tv British Ambassador to the U.S. Remarks at Hudson Institute CSPAN November 29, 2018 5:27am-6:24am EST
eastern on american history tv on c-span3. next, british ambassador to the u.s. on relations between the nations. the ambassadors spoke at an event hosted by the hudson institute on topics including north korea, and the uk's strained relations with russia. this is 50 minutes. >> thank you. thanks for being here and welcome to all the folks watching on c-span as well as all the people in the hall. ambassador, what do you prefer? i think the question that everybody wants to get an answer to these days is what's going on with brexit? schrodinger'se a brexit.
we are not sure if britain is going to be in or out of the eu, or what's going to be happened, i guess december 12. can you tell me what the state of play is? >> yes. i thought we would do other subjects besides brexit though. [laughter] what the prime minister has negotiated, and i think it's an exceptional achievement. i say that having done different -- having done 15 years of my career on european union work. she has delivered what the british people rooted for, which is to order the smooth exit from the european union on the basis of this deal. it's a deal which delivers what the british people voted for back in june 2016. for regaining control of our borders, of our aws, butnd of our l it also with this transitional.
period whichal lasts until the end of december when all theme , everythingmunity will remain as is and they have , everything will remain as is and they have that continuity and assurance of continuity through that time while we negotiate the details on the future relationship. it also provides for us to continue to cooperate with the eu in areas which are relative to us, whether it's economic, or national security, or for policy, or data exchange. so in a sense, they are trying to find -- remember, the brexit vote was quite close. 8%, so the prime 2%-48%, so the
prime minister had to find a balance and i think she found it. jean-claude juncker said at the european of the european council yesterday, this is the best deal that can be done. he hopes to get the support of the british parliament in december, as do i. >> how does that look? -- i the moment it looks mean, she has got first of all from the cabinet. that was about 10, 12 days ago. support from the other 27 european union leaders. the first stage is the most difficult stage and no one would deny that it looks quite a tight thisto get across, to get ifough parliament, but, but you are a strong supporter of brexit and you voted against this deal, you are risking no
brexit. supporter tostrong remain when you vote against this deal then you are risking a no deal, hard brexit, which most observers believe would be having disrupted and could be quite damaging -- disruptive and could be quite damaging. this is the right way to. yes, it looks at the moment if you're a generalist -- journalist, you find people who say they are going to vote against. when you think about the consequences of voting against, i think you will find a lot of people think it's the best way forward. this difficult, it's going to be tense. i was back in monday last week and they are confident in the
government that they can get a majority for this. >> by very cleverly having an unwritten constitution, britain makes it hard for foreigners to figure out where things are going, but if the government were to lose the vote on brexit, is that the kind of vote that normally breaks up a government, and you get a new election or a new prime minister? >> what the government is carefully avoiding saying is what they will do whether the ost. were to be l the intention is very much to win the vote. who are thinking about their positions, it is in their best interest to support this. an opinion paul suggests -- an theion poll suggests majority of the public supports the deal the prime minister has
done. if you are representing constituents, which the mps are doing, you might think quite carefully about where the public view is. as a technical matter, if the government lost the vote, then they would have to survive where to go next, whether to proceed to leaving without a deal, which askn option, or whether to or exchange or find another way forward. that is not planned. >> would they need to have another vote in parliament before a hard exit? nothingdo something -- and the date for brexit arrives and the u.k. is out of the eu without a vote? >> this is all speculative and i am no expert on parliamentary procedure, but i do not -- it's not obvious to me if this vote were lost and if the government
decided that leaving without a deal was the way forward, whether that -- it's not clear to me that needs a further vote in parliament. .ut but as i say, this is all speculative. issues in thekey negotiations is they went -- as they went forward was the question of the irish border. that's politically tricky because the government depends on a northern irish unionist party. , a unionist party means they are in favor of union with the united kingdom, not in favor of union with the rest of ireland. andhas that parties weight politics affected things? i gather that they are skeptical
of the deal. > i believe they have 10 members of parliament and they were in full agreement to support the government, so basically there are 10 significant votes, given how tight things are in parliament. -- has really made exceptional efforts to deliver a deal that does what she promised, which is no reestablishment of a heart for their between -- a hard border between ireland and northern ireland. it has been controversial within her own party, but she has done it. she has absolutely gone to the edge to deliver on what she has promised on that. you now have -- in the while wenal period, stay within basically a customs arrangement with the eu, there
would be no need for a hard border or any reestablishment of border controls and northern ireland. the intention is in that 19 iod is that we will do a deal with the eu that keeps trade as friction less as possible -- frictionless as possible. we also want to do free-trade deals with the rest of the world, so we have to find a balance. we think we can do a trade deal with the eu that keeps trade as frictionless as possible and a minimum amount of borders. if we cannot do that deal in the , then yoution period have the famous backstop, which would allow, it's a temporary of outbut it will these arrangements to continue until we have done this trade deal. it's in the interest of both sides to do a trade deal. eu sells a lot of stuff to us, we do in the other direction.
