PrezFest 2019: May 21 • Morning

PrezFest 2019: May 21 • Morning


>>What changed in the world while you are sleeping and what happened down the street and across the country and three oceans away and when was the last time you ate request? Your world may not of changed much since yesterday, but our world is changing every minute we will be there every morning to be on top of it. >>You’re listening to open addition by NPR news. >>Everyday. >>What is the initiative? Key components, at the heart of it is the study of the history and principles of democracy from the most aged times but we want to make sure that that study is a philosophical conception and historical conceptions and surrounded by and energizes a series of what we are calling democracy lapse we will have faculty members and postop’s and PhD and other graduate students and undergraduates focusing on big topics and big questions that are facing democracy as we look at these issues we also help our students understand the role that they have to play in democracy no matter what their field or interest is. The University of Virginia believes that we have a responsibility to address the challenges that face democracy both at home and about and abroad right now. >>[Music] >>[Applause]>>Good morning, everyone, my name them Jim Ryan and as the president of UVA I would like to welcome all of you to Presidential Ideas Festival, the official name of this event is the Presidential Ideas Festival democracy and dialogue and is the culmination of years of hard work with people from across University and beyond and also part of our Centennial celebration marking 200th anniversary of this university founding and I’d like to offer things were faculty and students and staff as well as leaders from Monticello and Highland and American Evolution and the presidential precinct that make this hospital and thank you to the Miller Center for taking the lead in designing and managing the cement and pulling all of these groups together. Finally I want to thank the powers of arts and sciences that plans to support the market see cement on a biannual basis and think as well a few of our major supporters. The Bicentennial commission cochaired by Bobby battle and Tom Farrell and Robert and Joseph Cornell foundation and especially trustee Bob Erdman American Evolution celebration and especially Frank and Kitson and Kathy Spangler. I think they deserve a large round of applause. >>[Applause] the result of all of this hard work and support is a three day look at democracy through the length of the presidency with discussions on everything from foreign policy in the global economy to social media and the press and you will be hearing from former chiefs of staff, cabinet secretaries and journalists and academics and a fellow from Arkansas who seems to know an awful lot about being president. I want to think all of our truly distinguished guest who are joining us to participate in these important discussions and before we kick things off I would like to say a few words about why this matters and how it fits into our mission and also share an announcement. Winston Churchill famously called democracy the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Yet over the last decade or so democracy has been in a slow but steady retreat while those other forms have been advancing. According to a report from freedom House watchdog group that advocates for democracy, and human rights, democracy serves around the world between 1988-2005, and since then however the trend has reversed. Last year alone political rights and civil liberties became weaker and 68 countries and improved in only 50 and around the world only 39% of people now live in free countries while 24% live in partly free countries and 37% live in countries that are not free at all. Closer to home over the last 80 years the freedom score for the US has declined by over 80 points from 94, 86, we’re still firmly in the free category but we are falling behind places like the UK and Canada and France in Australia and Germany and Japan. The report attributes these declines to existing problems that are familiar to all of us including political polarization, V McCormick mobility and influence of special interest in the rise of partisan media. But the report also warns our current president is making things worse. In their book how democracies die Stephen Lubinski and Daniel to block point out we also think of democracies as scaling and obvious in dramatic ways to crew declaration of martial law or suspension of the Constitution. In most cases however democratic backsliding happens more slowly and in full view of the public. Without an obvious break these men right democracy erosion almost imperceptible but happens nonetheless. Almost desperate why my sharing this profoundly uplifting source? Because it is clear we cannot take the existence of democracy for granted. Which is why we are gathered here today. We all have a role to play as citizens, elected officials, business leaders, members of the media, but I believe universities have a unique responsibility to do our part to strengthen and sustain democracy. While this is true for all universities, it is especially true for this university. The story of UVA parallels in many way the story of our country and it is not surprising that given our founding was closely linked to the founding of our country and that Jefferson original purpose for this university was to create leaders who would strengthen our fledgling democracy. We have been striving imperfectly striving to serve imperfectly, democracy that is itself imperfect. Growing and changing as our democracy has grown and changed ever widening the circle of participants but also still struggling with the injustices of the past and the present. Yet there is even deeper link at the level of ideas and ideals. Ours is a democracy based as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, on a proposition, the proposition that all men are created equal. Which overtime has come to mean all people are created equal and based on the for the proposition that all of us have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One way to conceive of the University and in particularly our’s is that we have been striving to bring us closer to realizing those ideals by pointing out based on fact where we are falling short and by preparing a new generation of leaders who will bring us closer to realizing the ideals and by coming up with new ways to make most fundamental commitments a reality. We will never reach true perfection and appoint the founders must’ve recognize when they wrote in the preamble to the Constitution a desire to form a more perfect union. That statement could be read as arrogant and we are already perfect but just want to be a little more perfect, but I think a fair reading is that the founders were suggesting that there is no way to reach true perfection. But to strive for up more perfect union is aware the, endless and indeed noble pursuit. And that challenge remains especially important to date as it was in 1980 — 1819 and it should compel us as we think about a future to rededicate ourselves to the original animating purpose of UVA which is to serve and in particular to serve democracy. That is why today in addition to kicking off transport we are announcing a new UVA institution of democracy. That is worth applause. >>[Applause] >>We are still in the early stages of the Institute that it will be based on free principles. First no university can topple all of the world’s challenges and here at UVA we believe we should focus on several areas of growing importance where we feel we can make is distinct contribution to improving the human condition. Democracy is at or near the top of the list. Second addressing our most pressing challenges including this one requires working across additional boundaries. This Institute will help faculty and students and experts from across university and beyond come together in new ways and already several of her schools and a number of our resource and teaching centers have been working together on issues related to democracy including designing this week’s event and this Institute will allow us to do even more and finally it has to be practical and just as UVA original purpose was to train business leaders the Institute of democracy will use researching key thinking as a way to drive action whether in the classroom or in the media or in the ballot box or in the halls of government or in communities including our own. If we do all of this, I believe that UVA will be rightly known as the leading place in the country if not the world to study, teach and sustain democracy. And more importantly democracy is everywhere and it will be stronger because of this. So PrezFest is a hopeful sign of things to come and we begin with a panel that will explore internationalism and American future world on the world stage. It is fitting that we start here because of three presidents who helped lay the cornerstone for UVA Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, all served as Secretary of State before becoming president. Today we are honored to be joined by Madeleine Albright who is the original Madam Secretary. America 64th Secretary of State in the first woman to hold the office before that she served as ambassador to the United Nations. She continues to teach diplomacy at the Georgetown University school of foreign service. Stephen Hadley serve for the four years as a national security advisor to George W. Bush and deputy national security divisor for four years before that. Mr. Headley also served on the national Security Council staff and in the Defense Department including as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the George HW Bush administration. The panel will be moderated by John Dickerson whose real claim to fame is that he is a 1991 UVA graduate. >>[Applause] >>I suppose