tv Defense Forum Foundation Discussion on Trump Administrations Foreign Policy CSPAN March 30, 2019 11:40pm-12:31am EDT
increasingly divide political climate, how could we not approach this subject and apply it to what does it mean to be an american? 21 entrants in april. >> up next, remarks on u.s. relations with russia, north korea and israel. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the defense forum foundation.
it is my great honor to welcome you to our congressional defense foreign policy forum. i appreciate you coming out this afternoon. i know you are busy, so we will jump right into our program. for those of you attending for the first time, i hope you will become regular attendees. we established this for him in the 1980's to give congressional staff the opportunity to hear from expert speakers on critical topics in a bipartisan atmosphere. as we always promise, we have an expert speaker to address a very interesting and article topic. what is the trump doctrine? what to expect from the current administration's foreign policy. fred is here to answer that question. as someone who spent his entire life in national security positions, as well as serving any trump administration. he served for 25 years with the cia, department of states, and on the house intelligence committee staff. he served most recently as deputy assistant to president trump and chief of staff for national security advisor john
bolton. he has appeared in many tv and radio programs, ranging from msnbc to fox news. he is the author of several books addressing different foreign-policy topics. currently, he serves at the center for security policy. we are very welcome to enter -- to welcome fred to answer the question, what is the trump doctrine? thank you, fred. [applause] mr. fleitz: i would like to thank suzanne and the ambassador for inviting me here today. it is a special pleasure for me to speak here, because i am a former congressional staffer and i know how hard it is to get out of the work you are doing. i know how important the work is that you are doing. you are also running offices and making the offices you work for better. i would like to talk to about it sometime. to hear someone who worked five years on the hill and survived. when we talk about the trump doctrine, we are talking about
the trump foreign-policy. i have to say, mr. trump has had a good run in foreign-policy so far in reestablishing the united states as a credible and powerful nation, by standing up to rogue states, fighting for trade deals that look out for the interest of the american people. this is driven by a new approach, by a president who is throwing out the normal diplomatic -- trying things a different way. the results have mostly been extremely positive. it is a big change and worth explaining what this policy is and where it comes from. the president policy comes from the motto he talked about during the presidential campaign, america first. america first is a nationalism approach to security. it is an approach which is defined as principled realism. when i talk about nationalism, i
am not talking about the nationalism of extremist groups. this is benign nationalism. it looks out for the american people, the american economy and u.s. security when the u.s. government enters into an international agreement or when we make a foreign-policy decision. it is a backlash to efforts by the foreign-policy establishment -- you know have a president -- how the president hates the establishment, there is a foreign-policy establishment. there approaches have not been working out so well. the president has tried to take a different approach to rejecting some things they have advocated, such as international agreements, nationbuilding with indefinite u.s. deployments and trade deals that leave the american worker out. this is important to the president. he summarized america first during the campaign when he said my foreign-policy will always put the american people and american security above all else.
this is not isolationism. this is factoring in the interests of our foreign-policy. it is clear the president is prepared to use military force when necessary. he is taking an approach that factors in the interests of our nation. that is important to recognize, because his critics constantly misrepresent this strategy. america first has been developed into a comprehensive u.s. policy and a national security strategy that was announced in december, 2017. this is the result of two years of work, hundreds of people at a variety of agencies put together very impressive document that transforms america first across the u.s. government. at the beginning of the strategy, there is another statement by the president that represents how this policy has been developed.