i would be confident that we would do the deal, hopefully within the implementation pe riod. let's assume that things go roughly as planned, and that brexit goes through. there presumably britain will need a foreign policy for post brexit. what, and you talk about free trade agreements. presumably britain will want some sort of free trade agreement, or trade agreement with the united states. what would that look like? what does britain hoped to achieve? >> on foreign policy generally, remember we are members of the security council, the second biggest contributors to nato. we have a leadership role in the commonwealth. we will continue to cooperate on and securityy
issues with the european union. we are global players, in terms of defense. we have military people, often very small numbers, but stationed in dozens of countries around the world. we feel we are good global players and the intention is that will continue, if not be enhanced in the future. that is the bigger vision. in terms of a free trade deal with the u.s., we want, as we have said and as the u.s. administration has echoed, unambitious steel which covers both goods and services which exploits the similarities in our increases whath they already very, very big amount of bilateral trade, $200 billion a year. than 20% of our exports to the u.s..
it's already big, but it could be bigger. we hope that it involves ariff,ed no t no-quota access for good coming to the u.s., and vice versa. >> what about people? certainly a lot of american bankers are in london. is migrationation sedative in both countries -- is migration sensitive in both countries? >> yes, we are broadly aware of the direction we are going in, but the details to has to be finalized. the likelihood is that after brexit, we still are a country that will have before -- people coming in, because we need them for our workforce. the profile may change.
europe more than the rest of the world. investors talk to us about their concerns of needing brexit to be the best and the brightest. certainly that's our intention. e companies in the u.k.. we will adopt immigration policies that give them the kind of supply of talent that they need. >> is the u.s.-u.k. relationship, from what you can see, still special? and if so, what makes it different? whetheran debate over the word special is the one you want to use, or -- i can just tell you that it is both
exceptionally, uniquely wide and deep. ,o whether you look at trade where the u.s. is certainly our biggest export market. whether you look at investment, where one million britons go to work in america and one million americans come to work over your. if you look at the culture -- every year. if you look at the culture, and how many british actors find employment in hollywood. >> notice that the british often played villains in revolutionary war movies. >> yes, that is to be the case, a british actor playing martin luther king in "selma."
relationship, there is a huge amount going on. something like $50 billion worth of u.s. equipment over the next decade. nineache helicopters, marine patrol aircraft. there is a whole cooperation on our nuclear weapon program. there is something like 800 or u.s.rits embedded in the forces at one time. national security and intelligence, the relationship between the security agencies is closer than it's ever been out. look at that across the whole relationship and it is exceptional and unique. so i think the word special is appropriate. >> i think one challenge that must give you personally is, when washington is as polarized
as it is and american politics , asbitter, in many ways someone who wants to maintain -- britain has a long history of working effectively with both parties of united states. how do you manage to keep your channels open and communications clear with both parties? walter, itnest, really is not a problem, at least it has not been in my 2.5 years here. we find open doors and a welcome on both sides of the political aisle. afternoons a week whenever congress is in session, visiting a meeting with senators and representatives. i always do a combination of republicans and democrats. we get a welcome on both sides. have the residence is built for large parties and we have a
lot of them. again, we always make them bipartisan. as british ambassador, and the british mission, i tell you, it is no problem. i recognize what you say because i read about it a lot, but for the brits, we are willing to work on both sides. >> maybe that's a bipartisan consensus in favor of scotch whiskey. i don't know, but it's good to hear. , you are going to have a lot of complicated issues with the eu and the eurozone still. you will have a large economic relationship. how is britain going to manage that portfolio? would it be primarily through the representative in brussels for national missions? how will you manage it? >> it's a good question.