it is also worth pointing out that he is the cohost of CBS This Morning a 60 minute correspondent and a contributing editor at the Atlanta and he is reported and politics in Washington for almost 25 years. John will also serve as a unofficial master of ceremonies for all of PrezFest so he will be with us all three days including serving on a panel on Thursday afternoon. After this session concludes we will move straight into the next keynote conversation on America teaching role in the global economy. I’ve been told was he a number on the screen behind me to submit questions for the panelists and pleased text any questions you have to the panel to that number during the session for consideration during the question and answer portion of the conversation. Thank you again for being here and with that I will turn things over to John Dickerson and thank you very much. >>[Applause] >>Welcome, everyone and hello and I am delighted to be here not only because we have this panel but I think I did well on my exams. I am having tiny little flashbacks of when I was a student here but we will jump right into it, Madam Speaker, Madam Secretary, I will start with a hypothetical which is a little implausible but hang with me here. President Trump calls you into the Oval Office and says, [Laughter], and then you wake up and you realize it is all a dream. President Trump calls into the Oval Office and says this is a complicated world. I need your guidance and advice. And you can start anywhere. What is the first thing you say? >>First of all I was show amount of surprise and look at policies redecorated the office and then decide that I like to establish common ground and I will say, we do have something in common which is that I’m also losing my hair. And I would like to find out how you do your comb-over’s. >>[Applause] >>Having established that common ground, I would say that it has been my experience both in office and out of office that the world depends on trying to understand what America’s world in — role in the world is and granted just as you said, John, very complicated time in many ways that people are very confused about who we are and why we are acting the way we are. And that it is important in order to be able to present the right image of this country, is to have a process in place that provides some kind of regularity , some way of really understanding how decisions are made. I was asked even when in office, how the president arrived at his decisions and I certainly am asked now, and I think that our allies and our adversaries need to know what kind of a system we have. And so while it is sometimes kind of fun and interesting to be totally disruptive it cannot be a constant disruption all the time and so I would ask him and also I am going to at some point say in this you have plenty of people around you that are telling you how wonderful you are but I’m here to tell you that I am concerned about how you are conducting the presidency and what it is making people think about us in terms of our responsibility. And I would then go around the globe and say these are the issues. I said the following things, I am a broad and awful lot and it is very inappropriate for former diplomat to criticize one’s country abroad so I do not do that. But I do think I try to answer in terms of what is going on and in Europe they do think we’ve lost our minds. And I think it is kind of that way in other places and therefore the think I would express is for him to get around himself, people who will disagree with him, and it is very important, who will disagree with each other and they will disagree with each other in front of him so he can see what the different options are and then the fact that the system that was established in 1947 with the national security act can be adjusted for particular presidential ways that people or presidents like to handle their job but it is a system of decision-making and that there are thousands of decisions the US government makes every day and heart of the decision the more it is pushed up to the top and the hardest decisions are those the President and therefore he is entitled to have a decision-making process that gives him options that are well explained to him, that are also based on intelligence, the kind that you get from the intelligence community. And that it is something that requires a systematic approach so it makes some sense. >>So Steve, want to hear Madam Secretary say is we are going to go all around the world so we will go to various different countries but I think what I heard her say is that if you do not have a process or President who gets decisions brought to him in the right kind of way and then you trust in the process, that you will be stymied from the start. What is your feeling about that? If you’re in the same situation with the President and start right in on a specific country or do you say Mr. President, here are some things that I would tweak about your somewhat improvisational approach. >>Are probably would not start there. With the President you start first with where you agree with him but this is the problem of how to speak with this President because I agree with what Madeleine said and I also agree every President has their own style. And the MNC system is supposed to adapt to that start in this President has a cell like no President I think we’ve ever seen. He does not really want to be constrained by process. He does not want to be constrained by policies. And in some sense he is not constrained by what he said the day before. He is a real disruptor in every sense of the word and that is what a lot of people voted for, that is what they wanted was a disruptor in chief. It is difficult to bring process in order for somebody who really likes the ability to be able to unpredictable. Which is terrific sometimes and dealing with your adversaries, but difficult dealing with your friends and allies. Because one of the things about the United States and the world in the world — role we play as people count on consistency from the United States as they make their own decisions and if you are a disruptor across the board yes, it put your Elise up balance but also put your friends off balance and I think I would say three things to express this. Start by saying this President, you have one thing right which is very important which is foreign policy requires us to be strong at home. And you have got this economy going good for you Mr. President. Good news. Secondly Mr. President you have made the point that allies need to be doing more. We need to re-shift the burden that is exactly right but then you begin to move to the recommendation part that Mr. President, United States has crucial world role because problems will be solved because of the United States taken the lead and nobody else can do it and the Europeans connect with and the Chinese can add to it and the Russians cannot do it. Only we can do it so Mr. President, rebalance with the alleys but we have to lead and’s start on these issues. And then I think a third thing I would say is Mr. President, the most important issue for you to focus on is China. Because almost every issue you think about and you care about, whether you worry about climate and the President does, what the wary about clinic changer resources with the city or financial system, all of that will be driven primarily by the US China relationship and if we do not get that relationship right was every other problem gets harder. >>Do you agree that? So my I do. >>What does it mean to get China right and what does the range of topics because we have trade issues with China and security issues with China and emerging or competition in Africa with China. Help us understand what it means to manage the China deal. >>It is everything and the way you described it but even more so given the in-depth issues that need to be handled, in addition to this great power competition, I think one of the things that a President has to understand is what are the major threats that are out there that encompasses. One, has to do with the fact that there is a new space and venue for where we are fighting and kind of worst take place. Not just space but also with the kind of weapons that are used and obviously nuclear proliferation is very important and so are other aspects. Specifically to do with China, artificial intelligence, and all the various ways that social media can be used, something different. The second thing is that he may not want to talk about this, climate change is very important and the Chinese so presently are the ones that are taking a lead of saying that and so they are getting ahead in terms of how they are dealing with some very serious issues that affect the world and that the third thing that also has a lot to do with China is at the international infrastructure through which we have made decisions to the whole 20th century does not work anymore and some thing needs to be done and by the way when I was ambassador at the UN I think people most fully understand most meetings of the Security Council do not take place in the fence around but in the back room and I you get to know people really well and kind of like a college seminar and you are altogether. Anyway I got to know the Chinese permanent representative very well and they did — early 90s — they did not want to be involved in anything except if it had something to do with interference in internal affairs. So I gave the Chinese a little blue ball so he could practice and get strength to raise his hand. >>You wanted China to converse in the conversation. >>Part of it was recognizing what their part was an many times when I became secretary I would exchange my notes with the Chinese prime minister and say here my talking points and give me your talking points and now I want to know what you are strategic user about where they see things in the Middle East or wherever, so we were in a kind of a space where we wanted China to be a part of things. I still think we need to have China be a part of things even a lot of times I spent talking about this there’s no reason and it is wrong to isolate them. We have to be able to figure out where we can find areas of cooperation and then be very clear about what we cannot accept but of the ways we are not going to have a relationship that is good for the 21st century. It is one across the board, no question.