he said, our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights and defend their values. you can see that is more philip in the statement he made during the campaign. it represents a president who has been in office for two years and has used so many experts to come up with a way to employ this revolutionary strategy across the board. the national security strategy has four pillars. check the homeland, the american people and the american way of life, promote american prosperity, preserve peace through strength, advance american influence. it also is termed in the strategy principled realism. this is what the strategy says about why it is considered principled realism. it is because it is clear eyed about global competition and acknowledges the central role of power in world affairs, affirms
that sovereign states of the best hope for a peaceful world, and clearly define our national interests. it is principled because it is grounded in the knowledge that are wanting american values is key to spreading peace and prosperity around the world. there is so much in this that i will get into, but this is a criticism of globalism, this is a criticism of international elites who want to take american sovereignty and give it to organizations like the united nations, who are hostile to the united states. it is stepping back series and approaches that have not been serving the american people. my friend, the director of the thatcher center for freedom and security had this summary of the national security strategy. it takes a clear-cut view of the immense challenges faced by the united states from russia, china and north korea to transitional
islamist terrorist networks. in addition to strategy, it emphatically rolls out the ideas extending the hand of friendship. the document reveals a president pursuing peace through strength and leading critical parts of the world where america's vital interests are under strength. peace through strength, this was the approach to national security under reagan. it is also the approach that my organization, the center for security policy has been promoting since the reagan administration. the center for security policy is delighted that president trump has moved towards this approach to national security that helped defeat the soviet union and will help us defeat enemies facing today. the economy is a big part. the president wants free and fair trade deals. he wants traded deals were the
other nation doesn't cheat -- we don't look the other way while the other nation cheats. obviously, i am talking about china. i will get into that in a moment. it goes without saying that the president takes a dim view of the foreign-policy establishment. the elitists in europe and the u.s. who think they run the world, to promote their own liberal values and globalism. they have promoted military operations for nationbuilding, cede u.s. values and promote leftist ideologies, socialism, and high taxes. this is why the united states has pulled out of the u.n. human rights council and unesco. because of the hostility of these organizations towards the state of israel. this hostility is unacceptable to the united states. it is interesting, this is the second time we withdrew from unesco. the obama administration rejoined, and i think it was a
principled thing to do. what we are talking about is in stark contrast to president obama who might be the ultimate to foreign-policy establishment president, who ran apology tours in the middle east, leading from behind in the middle east. strategic patience on north korea, and red lines and ultimatums that were repeatedly set for parties in the middle east and russia that were made and ignored. when the u.s. does this, we are emboldening rogue states to encourage more belligerent and destabilizing behavior. the approach by president trump leaves our enemies worried. leaves them guessing. it has led to some significant advances in promoting international security. if we have a credible and decisive u.s. president, the world is secure. that is something that president trump is trying to prove. the president does not like ndefinite troop deployments,
and we know this when we look at syria. as he tries to balance the interests of the united states and our allies, and his belief that troops should not be stationed indefinitely. if there are troops there, the u.s. should not share all of the urden. the president speaks for the vast majority of the american people when he says this, and his desire, other nations have to carry the weight. this has factored into his policy towards nato. nato states are supposed to spend 2% of their gdp on their military and only five of them are doing so. it is not that the u.s. can't afford to do this. they made a commitment to do this, and when we ignore the commitment, we are undermining our credibility. we want them to live up to their commitment and they want us to live up to ours. this has been a big issue from the president. he is making progress in getting the nato states to meet their
commitment. i think they have until 2025 to meet the commitment. it has been slow going, there's been some progress on it. this president has carried out a number of fairly significant foreign-policy initiatives. some of which the foreign-policy establishment opposes, but i think they have been very successful and there have been moves of great principle. the two that come to mind was the president's decision to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem and to recognize israeli sovereignty of the golan heights. numerous presidential candidates said they would move the u.s. embassy, but they never did, because the foreign-policy establishment and the state department oppose this. it would be too disruptive and make it harder to get a peace treaty with the palestinians. the problem is, time is up for the palestinians to make a peace treaty if they are going to say, well, we are not going to deal with you if you move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. it should have been done a long time ago.