certainly we would need a substantial, now i headed the u.k. -- in brussels for five years. it is a large mission. i looked across at countries that were outside the eu, including by the way, your u.s. mission, and they were all quite sizable, because there's a lot to cover. of close and ive relationship that we want with our european partners post brexit. we are also in the process of expanding somewhat bilateral embassies in most of the main eu member states. that will be a big role for diplomacy both bilaterally and the multinational institutions,
in terms of the eu post brexit. not just of course the commission that you need to talk to. you need to talk to other member states, the european parliament, and other institutions. it's a big job. >> we are seeing the sort of emergence and there have always ,een some factions in the eu but it appears that both the different political parties and the parliament are getting stronger, but also you are getting groups of countries, people seem to be organizing in people seem to be organizing in different ways, and obviously some of these groups will have positions more in sync with british ideas. is this going to be -- going to play a role in how britain thinks? amb. darroch: i think it will long be the future of the eu, particularly the expanded eu. the realitythat was
when i was ambassador of the eu, and 28 now with croatia. there have long been these subgroupings. and they tend to be quite fluid, by the way. every time the issue of the budget will come up, it is the contributors of the budget, like we are at the moment, groups are mainly recipients, you get geographical groupings, as you describe. you always have that between france and germany, that franco german view. we used to work very closely -- still do -- with the nordic countries. and with the netherlands. but these things are fluid and can change. they can be issues-based or geographically-based. in the end, you need everyone to agree to the conclusion. have occupied the
discussion up to that point, we believe everyone has a say. by the way, you find political groupings, the white wing parties -- right-wing parties are part of the european people's party, and there are other small groups there as well, so there is a whole different range. i'm such an eu geek. but studying divisions in europe has long been a core british skill, maybe. [laughter] i realize those days are past. amb. darroch: [laughs] walter: looking further abroad to the commonwealth, i know britain was forced to give up accommodations when it entered -- was forced to give them up with australians, new zealand, when it entered the eu or the
e.c., i guess it still was, and that led to some that feeling. -- bad feeling. you are now leaving the eu. is there hope that some of these relationships will become stronger and deeper? are you looking for bilateral treaties with, say, australia, new zealand, and canada? some sort of grouping? how are you approaching this? amb. darroch: again, these are final decisions that will be taken care of, but i think the number one priority when it comes to post brexit trade deals will be with the u.s. but not that far behind, you will find trade deals with some smaller countries. of course australia, new zealand, and canada are the obvious choices there. and then we are also interested doing deals with bigger economies around the world and india is obvious.
so i think it will be bilateral other than some great multinational deal. and these will all be on the priority list. walter: the other big trend that we see in the world today, besides brexit, is the return to geopolitics and great power competition. britain, you know, as you say, with global interests, but as a middle power has to work out a relationship with china, with russia. with russia particular, it seems you have a very contentious relationship, and the russians have sent agents to murder people on british soil. how is britain going to approach russia after brexit or just in general?
amb. darroch: your current trepidation on relations with russia is right. when you see people poisoned al nerve agents on our soil, it is hard to have a good bilateral relationship. not to overstate things, so we wish relations with russia were are, but when things like that happen, when we disagree with russia, as with ukraine, it is just one result that we take issue with, so the relationship is not good. we have expelled a number of russian diplomats, and they expelled some brits. we had good reason to. they did not. it is pretty small in terms of foreign embassies as well. we would like to have better relations with russia. importantave
commercial, economic, and trading interests. they are members of the un security council. that is not possible while russian behavior continues along the lines that it does. so things are not good. they are not going to change for us in terms of relations with russia. we will keep the channel open, and we will keep talking to them until their behavior changes, and that is just the sad reality. walter: with china, the situation may be more complex that the relation in some ways looks at the bilateral relations, at least as an outsider, it looks that are come -- better, but they seem to be some emerging points of contentiousness there. britain has stepped up its participation in the south china sea and the south pacific, and it seems to be announcing an intention to build up its presence in the pacific.