>>Steve, what is a relationship with China? On one hand the President earlier in the administration said I don’t care about the trade stuff of China, they can help me put North Korea and its boxer the community of nations or whatever metaphor you want and now he’s in the middle of a very tough trait and he calls it a squabble and other people call it a war with China. North Korea is still alive issue and there is a South China Sea, will kind of adversary is China relative to what we have known before? >>Well I think I would encourage administration to take a step back from the individual issue and look at the overall theme and the overhaul trends are not good and we had of you if you engage China and try to bring them into the Internet all system they will be a constructive partner of the United States. And they will over time become more market oriented and more democratic and the political systems. That has not happened and most people think that was a mistake, a failed policy. So we are in a new era in US negotiations a we are competing with China almost across-the-board payment and over the last three or four years, the attitudes and China towards the United States among others have become more negative and attitude of American sports China has become a negative and we talked to people now that will say China is a regional if not a global henchman seeking domination. And economic predator. It is a military threat. And it is an ideological rival. That is kind of where American has led over the last three or four years and have come to a China and it is true we will compete with China, competition will be much more part of the relationship. We are going to be strategic competitors. The question is can we also be strategic cooperators? And we need to be because all of those global issues, terrorism, environment, of climate change, of water resources, all those global issues cannot be solved by either China or the United States alone. And need to be solved if China is going to reach the China dream and we will reach the American dream so the challenge for the relationship is can we recognize we will be strategic competitors? Can we found the competition so it does not strive us to be adversaries and can we keep some space to cooperate on these global issues? That is a tough task. You are not with a lot of presidents but we are in a unprecedented time terms of these relationship between China and the United States and not just these two but also we see the emergence of India, we are seeing the emergence of Southeast Asia and ultimately Africa. It is a changed world. We are in a new era and we have to step back and come back and say what is it our strategy now for this new era? It will be different than the past. >>Secretary, does the President seem to recognize that a little bit when he downplays the trade issue calling it just a squabble? And when he talks about it, and he talks about dealing with China, he says we have this problem on trade, but do not over blow that. In other words he recognizes our other interest where there needs Corporation. >>I think he does recognize that but let me just say I do teach and I teach that some policy is just trying to get some country to do what you want so what are the tools? My course is called the national security toolbox and where the most powerful country in the world but the bottom line is there are not a lot of tools in the toolbox. Bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy, economic tools, trade, aid, sanctions, use of force, use of force intelligence in law enforcement and that is it and the question is, how to use those tools and what particular order? The other thing I do in my students as I say every country makes decisions based on five factors, and it is important to know your five factors but also the Chinese and so the first one is objective, wears a country and what is it size and population growth? The Chinese are huge country with incredibly large complex population. The second is subjective, how do they feel about themselves? I think at the moment they are truly a rise of nationalism in China by the way I love anniversaries, and years that ended number 9 are important for the Chinese. It is hundred anniversary of the main force rebellion by students which then in another nine number ended in Tiananmen Square in 1949 was a creation of the People’s Republic of China, in 1959 there were issues to do with the region, 1979 we had normalization in 1989 Tiananmen so here we are another number 9. What is happening is just repeating like many leaders is really pushing nationalism and he has talked about how badly they were treated during the opium right and number of aspects and raising that issue in the third role of factor is how the government is organized and clearly in the Chinese sense he is in charge and everywhere with the People’s Congress but there are issues that are in the region and I think people do not recognize that enough, a lot of the provinces etc. and then the fourth bureaucratic policy, how to factor the departments play with each other and the individual, as far as the United States is concerned and I will not go through all of those but what is important and it goes back to some of the points we’ve been making, first of all, our relationship, the executive legislative relationship in terms of the policy, Congress, has to activate those tools and then bureaucracy which goes back very much to what Steve was saying, pretty much every department is involved if you think about some of the or obviously the current Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland security and defines department and State Department, Justice Department, in terms of some of the issues to do with sanctions and a variety of things, and then the role of the individual, so I think we are not — which is why I think it is so important to get back to the decision- making process, if the President sees this as being more complex, he needs to understand how that bureaucracy is brought together, which requires that process and then also had to work with Congress and frankly there is no evidence of either of those aspects taking place even if he is beginning to see that it is more complicated. >>That the stay then on this process question, Steve, when a White House is operating well and you have been in it, what role does the President play in making national security decisions and let us think about this, we have an election coming up so people will think about who are we going to place in the office again or are we going to keep the current occupant there? How do decisions get made on this very complicated issues and take people insight a little bit and talk about what the secretaries talking about witches the orderly making of decisions in a complex world were sometimes you will have bad outcomes even when you have the perfect process. >>One of the things the press talks a lot about what is a secretary of state thinking and what does Pompeo think and what is that national security advisor etc. and I always thought that Ms. the point. The question I think Madeleine would agree with and the question is what does the President think? The President is the decider on foreign-policy with the country and I’ve always been amazed about how the embassy process is designed to serve up an issue to the President and the President’s decision. And then to make sure that decision is implemented and executed throughout the to raucously. So it is presidential — bureaucracy so it is presidentially oriented, your process really is to try to get information to the President, to get options clear options to the President, make sure the President hears from all of his or her national security principles so it has a best device and hears from the members a conference and has a conversation and discussion in front of the President so people can argue in front of the President in a respectful way and then the piece that I think is not written enough about, at the end of the NSC meeting at 4:30 PM or 5 o’clock in the afternoon and the President says okay thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, I will go off and think about it and let you know in the morning. What happens? When the President leaves that NSC meeting comes back to the Oval Office in the morning and says I decided X. And that is what matters in the end of the day and so when you look at a President and it seems to me you want to think about thinking about how the President will make that decision what are the presidents values and what his values are what does the President care about and what does the President prioritize? I think character matters and we can have a long discussion but I think it is a question about character. Third, what is the presidents decision? How does a President see history and America’s role in the world and what is the presidents vision for America? In the world. And then finally you need a President who can communicate who can explain that vision and explain those decisions to the American people because once the President makes a tough decision at the end of the day the President has to go out and sell it so I think those are the things you need to think about because the space between when the President leaves the NSC meeting and comes back the next morning with the decision, all those things are described are wet are in the stew from which the President gets the presidents decision. Sum some people