the president just decided it is time. the same for the golan heights which israel annexed in 1981. his is a part of israel. if the golan heights had been given back to syria, think of the threat israel would face today. this high ground would be used by iran to rain down rockets and missiles on the state of israel. this territory is obviously never going back to syria. is there really a syria today -- the syria today is a shadow of what it was a few years ago. this is something that is in israel's interests and this is not going to interfere with the peace plan. assuming we can move forward with the peace plan. it was a matter of principle for the president to do this and i congratulate him. i work closely with ambassador bolton on the nuclear deal with iran. i believe the nuclear deal is a fraud that iran has been cheating on since the day it was announced. there is significant information
lately that the israelis have produced an archive of iranian documents that they have been cheating on the agreement and continued to engage in nuclear weapons related activities since t was announced. this agreement also allows iran to advance its nuclear program by letting it enrich uranium while the deal is in place, to develop advanced centrifuges. it has a heavy water reactor. one would be built for it, and although this reactor would produce less plutonium, it would produce a quarter of a weapons worth up to ternium per year. -- worth of plutonium per year. iran should not have any plutonium. we know this from revelations during the bush administration, it has pursued every possible avenue in secret to develop nuclear fuel. we know that iran is allowed to develop nuclear fuel, but when it doesn't in secret, that is not a peaceful purpose.
it broke its treaty obligations and the u.s. position should be that iran should not have nuclear technology. we should cut it off with strong sanctions. about a year ago, the president withdrew from the joint comprehensive plan of action of action. the nuclear deal that was announced in 2015. this was a deal that was negotiated so it would not be a treaty. that way the senate did not get a chance to vote on it. treaties need a two thirds vote to ratify them. there was a vote in the senate, but opponents had to get two thirds. there was this bizarre mechanism that i hope no staffers in this room have to deal with where the house and senate can reject the treaty if there were two thirds in opposition. andy mccarthy said this through the constitution on its head. it is not the way our government is supposed to operate. but this was negotiated deliberately to get around representatives and american people, a majority of congress
voted against the deal, a large majority of the american people were against the deal, and pulling out of it was the right decision. but it was hard because not only were there people in the left that wanted to stay in this deal, but there were mistaken people in the right that thought this could be fixed. that is a myth. it was not fixable. it was fatally flawed. it did not include missiles or iran's sponsorship of terrorism, it was a disaster. some of the president's advisers fought with him to try to keep in the deal. when the president let people go and brought in ambassador bolton, he made the right call. i congratulate the president. again, an important act of leadership. the same thing was true of the paris climate accord. this was an agreement that would cost the u.s. $3.5 trillion by 2035. thousands of u.s. jobs would be lost. electricity bills would go up 15% to 30%, and it would do almost nothing to affect the climate. some experts think it would have no effect at all but it would be
a big benefit to the economies of india, china, and europe. this agreement was also negotiated so it would not be ratified by the senate. the obama administration signed it and the senate did not have a chance to ratify, even though there were other governments that did ratify it. other legislatures. the iran deal was ratified by the iranian parliament, but not by our senate. this was an effort to get around the constitution. it was an effort by the elites who think they know better than the american people. these factors had a role in the election of mr. trump. the american people were tired of the foreign policy establishment, people who think they know better than us, going around the u.s. congress and constitution to impose agreements like the paris climate accord and the iran nuclear agreement on the american people. there is an effort right now to
get -- to address nafta and tpp , the transpacific partnership, two agreements that the president backed out of. the u.s.m.c.a. is an alternative to nafta. we're hoping congress will sign onto. in the president's view, this is an agreement that left american ork is behind and was too good a deal for other nations that did not represent the american people's interests. turning to other issues, the president promised to destroy sis. it is difficult. i think radical islam is a movement that is not simply linked to a terrorist group with a presence on the ground. isis has lost its presence on the ground and that is because the president put out a policy where the white house was no longer micromanaging u.s. forces fighting in syria, and we were allowed to to do the airstrikes