amb. darroch: yeah. on relations with china, they have been on a steady band, a significant path of improvement for some years now. when i worked as national security adviser in david cameron's first administration, that is when we started this upward trend. in my time at the job, the coma nation of david cameron taking 300 businessmen on a tour of , and, meeting president xi this kind of thing, and it has continued since then. we believe very strongly that the way forward with china is centered on engagement and participation in the chinese economy, and our exports are doing very well there. it is not just about commercial activity. they were up i think 22% last
year. so there is a lot that is good and strong and growing about the u.k.-china relationship. all that said, what we do in the south china sea is not intended toa kind of provocation china. it is about exercising internationally recognized rights to freedom of navigation, and we will continue to do that, because that is part of international water, and ships have a right to sail through, and they are going to do that. it is no intent of provocation, just as an expression of our support for international law. china'se issues about trade practices, notably around intellectual property, where we share the concern with much of the u.s. administration, and we would like to see changes. we are almost talking about the chinese about hong kong, where
basically the deal that we did a couple of decades ago on hong kong has worked well, but we keep watching it and keep is both livedit up to in letter and in spirit. it is not a wonderful relationship. there are issues, problems as with all bilateral relationships, but basically we feel we are on a good basis right now. walter: there has been some commentary from hong kong that one country-two systems agreement are working less well, and that hong kong's distinctive position is being eroded. is that a concern? amb. darroch: again, i am not a massive expert on hong kong. my impression is that one is well, andystems
are chinese partners are living up to it. yes, there are issues. to chinese the time administration about hong kong. we think it basically works well. if you look at hong kong right now, it is thriving. it is a real center on enterprise and commercial strength. i think the judiciary, notably there, so it's not perfect commissioner phillips: walter: let's turn quickly to the middle east, and then i will invite the audience to ask some questions. at least from where i sit, it looks like the most important trend in the middle east today is the decline of arab power, that we see a number of arab states have been formed by contention. -- torn by contention.
there are countries like syria, which was once sort of a bastian of nationalism, is not in control of its own territory. the gulf monarchies are looking at long-term declines in oil revenue, rising population, a number of trends that has been -- have them worried. britain has a long history of engagement in this part of the world, and a lot of relationships that go back, or in some cases centuries. do the greeks have any advice for the romans in this particular part of the world? amb. darroch: [laughs] yeah. that is a very big picture assessment, and what you have described is quite a compelling view of what is happening. -- happening in the arab world. obviously, i remember being in brussels as the ambassador when the arab spring happened. i remember the hope that was
around in the western world then that this would be a fresh start for arab nations, that it would mean great things. when you look at libya and syria in particular, that is not how it worked out. i got lost in your picture. but for us, it is still a hugely important part of the world, there is a lot of rich history, a lot of lines that are disputed. -- british history, and a lot of lines that are disputed we drew. ,ur bilateral relations particularly with the gulf countries, but also some of the countries of north africa are very important. if you want to look more optimistically, where some of the things are happening, in the gulf in particular, in terms of liberalizing -- more liberal
ideas gaining hold may be a good sign for the future. in terms of oil reserves running out, that's quite a long time in the future. these are still countries that will have a big say on world energy supplies in the future. you know, both in syria and in libya, we are working hard to try to reestablish security, and a lot of resources have been put out. it is a tragedy what is happened in both of those places, especially the loss of life and destruction of syria. my friends in the front office specialized in the arab world it is a tragedy. , i do not question whether it is now achievable, but we will try.