in the meeting try to get to them in the space between when the meeting took place and next morning. >>True. >>Both of you can tail starts about that. >>Okay, let me ask you this question one of the reasons you have to have a good process is the world is complicated. The President does not have an empty day full of or most presidents do not have days like that. The have a lot on their plate, I guess is the point. You serve Jimmy Carter and you also served President Clinton. Tell me about how much more complicated the world got in that period of time. From a national security perspective. >>Going back to Jimmy Carter, he really was operating in a world that was full Cold War, that have an awful lot of time. There was thinking in terms of some of the point that Steve raised, in terms of America’s role and a variety of aspects on it and I think that it was dangerous but relatively simple in comparison to this plus there were not also so many what I will call nonstate actors I mean you have to deal with government but there are also bunch of other stakeholders and things and more of them feel empowered to talk in a number of ways. I do think that is interesting about the personalities of the President so President Carter had been in the Navy and he was a military officer and governor who had had to make decisions. And somebody who was very, very organized. I was at the lower level doing congressional relations for him, but I sat in on every meeting that he had with members of Congress. It was interesting in terms of the way he listen to members of Congress and the only problem we had with the English language because when he said I understand, what happened was the members of Congress.that meant I agreed. So I had to walk confusing facts but it was interesting in terms of the orderly aspect and I think the part — this is also true of resident Clinton — we were talking about foreign-policy but foreign- policy is not the only thing that a President does, and for the most part domestic policy issues dominate and I think what makes a great President which is why we have not had many of them, is a combination of having a brain that can deal with domestic and foreign policy. It is very different, I think and when combined though — and I remember with President Clinton when he was campaigning he spent a lot of time on foreign-policy. In my case had to do with Bosnia people were kind of figuring out what he was going to do any comes in and he said it is the economy, stupid. And all of a sudden we were doing something different. So I do think the days of the President are incredibly filled and also filled with things there are guests coming in, some kind of event that has to be dealt with, there crises which may not all be foreign-policy crises. And it takes somebody who has the capability not only full understanding of the issues but being able to move this mind from one thing or to another and also not lose his temper, and deal with things that are tough. And people just coming in and saying I have to talk to you, and the question is, who is the dog at the door that keeps them out? By the way briefing a President is not simple. And I hope that many people get the opportunity to walk into the Oval Office. It really is historic. And you think and I work for Dr. Brzezinski and if you ever think that going into the Oval Office he says or going out to greet presidential helicopter is boring, you should not be here. And so I think — anyway you walk in and I would be kind of briefed or briefing resident Clinton and he would stand next to his desk and doing a crossword puzzle and I felt like saying, I am older than you are, I am — listen to me and you cannot do that. So what did happen because I can testify to this is President Clinton could do the crossword puzzle and listen and he also then in the meetings with the heads of state or whatever he would even go beyond in terms of his knowledge of things because he actually read a lot. He assigned books to us. And so I think it is not easy to go in there. Because you are in the Oval Office, talking to the President of the United States so the question is what kind of report does the President have? Does he do the — people that go and do they feel that they can say something to him that he will disagree with? You are talking about the stew and I always on the NSC talk about eggs so by the way this is one of the great national security advisors who I think really make the system work, in every single way from everything that I observed from my time. >>[Applause] >>But the national security advisor as I say these decisions have been pushed up and there have been preparations for this principals meeting, and a good national security advisor tries to break the egg to make sure the Secretary of State can say what he or she wants and secretary of defense and treasury whoever is in there to really get them to’s date their views and they will disagree. And then the point is making an omelette out of that to get the President if you cannot make an omelette you give the egg mess of the President and they go and argue in front of him. So is a combination that is a national security advisor who sets the tone, I think, of the kind of stability that goes on in these discussions while still disagreeing. >>Sometimes a presidents as I wanted French toast. >>That is right so the only problem I can guarantee is at the Secretary of State and national security advisor never get along. Except when Henry Kissinger had to take the job. >>[Laughter] >>And even then he was — exactly. Exactly right. >>And there’s a question of national security and the national security advisor can walk down the hall and say I really have to tie with the Chinese are doing and next the Secretary of State is in South Africa or something. >>This is the fun part, it is been the case often that Secretary of State because they are often the world participating in diplomacy get a little steam that the national security advisor because they are in that space between the meeting and decision was made, so take us into that drama. >>You need to decide if your national security advisor, how you define your job. I had the advantage that I’d work with Connie Rice before is four years for her deputy when she became secular state I became national security advisor and we knew where each other student could finish each other’s sentences literally. But you need to decide as national security advisor what your job is and I always thought the job was to ensure that the other cabinet secretaries exceeded in their job and that they retained the confidence of the President because that is the only way the system works and that requires you to be restrained and I will give you an example if I can. So here you are national security advisor and up at 530 in the morning and up at 530 in the morning and you read the press and there is a leak in it clearly came out of the State Department and you know the President is going to be furious. Now you have them two choices, you can go into the President at 7:05 AM and say Mr. President, I’m sure you saw that leak in the press today and came from the State Department and I told Connie Rice she has to get control of that department but do not worry, is President, I will take care of it for you. And that makes the Secretary of State look bad and you look good and that is the option you should not take. What you do instead is you call Connie Rice at 6:30 AM in the morning when you know she will be on her elliptical because that is what she does and say Connie, have you seen the paper today and she says no, and I say take a look at the first page and there’s an article that will really upset the President so she calls back in 10 minutes and set yes, I saw the article and here’s what I’m doing about it and do you want to tell the President or do you want me to? And then you say, you call the President and you bring it to the President so it is you taken responsibility for it and not me. And then you wait until 10 minutes after seven for you go into the President and the President of course is on the phone with the Secretary of State and covers the phone and says it is Connie Rice she is explaining the a leak in the paper today. And then you do not say, I know, is President I told her to call you. >>[Laughter] >>People may think this is sort of office culture but what we’re talking about here is it is the system that creates decision-making moment for the President and he does not trust the people participating in decision then he will not trust what they served up to him. That is why all of this relationship is important because it matters. >>It is a little bit more complicated. >>[Laughter] >>You and Connie really did have a different kind of relationship, I think. And I have watched where that does not happen, were part of the think that happens is the discussions for instance between two people important were very tough in many ways and there was no question at least the way I saw that Brzezinski had President Carter’s mind and Vyvanse had his heart any kind of — and the speeches if you read some of the early once a little bit of both in them and the thing that did happen is because the personalities and all of this is quite stunning and Vyvanse was a lawyer who like to have kind of orderly things Brzezinski was a professor and had large thinking etc. and so they argued all the time. And Brzezinski was also I think trying to compete with Kissinger and is on had so when Kissinger did the opening for China then Brzezinski decided he would do his version of it to do normalization without telling side and so that was any number of different issues but I have to tell this one story and I was aware of it Muskie and became former Senator Maine, I was a interlocutor and initially there was an article in the paper saying that he was asked whether he would get along with Brzezinski. And he gave a quote saying yes