and operations on the ground that were necessary to defeat isis. isis is still around, but its presence in holding territory, that has ended and that is because of the policy of mr. trump. the president recognizes the threat from radical islam, and this is reflected from last year's national counterterrorism strategy, that for the first time cites radical islam as a driver of terrorism. this is a change from the obama years, where you weren't allowed to use the term radical islam and a whole lot of other words that were on a black list of things we could not say. we cannot defeat an enemy that we will not name, that we will has advised thatists.the presit understand that this exists, it is something he is focusing on. there is a lot of talk about trade deals with china. this has been a big focus of the president america first strategy. to get free and fair deals, to
stop the china from stealing intellectual property. there has been significant movement in these talks. positive movement. we are not to a deal yet. as our economy is searching, and china's economy is in trouble, and with an incredible u.s. presence, which will walk away if other parties are not negotiating good faith, it has led to a situation where it is looking likely we will get a good deal. we have to get there. border enforcement is also another important part of america first. strict border enforcement, and tougher rules on immigration. this is something the president talks about frequently. he believes this is an important issue of homeland security to protect our economy. when the american people see thousands of people trying to illegally immigrate to the united states across our southern border, i think they are with the president on this. this is not something we should
be permitting. it is a shame that a few short years ago, hillary clinton, barack obama, and dianne feinstein agreed we have to stop illegal immigration across our southern border. this is something the president has taken a tough stance. on it is unpopular and politically incorrect. this is what america first does. it does not worry about the conventional view of issues like this. we really need to talk about russia, especially this week came outmueller report and throughout this report that there was some idea between the trump campaign and russia. i will not talk about that today. the president thinks we should have a working relationship with russia. this is not very different than the obama administration. russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. it has a large military. we have to be able to talk to the russians. what the media is not telling you is that the president has
been much tougher on russia been the obama administration. very tough measures has been -- had been imposed to section individuals who meddled in our 2016 election. i was involved in this at the nsc, good and tough measures have been engaged to protect the integrity of future elections. atre is no mention of that all in tv. i have been in the interagency meetings. this is a serious matter. this measure to protect our election. we watch msnbc and cnn and wine on and on that the administration did not do anything, that is not true. i think the pundits know it is not true. it is something doubled in take seriously. over 100 russians and entities have been sanctioned for meddling in the ukraine. unlike the obama administration, which sent nonlethal equipment into the ukraine, this administration sent lethal
equipment into the ukraine. there has been strong opposition by this administration to the pipeline in europe, which would yield hundreds of millions of dollars worth of revenue for the russians, but also would link europe too closely to russian gas. for this reason, we thought hard about that. the president has tried to stop this from moving forward. most importantly, we closed multiple russian consulates in the u.s., and kicked out a number of russian diplomats we know to be intelligence officers after the horrendous incidents in the u.k. of russian intelligence trying to assassinate a former russian intelligence agent within the united kingdom. we worked with our allies on that. it was the right thing to do. i think we will see more actions like that in the future. there are many examples of this administration being tough on russia. you don't hear any of them in
the press. i think they are very significant. it is something the president is not getting credit for. i have done a lot of work on north korea. north korea is something that needs to be discussed here. the president has ended, or at had north korea suspend its missile launch. they tested 80 missiles during the clinton years. tested four nuclear weapons. there was a test of what may have been a hydrogen in september of 2017. all this ended in 2017 a number of reasons. the president managed to get other nations to stop enforcing u.n. sanctions against north koreans. arms,esident twisted some call people out. i do not think certain nations like being the focus of a presidential tweet. they are cheating on sanctions and the president is not shy about calling people out. i think this has had an effect.
the president was pretty clear in his rhetoric against north korea, including threatening at the assembly to totally destroy north korea if it threatened our allies. you remember how angry all the people were. that the president threatened military actions in an organization of peace. the president told it like it is. i think that threat stunned the north koreans. it really put them off balance and led them to decide that it was time to talk. these talks have not gotten where we want them to get. north koreans agreed to things in principle. there were talks in vietnam. the president walked out of them because kim jung-un was asking for more than what we were prepared to offer. but, the tensions between the two nations are significantly better.