walter: there are some young people in the audience and other people watching on cnn. do you have any advice for young people who are curious about the u.k., who would like to follow the u.k. news? what should they read? what should they do? amb. darroch: [laughs] there are so many more ways of following the news now than there used to be. i have kind of gotten used to doing stuff online. i am so old-fashioned. but nowadays, when i wake up in the morning, far too early, kind of news summary, politico, there is a cnn in one, a "washington post" one, axios, you have to go through all of that before you get a proper newspaper in your hands.
but there are so many ways of following britain now. the bbc and bbc websites are extraordinarily -- what they do is great, and they are so objective and fair in their coverage. but in an age where there is a lot of criticism in the media, i think british newspapers are great as well. i try and read all of them. they are great guys. walter: he likes them all. all right. ok, any questions from the audience at this point? yes, ma'am. please wait for the microphone, please introduce yourself, and please make your questions short. >> thank you, ambassador. "the voice of america." u.s. and diplomats held a
meeting in london 10 days ago with maritime insurance companies and commodities traders to seek ways to prevent north korea's illicit ship-to-ship transfers and ways of evading un's sanctions. what is the scope of the u.k. cooperation in helping north korea evade sanctions, and the sanctions as south korea, north korea, and china, at a time they did not take into account the denuclearization. walter: ok, i think we have two questions. amb. darroch: we basically strongly support u.s. policy on north korea. we think that it is dangerous for international security for north korea to have a military nuclear program. we want to see denuclearization there, and it is clear that sanctions have been an important
element in bringing north korea to the table. had a historice summit between the two presidents. but we have not seen yet real denuclearization happening in north korea, and until we do, the sanctions need to continue. we have an embassy in pyongyang, and so we know this about what is happening in the country and the sanctions are having an impact. that policy will continue until the north koreans deliver what -- deliver on their promise, which is to end the military nuclear program. yes, we do cooperate a lot with the administration on these issues. if we get denuclearization we , will cooperate on that as well. we are not there yet. whether sanctions are what the policy is, and hopefully it is effective. walter: yes, sir.
>> you mentioned books that would be recommended to the young people. i recently discovered a british journalist from the 30's -- 1930's to the 1950's, douglas reed, who was very renowned internationally, until he wrote a particular book "the controversy of zion." also he wrote a book about american history. walter: what is the question? >> what are your thoughts about douglas reed? he should be well known to you. he has been a bit demonized, but i think young people may value his writings. amb. darroch: this is going to sound horribly incompetent, but i have not read any of his books. i do not know, i am afraid. the best book i have read recently is called "hello, world," and it is a book about impact -- this sounds kind of technical but it is beautifully
written for a non-expert like me, about the impact of algorithms across different areas, whether driverless cars or a whole range of different things, and if you want a recommendation of a book worth reading maybe the more modern , generation will understand all of this stuff, but for me, this is the best piece of learning i have done in recent months. walter: in the back here. >> hello. thank you very much for coming. it is very lovely to see you again. i have got actually three quick -- walter: and your name and one question, please. >> cynthia butler. walter: choose one. >> you mentioned the irish border. the question is, do you know what it says in this particular deal regarding a heard border or a soft border, and is there a these -- this does
not pass there will be a national re-referendum? do you know i am saying? amb. darroch: yes -- walter: on the irish border and a second referendum. amb. darroch: if there is -- i think a second referendum is extremely unlikely. given that both of the main parties in britain are opposed to it, so i do not see how you get from where we are now with a deal on the table. a second referendum would need a new act of parliament, i do not see the process that takes you there on that. i think the prime minister has gone a long -- as far as she possibly could to deliver a promise on no hard border in northern ireland. that is part of the reason behind this implementation period with basically a customs arrangement similar to the customs union during the 19