my former assistant is working anyway, Muskie comes in and the work for while and then get a call from Muskie and he says your boss is impossible. And in every meeting with President he says the name of every frog in Nigeria and he says he is a professor and that is the deal. So Jansky would call up and say your former boss in principle meeting is ridiculous in all he does is ask questions and I said he is a senator and that is what they do. >>But the thing that I could not deal with is Muskie calls me up and says I have had it and Brzezinski says he is more Polish than I am and I said he is. >>[Laughter] >>He has 2 Polish parents and speaks Polish and that I cannot do. >>[Laughter] >>I want to take this into dinner but we’ve only have about 10 minutes before we open up for discussion so I will let the question ask about the rest of the world but Steve, let me ask, ticking back to this process question, if you were interviewing the President in the campaign trail, say we did not have any incumbent, quickly give me a sense of what you would ask him. For the job, interview them for — >>Interesting. It is instant and will sound completely nuts but when I interview people I started by where they were born and what the parents did, what the brothers and sisters are doing and what they did in high school and in junior high school, sounds ridiculous, right? Because I think your self image gets born in those years. You carry it with you your whole life. This is stuff about narrative, I think it is overplayed but there is a kernel of proof and it about people’s narrative and where they come from because it really does shape who they are. But I think beyond that I think you want to talk to the President and people when the debate starts in the presidential debates start among Democrats I think that’s next month but the kinds of crescent you journalists and others I think the public ought to know are how do they see the world today? What is the world like and where is it trending? And what is the situation we face as a country internationally? And how do they see America’s role and what is their vision for America in that world? And then even though it sounds like it is not a foreign-policy question, what is their vision for America? I mean look, the foundation for any successful foreign-policy is effective functioning state at home and we do not have that right now. Our politics are broken, we have issues that are been around for 20 years, and Madeline and I were talking earlier and everybody knows how to solve immigration we just do not have the political will to do it so I think the big question turns out what is the President’s vision for America? And what is the big problems he sees for the country or what she sees for the country or whether their ideas for dealing with those problems and that as we watch person and you need to make these questions about character, about what are their values, can they communicate? Can they lead? And do you trust them? >>Secretary Albright, I will give you version of the question or you can jump over it and ask or addresses question which is a notion of sacrifice. When having a conversation with American people about their role in the world, it seems to me the notion that America bears any burden or pays any price, to maintain a certain global order has gone out of fashion. Do you agree with that? If he had to make the alternative case, why America needs to operate in places where sacrifice obviously soldiers and sailors are sacrificing all over the world but the public decision about sacrifice, it seems to have gone away. >>I do think that one of the important things that I would ask is he also said is to understand what America’s world — role in the world is which I think means understanding history a bit and what America’s role has been and I happen to believe that we are an exceptional nation, and it is just that I do not think that exceptions could be made for us in terms of how we obey the rules in terms of torture or whatever some of the things that have happened. But I do think that it is important to understand that America has benefited the American people when we understand what sacrifice other people have to make and to be able to understand that our world or role is where we are stronger if we do help those that are in trouble themselves. By the way something that Steve and I have been doing together is a new kind of declaration of principles, which builds on the kinds of things that happen at the end of World War II and I have said that we kind of need to renew our vows in terms of what America stands for. P sent freedom, Pisan security in a free market, helping others and so I do think I would like to know how a President reacts to that and that there will be some sacrifice which is different than saying we are very comes. If you sacrifice you’re doing it because you want to do something good not because you are a victim. And so I think understanding what America is really about and I think that is a very important part. And I do think that a President has to be able to identify what the issues are and then be the magical person that can understand how the American people will react to it and not in fact play off people’s fears. I don’t think America should be a country where freer is the governing factor. Hope is the American factor and I think the President has to know that. >>[Applause] >>Let us take it from applause and the questions and then some more questions. Do we have people that have texted in the question? >>>>We have a question the came in from the audience, the first one, you mention the importance of those competition and cooperation with China. Was President Trump decision to pull out of the trance system partnership on that significantly limited America influence on China and the Asia- Pacific region more broadly? >>The presidents is trying to do something with respect to China and trade. It actually has considerable support among both Republicans and Democrats which is there are a series of practices that disadvantage American companies that excludes them from market and steal their intellectual property and requires them to surrender their intellectual property. A whole series of practices. It needs change. We need to level the playing field in China has to open up and it cannot have a closed market benefit from a close market and benefit from our open market. It has to be more reciprocal. >>The question is whether the President strategy is the right way to do it. He is treated as a bilateral issue and use tariffs as a way to force the Chinese to make these acceptable changes and he is right about the respectable change and the counter approach I think as Madeline Knight would both endorse would’ve said state within the transpacific partnership and get all the principal countries of Asia signed up to a high standard trade agreement that would preclude these purposes and do the same thing with Europe with what was called the TT IP another set of negotiations and then when you have 70% of the worlds DTP — GDP all on this common playbook, for trade practices, what was acceptable, than go to China and you would have much more leverage. The President for various reasons decided not to go in that direction and gone and a more bilateral approach and I hope he succeeds because I think it would be good for the country and good for the world and actually good for China because it needs to open up the economy more but I think in some sense it is not the course I would’ve taken or President Bush would’ve taken and I think it may make it harder to get where the President wants to go which is the right place. >>But the President would basically say all of this low long methodical tiny little moments we don’t have time for that and China needs to be boxed in the nose and we will do that on trade and think of other reasons you have laid out about competition with China we cannot wait for the patient work up diplomacy which he is highly skeptical for. Does he have a little bit of a point about going faster and pressuring China? >>By the way, if I were interviewing a President I would ask, are you patient? I really do think — and the fact is that a lot of negotiations whether trade negotiations or any number of various aspects, nuclear proliferation, the required time. And you actually need diplomats to do diplomacy and so I think one really has to understand this goes back to the hope process issue and that there are various issues and you cannot expect a President even the brilliant want to understand every detail of these various things. You need experts that can explain what a tariff is and something against their own people, and there are various parts that need to be understood. So this loan is — and then also sometimes the deliberateness of the process brings answers that might not of been there before and so you cannot just suspend with it. That does not mean there is not a very important role for the head of state. Ultimately it is important to have that head of state engage and be able to push the last — and sometimes in negotiations you leave the last things for the President to do and one because it is probably one of the most difficult but also it enhances the whole level of the discussion but that is why — and we keep recurring the same process, process is not a boring word. It is really something that is required in all of this. >>We talked about China and the important policy challenges it poses but another country presents a challenge right now, what do you think the recent escalations with I ran means for the future of their relationship? >>I think we are in deep trouble with Iran because first of all again you would be surprised, we just finished doing something in the Middle East together in terms of looking at what the issues are in the Middle East which are incredibly complicated and in many ways most Americans do not know much about Islam