there has been a lot more dialogue behind the scenes than is generally known. i think we are close to getting an agreement where there will be inspections of north koreans -- north korea's missile facility. i know the south korean president is traveling to washington soon to see what he can do to get negotiations moving. we have a lot of work to do here. we will need secretary pompeo and ambassador bolton to keep grinding away to get an agreement with the north. openresident likes to say, the door to a peaceful solution with the united states. kim has not yet chosen to walk through the door. that does not mean he will not walk through the door. this is hard with north korea. i am hopeful that the president's personal diplomacy with kim, and the diplomatic opportunities we have seen will lead to an agreement. . international issue i want to talk about is venezuela. uaido.s. recognizes juan g
after he was recognized as the acting president of venezuela. this is able to move because getting maduro to leave power will be difficult. working with our allies, and we have organized an international coalition backing guaido. the next step is to get the states supporting the majora regimeto stop -- maduro to stop doing so. i think the use of force is doable. we are upping the pressure in majuro -- for maduro. anope gave maduro opportunity for talks and he turned it down. we now have europe behind this initiative that was started by the united states. but i think it is the best approach to try to deal with the situation.
the terrible humanitarian situation that the venezuelan people are suffering right now. , weerms of looking forward have a strongly decisive american president. i think that has made the world safer. we know that a strong and decisive president keeps our enemies off balance and guessing. that keeps the world safer too. hase is a reason why iran stopped harassing american shipping in the persian gulf. and the rebels have stopped firing missiles at ships in the red sea. they don't know what president trump would do if that happened. that is leadership. the worldw we keep safer. a strong and decisive united states and a strong and decisive president. it is good for national security and global security. the president has tried to rebuild and strengthen key alliances. especially with israel.
i am most proud of what the president has tried to do to work with israel. he made it clear to the israeli if there ishat a new deal they will talk with them. israel, saudi arabia and the gulf states are more affected by than weat from iran are. this terrible nuclear deal, they had no say in. they did not know what we were agreeing to before it was announced. the clinton administration negotiated something. a terrible agreement, but at least the south korean and japanese governments are at the table. we did not console with the israelis are saudi's up the gulf states before we agree to this monstrosity with iran. i think the states in the region appreciate that. they know the president wants to work with them. the president has a good relationship with the middle east friends and allies. canada.
we do have a good relationship with europe. they would prefer we get back into the iran deal. you know the european leader said, there is no point in the trump administration pulling out of the iran dea. the sanctions will -- deal. the sanctions will stay in place. if they had to choose between doing business with the united states and iran. iran's economy is broken and 10 not to pay their debts. it is not -- and tend not to pay their debts. european countries are leaving iran because they are worried about sanctions that would be imposed upon them if they keep dealing with iran. there is a work around european states to come up with tell al companies to do business with iran, despite our sanctions. this is almost a year late and it will not work. i know that has been talked
about in the western press recently. that will not get anywhere. doctrineust the trump -- the trump doctrine is american for us. it is nationalism that looks out for the interest of the american people, the american worker, and american security, american prosperity. i think it is a new strategy that is working. i think it has created a a lot of potential and hope for our national security in the future. i have been proud to be part of it. -- it hasat we will also been a work in progress. we have seen in the national security strategy, we know what the president announced during the campaign. we have seen, as the administration progresses and how the strategy has been developing and a comprehensive approach to deal with national security problems. all of like to thank you for coming today. i would be happy to take your questions. [applause]
>> what with the military intervention look like in venezuela? i do not think that president trump has any interest in invading venezuela. that is clear. ambassador bolton has made it clear that if an american citizens are put at risk, that is the different matter. there are at least 1000 american citizens in venezuela. in terms of a military presence to forcibly remove the guaido regime, that is not something that i know the president will do. if there are scenarios we will invade, i am not aware of them. if i did know, i don't think i would tell you. yes, sir. [indiscernible] north korea
based on freedom for north korean people, and the unification based on freedom and democracy. north korea was a part of the republic of korea. after alliced that, ce, trumprs of patien and gave up the liberation of north korea, gave up freedom for north korea, and started respecting north korean dictators.