months until 2021 -- sorry, 2020. if you not get it by then, a trade deal you have the , backstop, and that is to ensure that people have confidence she is delivering on her promise. -- nd that, walter: yes, the lady here. thanks. hannah: hi. thank you. hannah monicken, inside u.s. trade. i have a follow-up on u.s.-u.k. trade relations post brexit. i know you said you want the u.k. to be aligned closely with the eu but to also have a free trade deal with the u.s. i am wondering how those could both be true if that is what the
u.s. is doing in the interim. amb. darroch: that is a good question. i understand why you ask it. it goes to the core of the negotiations. once we have got this brexit deal agreed in the parliament, certified by the british parliament, once that deal is agreed it is the core of a future negotiation, one that will start next year. that is my expectation. i think the two negotiations may run parallel, but we basically have to find a way that, that keeps the frictionless border, trade between the eu and the u.k. that allows the freedom to do the kind of deal with the u.s. how we do it, another area where i am not an expert in trade policy but i expect to do , something ambitious in both
directions, both towards the eu and the u.s. of course i trust my colleagues, and i think they can. walter: ok, yes, sir. >> thank you. i am a retired foreign service officer. i wanted to ask you about the nuclear force agreement which may be on its last legs. britain has a nuclear force of its own. do you see any future coordination with the european union after brexit? would that be done through nato or with some other channel? yes, on the imf, there is no doubt the russians were cheating on it so we understand why the
administration wants to which all from it. future, we do not see nuclear weapons suitable for the eu. it is questionable whether it should be at all based in the eu, but we have supported a limited kind of european defense initiative designed to do things in parts of the world, activities which nato either is not appropriate for or does not want to do but that is as , far as it goes. for nato and in terms of any coordination around nuclear deterrence, whether it is a bilateral issue for us and the americans or something we would talk about with nato, but not the eu. walter: yes, sir. your microphone is coming.
mark: hi, i am mark mouser with a foreign-policy journal. my question is about the u.k. military and their ability to exert influence without much support from the u.s. if the u.s. is going to withdraw, could the u.k. do a foreign operation for an extended period of time? amb. darroch: when i was national security adviser we were just on the back of security and defense review, use -- new strategy in which the objective was to be able to do two targets for our collective armed forces, two foreign interventions simultaneously. i think that is still the objective. we have just built the two biggest -- one is actually doing trials of the eastern seaboard at the moment.
the other one has not yet set tests and sort of they will do the effort next year, so you have the two biggest aircraft carriers, or the two biggest ships the royal navy has ever had. add to that the tens of billions in expenditure that i talked about earlier in terms of up grading -- acquiring and upgrading our equipment, and adding that to the budget, as gdp rises we are spending more on the budget. and our capability, the quality of it and the number of dues is improving all the time, so yes, the intention is that we should be able to do things by ourselves. obviously, it is optimum for political as well as ministry , to dotary reasons
things as possible, to the willing, or as part of nato or whatever. in terms of our capability, we tend to do things by ourselves. walter: yes, this lady up here in the front. bringing you the mic. >> thank you. at the g -- as the g20 summit is coming we heard that prime , minister may will join the summit as well. can you give us some insight about what will be your expectations for that? will president trump meet with prime minister may, and will they talk about the treaty deal or brexit? thank you. amb. darroch: g20, i think the main two agenda items in this week are climate change and trade. which will be interesting. it could be quite contentious, we will see. and of course the bilateral
everyone is watching are the two presidents, president trump and xi, in the margins of the nuclear discussions. as it happens, the prime minister and president trump will be sitting next to one another in the previous sessions -- i think. from what i know of the seating plan. so they will have plenty of opportunity to talk. i am sure they will talk about brexit. i am sure they will talk about other stuff that is going on on the international scene at the moment. they spoke on the telephone just a couple of weeks ago. they speak every two or three weeks on the telephone. it is a very strong, substantive relationship. we have not organized a formal bilateral because there will be so many informal opportunities for them to interact. i am looking forward to hearing how the discussions go. walter: in the front here.