or the difference between the Shia and the Sunni or the ongoing historic struggle between the Persians and the Arabs. Saudi’s versus the Iranians. So there are histories issues in the Middle East and in Iran and to go back on something, I was with President Carter in the White House during the hostage crisis which paralyzed everything. And in fact even during the failed rescue mission and there is no way to explain the effect of something like that on the presidency and how it operates , when people have written books about it but it really was just unbelievable in terms of the change with Iran. >>The weight operates on the presidency because ? >>It takes it over and it really does dominate things and I the way the whole issue is that I again think is very important is to understand the unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions and on Iran it is huge. For instance to go back, Americans are the first ones or ever to drop an atomic bomb. I do not know if scientists still feel guilty that they had managed to create the Adam but they went to President Eisenhower and said there will be peaceful uses of nuclear energy. President Eisenhower gives the P speech in 1953 in which he says that that can happen and it is the basis of the nonproliferation treaty and countries have signed it, and they can have or deal with getting enriched uranium and Iranians find it in the United States shows them the technology, when the shot was in office so we are dealing with a lot of historical issues. I think it is very dangerous at this moment because I happen to think the agreement with the Iranians is a good one and it did not deal with everything but it certainly put a limit on the capabilities and I think they don’t trust us and we don’t trust them. And now the Europeans are also feeling that they have been disrespected on this whole thing and I think it is very dangerous because there could be an accident or there any number of things and I think it was a big mistake for us to in addition to having Iran as designated terrorist state, designate the Iranian revolution and guard and it system gives a mix is to say our troops are terrorists and can choose them so there are any number of very bad situations and I think it is very dangerous. >>I do not think or I think there is some intelligence that has given some concern to the administration that explains the removal of unessential personnel from our Embassy in Baghdad and the buildup. I do know what that intelligence is but there clearly was a concern that Iran was looking and actions against our troops in up — in I rock. — Iraq and is hard to know and make some judgments about these troop movements without knowing that and I don’t know that and I think it is encouraging that the President has gone out his way and extreme leader of Iran has gone out of their way in the last 72 hours to back down the rhetoric and confrontation. The question remains what is the administration subject of with respect to Iran? There are some people who think that there are those in the administration who really think that sanctions if they get tough enough, if we cut off the oil we could actually change the regime in Iran. I think my historical judgment is that these regimes are much more resilient than people give them credit for. I take the administration at the word of what they are trying to do, is to get I ran to come back to the negotiating table and this is what the President said in the President said he is ready to get on an airplane tomorrow and to talk about the nuclear ration and see if you can improve on the nuclear agreement and get away to address other aspects of Iranian behavior that were not addressed in the nuclear agreement and ballistic program and disruption around the neighborhood. And look, it is an interest in the United States and her friends and allies if for that effort to succeed and I hope it does. >>Quickly as both of you about North Korea. We both wrestled with it and Madam Secretary, given your experience with North Korea and what you are seeing now, how do you assess the state of relationships between the two countries? >>I think they’re very bad because basically we do not know exactly what is going on in North Korea and by the way I believe we should have diplomatic relations with every country. Because we do not know what is going on in North Korea and we do not know enough about what is going on in Iran and having diplomatic relations is not a gift but a way of trying to assess with is going on so I was until recently the highest level sitting official to go to North Korea. And I sat there for Watt because we had no ambassador and we could not figure out what was happening. I do think we were in the middle of some negotiations with them with the father of this guy and he had even said we could keep our troops in South Korea. But I don’t wish to point fingers but the election of 2000 happened and there was a change in mood about what to do with North Korea and so we did not carry on the talks and then we found out they have been lying to us anyway about the fact that I was — >>[Laughter] >>Not the administration but North Koreans. >>[Laughter] >>And what happened was I was dealing with issues of Muslim and plutonium when they were in fact developing highly enriched uranium but I have to say the one thing I am totally responsible for Dennis Rodman because — >>Early in his life he said I would play baseball? >>[Laughter] >>The only thing that the intelligence community really told me that was true was that Kim Jong-Il love basketball so I went over with the basketball autographed by Michael Jordan which they have in their holy of holies so they have belief in the diplomatic aspect of basketball. But I do think that it is a dangerous situation because we do not quite know how he is operating and he does see on the sanctions the role of the Chinese and this is very important and the only thing the North Koreans have is a nuclear capability and they look at either what happened in Libya when Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons or what happened with the JCP OA when we made a deal and then cut it. I think it is bad. Cement Steve your thoughts on North Korea because I was struck I came across an editorial written in the Wall Street Journal by the former UN ambassador, John Bolton where he said that Bush team had taken agreements with North Korea at face value and they were never going to give this up and there was a huge mistake on the part of the Bush administration. He now is a part of the administration that is facing the same criticism, how do you assess what actually is happening with North Korea and is it Lucy with the football? Same thing over and over again and negotiations and then they lie and go on? >>The problem always with that is to say they will never give it up and the question is okay, then what is your policy then? And then how do you expect your allies are going to react if in fact we defect though except North Korea nuclear weapons state? And that is not a good outcome. And so the question is, can you do something better? Three administration, Clinton administration and the Bush administration and bombing — Obama administration did this bottom-up from the boys process and got agreements with North Korea and neither or none of those administrations were able to keep North Korea in those three. The Trump Administration has a different approach. The President started out by threatening and everybody thought it was a terrible thing and he will get us into war and had the effect of giving this new North Korean leader Kim Jong and got the Chinese attention and to fight wisdom and accept an invitation to meet with him and history was I think this is a new lung we — in leader and different than his father and I will try to convince him to make a strategic choice to move away from the existing model with this relied military force rely on nuclear weapon and your only real friend is China which is a difficult friend to have if you’re in North Korea and you are isolated and make a strategic choice and open yourself up and do what China did in 1979. Have a prosperous economy and that is the basis for your legitimacy with your people. We will welcome you into the international system and make a strategic choice and make a decision to give up nuclear weapon and that is what the President try to negotiate in Hanoi and it did not work. A lot of people criticize it and those of us who were dealing with North Korea and unblemished by success and a little bit humble in criticizing the administration so they try to different approach and I think they are now going to see if they can get the policy back and to try to do kind of in incremental trade for trade and other no whether it will work and we need to provide for the possibility that it does not. Which is through deterrence, and other measures, how to be able to reassure the neighborhood that if this process fails, people can still be secure. And we do not have everybody and his brother trying to develop a nuclear weapon in order to calm North Korea. So I would say administration have a different approach will then let us give it a shot but then obviously prepare for the worst if that should be the end we end up with. >>And the question. >>This goes back to that there Caddick process discussion earlier but a President makes a decision after an NSC meeting and how important is it for the members to know the rationale behind that decision and order for the system to operate well? >>Good. That is a good point. I think it is something that probably we do not pay enough attention to. The assumption I think a lot of the facilities have an — everybody is involved in the process, has had an opportunity to make their space to the President and to be heard by the President and at the end of the day her system being what it is when the President makes a decision, they will basically salute