he started negotiating instead of pressuring. it escalated north korea 's livelihood. for the first time, president not to touch -- that was part of the negotiations. disappointed about what he has been doing. under the singapore persuasion of the south korean president. hanoi, pressured by the south korean president. he kicked the parties out of hanoi. now it looks like he is going
-- with the north korean dictator. he is coming here again in the next few days to get together with kim jung-un and so on. could you try to convince me is not -- north korean dictator? >> the president has not given anything to north korea. they have been given a bilateral meeting with the president. there will not be a deal until north korea agrees to negotiate in earnest. it has been a concern that president moon wants to move too fast and give concessions to the north before the north gives anything. i think the north thought, in vietnam, they could convince us
to lift sanctions and very little in return to the u.s. we have seen this over and over with north korea. they get us involved in negotiations, we give them concessions, and they either give us nothing or if they agree to something they backtrack later. secretary bolton and pompeo are aware of that. the opportunity to do the right thing. if they don't, we will resume the pressure we put on the state before. i understand that it is difficult to watch u.s. officials interacting with such a ruthless dictator. i find it difficult to watch too. i also see states that are developing a hydrogen bomb and missiles that could possibly hit the east coast of the united states. this is a significant threat. if we are not going to bomb them or attack them, the solutions -- we have to find a diplomatic solution, but it has to be on
our terms. i know this is hard to watch. i wish there was another way to do it. realistically, i think this is the way of approaching it. the president has done some interesting things with kim that have not been noticed. the first meeting with kim was in singapore. that got kim out of his bubble, it got him away from his advisers and able to see the prosperity of singapore. it gave us an opportunity to talk to him and explain what north korea could become if it agreed to a peace deal. trumpiantypical approach. he was shown a movie that depicted how north korea could thrive if it normalized relations with the united states. i don't know that this will work. i think we are in a better position than we were, but i share your concern that we could make a deal without north korea actually coming across the
concessions they are supposed to. i noticed people and is the state department are pushing for bad deals. i know bolton and pompeo are trying to keep them under control. that is the best i can offer you. i appreciate your concern, sir. yes, sir. one of the things that has been stunning about the last two is thealf years or so reaction of the foreign policy establishment to the president's proposals. to the point where, suggesting that nato should be reformed to the 21st-century was seen as proof that the president was a russian spy and needed to be removed from office by any means necessary. after the president leaves office we will snap back into the old ways of thinking. so many people
who are in these dominant mindset, are on this which my personal opinion i consider extremist and ignorant, but they are in there. that thatfer us hope might not be the case that we could get reforms and some smarter people in key positions? i think what you said about nato is right. we are reforming it. there is resistance from foreign-policy professionals. they are good people, they just have a different view. done some work with you and organizations. they are very pushy jobs. -- u.n. organizations. they are very pushy jobs. they like to go out to lunch and have cocktails. the president is aware of that. we need to staff the government. there are a lot of key jobs taken at the state department. the president has an ambitious
agenda. he cannot carry it out if he does not fill all the jobs. atas just talking to someone this table, i understand there will be some changes made to try to remove the obstacles. time is running out. i hope they will be filled quickly. i just wanted to ask about the north korean strategy when it comes to human rights as well as denuclearization. what will a final deal include in terms of pressuring the regime on their human rights issues? >> that is a good question. i do not know how that will be addressed. our priority is to address the missile and nuclear threat. i know this has been addressed in the talks. i would like to see major achievements made. not simply the oppression of the north koreans, but the objection of japanese citizens by the north korean government is a
real concern to japan. has raisedpresident this repeatedly, including with prime minister abe. i think it has to be part of the talks. it is a difficult issue because we are concerned about the nuclear threat. on your point on filling the positions. the senate is being changed from 30 hours per nominee to two hours. >> that is great. >> that was as of yesterday. i saw that in a message. i just thought i would mention that. >> that is good news. it is pretty clear that too many good nominees are being blocked for no apparent reason. hopefully that will fix it. two morel take questions. >> sure. >> do you have any suggestions for how to resolve this north korea nuclear problem after post
hanoi? the increase of south korean involvement. what is your assessment of that situation, and how would you go about it moving forward? >> i would like to see -- >> [indiscernible] in your opinion? >> the first question, i would like to see all players stick together. i want to see china, south korea, and japan not move forward with any type of agreements or lessening trade sanctions on north korea until there is a deal. they are going to remove or reduce the leverage we have to get a good deal. i think kim saw how determined the president is. he will not agree to a partial
deal or drop sanctions for very little in return from the north. he is looking for a comprehensive deal. that was a good signal being sent in vietnam. it is very hard for diplomats to walk away. there were preparations for celebrations of a big agreement. they love the signing ceremonies. there is a big picture taken of everybody who negotiated. state people love that. to walk away and to not do that is hard. people were disappointed. all the preparations have to be canceled. i am convinced the president wants a good deal. i know bolton and pompeo want a good deal. i think we sent a message to the north. that is what we are working on now. concerning reports that north korea is cheating. it seems that there is a think take in washington saying that north koreans are preparing to test a nuclear missile.