>> thank you. a recent piece in the "washington post" described the basically trojan horse in the eu and asserted that you might actually lose value in the eyes of the u.s. after leaving the eu. i would like to know your reaction to that. amb. darroch: when i was doing my 15 years of the eu specialization, i never felt particularly horse like. i spent my whole time getting instructions from washington and relating them to my european partners, so i never really bought that description. it is up to us. we have the potential both to continue to be players in europe in terms of cooperation on foreign policy, in terms of security and other issues.
and for being in a way more significant international players, because we have freedom from policy terms to do some of our own thing that we need to. so i do not worry about -- in the end, if we can succeed economically outside the european union, and i believe we can come if we thrive economically, if we continue to invest in our national security, it is a value we bring to the table, we continue to be active in the security council and in nato and in other international forums, i am confident about the future. i am confident that we can continue to cooperate with our closest european partners, including of course our friends in paris and berlin and other places, but also across the atlantic, the u.s., and more widely with beijing and others. walter: yes.
>> thank you both so much. i am a dual citizen and an oxford graduate. this has been really interesting. at different points in history, the personal relationships between diplomats have had a really big impact on security in terms of the u.s.-u.k. special relationship. when you look around the world now, what areas do you think that is most true in? amb. darroch: hmm. one of the strengths, and i will begin with the u.s., one of the strengths of the u.s.-u.k. relationship is -- one of the realities that one notices is just how strong the personal links are between diplomats. with various specializations at
various levels across the atlantic, across the pond. the political directors of the u.s. and u.k. talk almost daily. national security advisor almost -- security advisers talk almost weekly and middle east experts , dr. their american counterparts every couple of days and so on. ,that makes a huge difference as to how well the relationship functions and how close we are on policy objectives and operational decisions. that means that when you ask ministers to approve actions or positions or whatever, you can tell them exactly what the u.s. administration is thinking. that is not unique to the u.k.-u.s., and for example, similar relationships exist
between british and french and german political directors or national security advisers or other experts more widely. when i was national security advisor, i went out to beijing a number of times and talked to my counterparts there, i went to delhi and they came to the u.k.. i even, in my time, when u.k.'s relations looked a little bit better than they do at the moment, i went to moscow advisor.d to putin's that channel is important. i think the dialogue is more direct and there are more problems to talk about them there were. but as a basic principle, a lot of work can be done diplomat to diplomat, and that can be really beneficial in sorting out a lot of problems. in the end, i should stress
decisions are taken by prime ministers and presidents. walter: thank you very much. it has been really helpful. i know the ambassador is on a tight schedule and washington is a little rainy today. we will get him out of here and get him able to fight traffic. thank you for coming. thank you again to c-span and others who have been watching us and the next event in this , series is tomorrow, so perhaps i will see some of you then. amb. darroch: thank you very much for the invitation. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, we will discuss the findings of the new national climate assessment and get reaction from our guest. democratican, congresswoman susan bonne amici, congressman tom swansea, and carlos portobello. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. live thursday on the c-span network, the house returns for speeches and at noon they take up several noncontroversial
bills. continuing work -- outgoing house speaker paul ryan sits down for an interview with "the washington post." at 10:00, the government evaluatescommittee disaster response and recovery efforts with the fema director brock long. u.s. policy in syria and the administration's response to hugh take -- humanitarian needs in the refugee crisis. a, we visit q and the washington library at mount vernon for the 2018 founding debates program, featuring --torians douglas brinkley discussing what it means to be american. >> one nation indivisible in a sense was, we are all together,
right? that this somehow elemental to what it means to be an american. the american character, what it means is to be able to improvise. when you look at george washington and the dark days of december 1777 and valley forge, the ability of generative oral washing -- general washington to improvise, to do what we need to do to get the job done, from the very beginning not all were included -- the job done. >> from the beginning, not all were included and what it means to be an american. minority groups were not and women were not considered citizens. that changes over time. over time, more and more people are brought into the american family. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. >> house democrats held
leadership elections for the 116th congress. in the first election of the day, new york congressman hakeem jeffries won democratic caucus chair by a vote of 123-113 over his colleague barbara lee of california. following the vote, he spoke to reporters. rep. jeffries: good afternoon, everyone. let me first just thank barbara lee again for her tremendous service to this nation, for all that she is, all that she does, all that she represents. from the very beginning through the very end, this was a friendly contest of ideas. and now that the race is over, i look forward to working closely with her on behalf of all of the people in the united states of america.