and execute its. Obviously though it is better if that decision is accompanied by a rationale and I think in some sense the pace of events are such that we tend to do things more orally now for example 30 or 40 years ago you would’ve probably had a more written rationale and how to find presidential decision and that is probably good practice but I think though in the modern-day the way the rest or the government finds out the rational that the President policy is where the President goes and explained it to the American people. And that piece of it is very important because at the end of the day a good decision is fine but it needs to be sustainable over time and it needs to be supported by the Congress and supported by the American people. And the President has to deliver that. President has to be able to explain and persuade and stay the course and until a policy can be successful and that is part of the presidential business, right? >>Madam Secretary as you pick up on the question isn’t this where leaks come from where the other members of the President committee our staff does not think there’s a resident for the final decision, they make their argument in the press and then suddenly everybody has more to do as they put those fires out. >>I think that is true but I think it is very hard to inform everybody of what you can or what you count on is that cabinet secretary would be told and then they would then spread the word that Steve makes an important point. There is no way to truly explain the rapidity of events so you would’ve had a critical meeting and President make a decision and you are already talking about the next principal meeting and it is just very quick succession or people travel or there is not that kind of codified way. The other part though and I do think informing Congress is very important which is why going up and testifying is something that is very much a part of the job and it is not pleasant because they are called hearings but they are often yelling where the members of Congress — and that is one advantage of being national security it visor you don’t have to go and testify but the bottom line is there does have to be an explanation. >>Can I mention something? We started with when you asked me what it would be like to be called into the White House, but what happen and I’m looking at Steve, the Bush administration actually did ask for advice and there was a time all of us former people were called in to be briefed on Iraq and that was very interesting, the President came in and he said, explained why we were in Iraq and talked about the importance of supporting democracy. And I am very pleased to hear that in fact this great university now is going to have a democracy Institute and I’m chairman of the board of the national Democratic Institute and night still believe in having it and it goes to the role of the United States but anyway the meeting is over and we are walking out and President Bush says he wanted to show me how the Oval Office look and I said Mr. President, I am so glad you asked us to support democracy. But you act as though you invented democracy. When actually I did and he laughed. >>[Laughter] >>So it is possible to have a rapport. >>Good relationship. All right, do you remember that? >>I do. Sum Secretary Albright you write in your memoirs that your approach of — brooches have special meaning but any significance on the when you’re wearing today? >>Yes, so thank you for — a lot of good stories with them and today I have an eagle. It has a lot to do with — I believe in the power of America and presidents of America and so I thought I would wear it here at this great university. And incredibly great presidents and I am very grateful to be an American and I will tell this story because I was not born in the United States but born in Czechoslovakia. I am a refugee. What happened was one of the things I like to do more than anything is to give people their naturalization certificate. The first time I did it actually was July four 2000 and Monticello. I figured since I had Thomas Jefferson job I could do that and so I gave this man his naturalization certificate and all of a sudden I hear him saying I just got my naturalization certificate from the Secretary of State and I am a refugee. I went up to him and I said can you believe a refugee is Secretary of State? That is what America is all about. >>[Applause] >>Thank you very much. >>Thank you all. >>Well done, well done.>>And announcement, please take your seats because we are about to begin panel 2.>>Thank you. Tough to follow but good morning and thank you for coming today, wonderful to see such a big crowd. My name is alla Sandy the chair of the Miller Center governing Council and this next panel is a discussion of the great powers, global economy in America changing world and it could not have happened without the support of David Goode a former councilmember and we want to honor David for the panel focusing on issues for which he cared very, very deeply, career politics and international economy. This panel is going to consider and discuss the changing nature of America’s role on the global stage. We are here to discuss those rework political dynamics are two of America’s most important public servants, of our generation, and Ben Sutter John Negroponte and Secretary Bob Rubin. >>[Applause] >>As well as the steam moderator . >>[Applause] >>– Ann Compton. Both of our panelists have a substantial experience in examining America’s global world and John Negroponte has served as some of the most and port and positions in the US government including director of national intelligence, ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary or Deputy Secretary of State, and as a diplomat in the countries from Latin America, Middle East, Asia. Today he is retired from government service and now serves as vice chair of McCarty and Associates and/enter a professor at the Miller Center a distinguished visiting professorship for global states person. Bob Rubin served as secretary of treasury and actually knew him long before that, but also head of the national economic Council under President Clinton and his government involved a period of eight years of uninterrupted economic growth while addressing some really significant international financial crises in both Latin America in 1995 and Asia in 1997. Bob has been chairman of the Council of foreign relations and the local initiatives support Corporation. We are also very excited to have our own Ann Compton with us — navigating a conversation today and is an award-winning journalist was career covering politics from the presidency for ABC, stands seven presidencies. And Ann Compton we are proud she is one of our members of our governing Council and honor to have her lead us today in this discussion. I will turn it over to you. >>Thank you. >>[Applause] >>Great power, where are we now at the end of the or now that the 20 centuries over and well into the funny first century? With you gentlemen today — 21st century today and with you gently we want to talk about the generation in the world and hang on to your wallets because we will talk about these financial positions the United States is in and I will start with you, secretary Bob Rubin, talking about is there an international order now? And where is it headed? >>Well I think in a word, John probably knows more about this and I do but we certainly had a world order dominated by the US afterworld were 2 and you and and so forth and a lot of it is broken down. In my view at least and I will get directly to your question, consisted of democratic countries with commitment to market-based economics and some physical monetary policy in governments that dealt to some degree with effectiveness with her is you and globalization and then they engagement with transnational opportunities like trade and investment and transactional threats which are geopolitical and national security. And I think a lot of it is broken down at least process of breaking it down and I think it is absolutely critical that that get reestablished in some form or another and I was late effects or conditions or we dominate both nuclear but we will not dominate going forward but if we reestablish some reasonable and a lot what we had after World War II and I think it is critically important that we do the United States will have to play a major role and that means in a word, that we have to deal effectively with their own issues and our own domestic and international policy issue so our economy can succeed which I think every capacity we are doing it but not unless it would be good to have a functional government of Congress with a willingness to engage in the rest and play a leadership role and I think we have to go along with China . I don’t think and John may disagree with this but I think when you look at the transnational threats and climate change, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass instruction and pandemics and all the rest they could be catastrophic. Any of our countries and none of us are bigger stronger enough to deal with it ourselves but I think the UN and etc. I don’t think there will ever be or I don’t think they are particularly effective to begin with and I think that is are from that baseline, and I think the best chance we have is to develop a constructive relationship with China starting on that path at the moment. >>You wrote in the New York Times about five months ago about the importance of getting the relationship right with China and saying a vicious cycle describing relationship is a vicious cycle further poisoning and already shallow well of goodwill. How important is that relationship and other signs of getting better or worse? >>I spoke with counsel recently and what I said in those remarks was enormous uncertainty about the future of the relationship and what would be like but for certain 21st century will