it is hard to know what they are doing. these think tanks often don't know what they are talking about. it is very difficult to interpret satellite data. north koreans are always moving sites because they know we are watching. sometimes they want to freak us out. the cia knows what is going on. but when other organizations put out another urgent report with satellite imagery, they don't know him -- they don't know anything the government doesn't are a no. the government knows more than they know. it is complicated. i don't doubt that north koreans are continuing missile activity, but we need to get a declaration from them of what they are doing, and a firm commitment that they will stop what they are doing. we are not to that point. i think the story is more complicated. >> one more question. in your talk, the u.s. china
relations trade talks -- you also said -- is to defend american values. relations, howna do you see the human rights issue rule of law, where is the position in this overall relationship? >> human rights in china are a serious issue. there have been reports about and the unbelievable oppression of them. we know what is going on in tibet. we know how many journalists have been arrested and the terrible oppression in china. the president is trying to work out relationships support nations can get a long. not just in the economics, but in this -- but in the security sphere. he is trying to work with president xi. there are real human rights
issues. you do not hear about them in the press very often. i think our officials are raising them at the right levels. it is complicated. on one hand we want a trade deal so the chinese will stop damaging the u.s. economy. on the other hand, we know what is going on in parts of china where people are subject to supreme, brutal oppression. i hope we have our u.s. officials work on this and speak on this often. the center for security policy is a nonprofit national security organization. we have a website, secure freedom.org. we have been focusing on the u.s./israel relationship, and what we think is a sharp rise in anti-semitism on the left. we don't want to get in on that today, but we are happy to work with suzanne at the defense forum foundation. check out our website. thank you. [applause]
>> i was going to ask you to give us your website. he took care of that. there are a lot of questions that were asked about north korea. all your questions will be atwered our next forum -- our next for them. april 28 will be the 16th annual north korean freedom week. is listen to the north korean defectors, then you will know the truth. we will have a forum with the defectors on friday, may 3. april 28, north korean freedom week will have a list of activities. escaped host people who from that regime. to learn from them. we will have a special forum for those defectors to talk to us about what we should do to deal with that regime. thank you. it was amazing. thank you for coming out today. we will see you in may.
[applause] >> sunday night on "q&a." the supreme court reporter talks about her latest book, "the chief: a biography of chief justice john roberts." >> however john roberts votes now is how he votes. he is going to determine the law of the land. the liberals want him to come over, inch over a little bit, but the conservatives are trying to hold him back where he always
was. meanwhile, you have this chief justice declaring, there is no judge, ag as an obama trump judge, a bush judge, he wants to project a bench that is not political when they all have their agendas. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> this week on "the communicators." and cta president and ceo michael powell. he was interviewed by washington post reporter kent. >> i think it is in transition. it is -- it's talk of demise are dramatically premature. i think the industry has nicely transition to the significance of broadband and compensates for the market of competitive pressures on video. they manage video better than people would have imagined. i think they are thriving as
consumer delivery systems. they announced a bold initiative in which they will attempt to dramatically increase broadband speeds to the american homes over the next several years. >> watch "the communicators" monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> on wednesday, president trump torded the medal of honor sergeant adkins to died in iraq in 2007 after he tackled a suicide bomber to protect free fellow -- three fellow soldiers. the metal is one of the highest honors presented to service members display acts of bravery in combat. -- the sonant adkins of staff sergeant atkins was at the white house to accept the award on his father's behalf. >> is sacred so