours and my ancestors suffered more than yours and i'm high on the ladder. i think there are a lot of things and not just politics and the reason that worries me is that you can take away the current political volatility and still be the unraveling of the jewish and that nobody has
5:41 pm
talked about the people who have lost with globalization these days they are like people are speaking a language that you do not see if they only be german if i just be flattered they will understand. if i just keep telling you it is good for you then it will be better and that is causing a divide between yearly and the rest of us so there are multiple divide going on even if we could fix bipartisanship for the republican party we have some underlying social vision even with the democratic party that are manifesting. >> connecting q4 being here in
5:42 pm
mecca think it is a story of mistake that is there a positive example of a situation feeling? you do know several. and part of the book that is better to learn from your own estate so how do you learn if they are your own or others now she has prodded me to remember the example of johnson & johnson the gold standard responding to a crisis of tylenol crisis which was before you were born is they pulled all the bottles from michelle to cost around million dollars they got out
5:43 pm
eo. the message we don't know who is responsible but we care that we care so much people thought this is the end of johnson & johnson or tylenol but it turns out that the response they went against all conventional wisdom to circle the wagon and don't get in front of it but within one year johnson & johnson had rebounded but over time we remember they should forget and remember what they should forget so it lost its way over time they got distance from their credo to put public health first they had more global and more divisions they went through. more challenging with more product recalls and you have seen the company start at the top and then struggle to remember the right lesson i
5:44 pm
love everybody on the all e-mail panel except for china we are the majority of the talent pool with bipartisanship, the business model is broken which is to blame the other side for not solving the problem in both parties do this because if you work with the other side you are bipartisan than you are toasting your primary care a lot of ways to fix this but we haven't been so the business model for trade meaning to over ross yes a lot of information at his fingertips but the business model is one-dimensional one gets more
5:45 pm
one gets less land any entry to a context approach a trade that waking and taking a bigger ditch so should we think about trade deficit in a different way? is there a better way of investment door stating were more complicated matrix not to make it out to be the big loser but maybe the big winner because how we get more jobs be met so why don't we ever what i hear because you talk about trade deficit it is always manufacturing. >> i think economists will
5:46 pm
tell you that first of all trade deficit are rarely a reflection of unfair trade that could often be saving three but also investment so for whoever once to invest here so i completely agree but i think the problem though the president has his head trade deficits are a reflection of unfair trade. it is true for some chinese policy including ip theft not opening financial services et cetera et cetera is part of the problem. so i have on the fact they try to go after the structure of
5:47 pm
the chinese economy within the international system given that china was admitted into the wto under special circumstances because everybody saw the freight train coming and we did admit them as a developing country that it really is not. i understand that the problem for me is what around all of this american system put in place after world war ii was not a zero-sum game that will be different has to be conflictual it could be a positive sum game but that is a correction for what happened after world war i with trade policies violent competition over resources and current
5:48 pm
information for the narrative bothers me. i can see some of those policy elements in the cells are not so bad but if united states starts to take that zero-sum approach to the economy than everybody else will take that approach and then we are all in trouble so i do agree with this for yet trade deficits but something bigger is going on and i don't know how to get that from american university from american university about the risk that most american companies are truly global with national security apple
5:49 pm
is a true multinational company headquartered here but the government imposed a major cyberthreat is that in conflict with the chinese market is not as clear as it could have been with other manufacturers in the half what side they will take a lot of time thinking about the next big war we need prepared when we deal with companies logistically could they be mobilized so can you talk about the risk for the government of how the dynamics of her book? one of the issues we work a lot is that between the 30 divide that he will understand is how do we deal with that?
5:50 pm
the premise of your question global companies facebook has more users in any country has members with google and apple have investors they have a few douche phone --dash fiduciary responsibility for the natural tension what you do make good on your responsibility to your investors but also your company? that was the one to hunt job edward noted and the apple fbi came so the level of distress here at stanford in several nir here today is our congressional staffers your executive say to the staffers
5:51 pm
i think of you people, u.s. government at large just like the people's liberation army i'm trying to protect me from you as well as china that was that this trust issue is much deeper for me outside. that is getting better i will try to be an optimist but the silver lining of russian interference in our election is that a changing attitude in the valley ability more of an active approach for u.s. government with the unprecedented challenge and work more together. >> and one other thing specifically about china and
5:52 pm
have people's aspiration they had stated to control the tear technology like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. i understand the concern that could have security implications for the united states but think we have to be. careful how we respond i will bet on american innovation anyway especially if we continue to fund basic research to the national science foundation like we did in the old days when universities really put innovation on the table that i have been reading about getting more involved in decision not allowing chinese researchers remembers research
5:53 pm
certain topics let's not out financially responding to the threat people that came we need to have an american response american innovation but what's happening in terms of national purity globalization that death is more of a question than path mung -- than in the past. >> i am the ambassador of columbia in the united states. i just want to put forward that one has the feeling in columbia and i would say that america is the order that you mentioned before that so much
5:54 pm
in so many years of energy resources is falling apart we can identify many risk, among them population and organized crime and the pull that together is a rather dire scenario the warning for many countries what about those risks? or can you buy where we met
5:55 pm
start? the mecca want to go to one that you mentioned briefly another book about democracy and i talked about the return of the apocalypse needed isolationism and rejection. they are the antithesis of the global international order that was supposed to be competitive not i would be one to save you were very well off your own country 2000 look like it would be a failed state now in fact very strong. so i believe in what is the root cause of the four-person
5:56 pm
apocalypse? we have been rather callous about globalization and populist mobilized them by tell them i know why you are not well it is the misleading i tell them i know why you are not well it is the misleading you have a vision capable those who are not will not heal that lack the company that has allowed you to do extraordinary things were to build a free trading system that is been enjoyed more than 50% of the world to be we decided not to protect it would open up the system that
5:57 pm
attack upon one attack upon all so all of the that it came out of a confident liability of the american political fabric. i have to go back and say what about the people can't have any more 19-year-old to get out and don't have job skills were one euro get out of college with nothing but dad cannot get a job retraining 35 you how these people will benefit and will meet the when
5:58 pm
the president america first phrase that i hate it is wrong that united states should own social fabric because without that can go into the community and unfortunately i think they prey on those fears and giving answers but with italy that i can you hear me now language said didn't hear it before now? now i think we will have a problem into the future. >> i cannot thank you enough i deeply appreciative of your knowledge and wisdom and
5:59 pm
experience. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
6:00 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on