be different if we have a constructive relationship as opposed to adversarial relationship and I think it is imperative both climate change is a reality and Paul said not this to long ago if you look back at a climate change and years ago these developments in the threats and materializing a lot more rapidly than predicted so why would not think that is likely to be true going forward? Weapons of mass destruction and North Korea, North Korea at some point will they decide to sell nuclear material to a terrorist group? That is an immense catastrophic threat to us in China so we have an imperative self-interest in both that an economic as well and working together and right now I think that is right and I think what I said and that article was correct and there’s a pulling apart and a lot of wariness of both countries even animosity and I think it has to start and I may be wrong about this but it has to start with administration and a country that is committed to the concept of a constructive relationship and mutual self- interest and then returned to China and find out whether or not they are receptive. >>John, disagree? >>I do not disagree but first of all I think we need a system and the Brentwood system is still the only one we have, right? It has not been replaced and interestingly when you hear the Chinese talk about it and I have attended meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister and others where they talk about their commitment to upholding the international system established after World War II. Up until recently at least I think what they’ve been arguing was for a larger share of the pie, more seats at the IMF and more capital contribution and when they felt slightly real tough — rebuffed I think they explored other alternatives for institutions of their own like the Asian infrastructure, — bank, one belt when road project but I don’t think that is still redeemable. Any international system requires both a system and then it requires great power commitment to upholding it but both parts of that are essential. I think the trouble for the problem we are grappling with, with regard to China, and I went to China first in 1972 with Dr. Henry Kissinger, back then they had no economy at all and when we established relationships in 1979 we did not know what we would buy from China. And of course today they are a feared economy and I think we’re having difficulty adjusting to this new and changed reality but I think adjust we must like Bob said, if we don’t, a lot of the international issues that we confront global issues that we confront are just going to be that much harder if not impossible, to deal with. I was kind of hopeful when President Obama and Xi Jinping reach their agreement in 2000 16 on climate change. >>I thought that was a very positive thing and then the President whom I do not just gratuitously with SAS on everything he describes and I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt but I do think not always so easy — >>Not always so easy — >>Right, but I’m still a Republican. >>[Laughter] >>Not so easy either, my friend. >>[Laughter] >>But I think the two of the most significant errors that he committed that he did in his first day of the presidency, one was to withdraw from the transpacific economic partnership that had been painstakingly negotiated in the prior administration and the second was to withdraw from the Paris claimant Accord. I don’t think it would’ve been that costly to the United States in terms of obligations to just a pull that agreement but I think it would’ve been a disciplining framework if you will for the other 190+ countries of the world. Sum let us expand this to have trade headlights — >>One comment I think what you will find and John knows more about it than I do but you will find increasing quarters in this country at least is this concept we need to contain China and I think the concept is widely wrong and in my opinion which onset we need to accept it as economic and political peer and that we need to reach out to them and say — and with the EU and others by the way, the way we did the stray thing and most important check instead of fighting with the EU we should’ve gone to the EU and then all go in together so now we need to do that — >>That would’ve been the advantage of the Pacific partnership. >>We could’ve been dealt with China as an integral part. >>Absolutely. But this has to start with an American administration that is committed to at least to this concept of a constructive relationship and I do not or not critical of anybody but like I said — >>[Laughter] >>There’s an animus towards TriNet which I think is against our self-interest. >>A couple of the economist, came out shows a great big American Eagle or tune of a great American Eagle who speak is a big yellow ship flying a Chinese flag. Are we moving into what I think you Mr. Bassett are and I talked about, being and you kind of Cold War in the 21st century? >>Well, I think that there’s a danger of that whatever word you use, so let us go back to the beginning here, we have established relations in 1979 and we had the Nixon initiative in China in 1972 and four eight consecutive presidencies, the relationship with China was kind of a win-win, positive some relationship and that is a way resident chose to view it and if leadership to assert that I think everybody went along with that notion. It has gotten harder admittedly because some of the things that China has done. But I do believe that the way to deal with the kind of issues that trouble us about China — >>Let the crew know the speaker here on the stage is throwing a some static. >>It is emanating from Washington. >>[Laughter] >>It was made in China. >>[Laughter] >>Now, would you believe me if I said Beijing? >>[Laughter] >>Very good. The new world. >>The one that we are in. There are issues and they are serious, no question about it and we were perhaps naC/ve and somewhat just too complacent in the way we dealt with China and some of the issues like intellectual property obligatory , domestic — when you have tech transfer and making investments in China, so on and so forth. But I think those things can be dealt with with setting up some kind of US China economic framework built on the dialogues we’ve had in the past and try to get a trade agreement with China. We don’t even have a basic treated — trade agreement with them and let us do that but I think there was working the issue on a basis of some kind of mutual respect and partnership rather than just automatically going right to the adversarial alternative. The adversarial diploma position if you will which seems to be the tendency at the moment. >>One companion comment, Larry Summers and I were a form in early March, and we said the same thing which was to agree with things that John just said and the companion I think companion point is we have to get our own economic policy house in order because unless we are successful economically we cannot accomplish anything we want to do including developing into a peer to peer constructive relationship with China. We really have not and in my opinion at least, we have not dealt with great preponderance of our own economic policy for the past 15+ year because of the unwillingness or a lot of reasons but one of them is unwillingness to engage in the kind of principle compromise that are system required and moving forward and I will just one quickly, in 1997, I was in the Oval Office, with President Clinton and on the phone with Trent Lott and his end of the negotiation panel stage of negotiation 97,000 — enormously important agreement, and present Clint put his hand over the phone on the telephone, and said Trent Lott wants us to lower capital gains what you think? I said no, Mr. President Turbo lady and got on the phone and said yes, we will lower the capital gains tax. [Laughter] but the point is that he recognize which I did not recognize that was a cost of getting something that he cared about a lot more than what he gave a. We lost that Washington. >>So many places to go from here and we will take your questions and a little bit so please do texts them into the numbers that will be displayed appear. Before we leave China, I want to throw in the idea of North Korea. Doesn’t it appear that this administration would like to use its influence with China to bring about change with North Korea and if — and it is not working. Cement I have discussed, North Korea with my Chinese counterparts when I ran as a dip very sector state I let the dialogue with my son apart whose estate counselor for foreign affairs and we went over this ground hundreds, dozens of times and the answer always I said why can’t you use your economic influence to supply them with food and energy and you talk to them all the time? He said they are not easy customers. And they have their own way and believe me, you have tough clients and we have tough clients. I think that was sort of the attitude. We are not going to be able to influence them as much as you would like. So that is one point and the other is of course they always wanted to have this direct dialogue with the United States, right? And lastly I would say if you look back to 1990 or the beginning of the Clinton administration where we made the first agreement with North Korea, they agreed framework, it is kind of been one step forward and two steps back ever since that time. Not really been any interruption of that trend so we have reached the point now where they have a number of nuclear weapons and all the different capabilities and of course they have missile technology as well so they’ve just become progressively more dangerous. I think Mr. Trump decided I will try something different, just go meet with this fellow and see if we can get anywhere while they got a bit of a suspension but that does not look like that is working too well at this moment either. Regrettably I think we are sort of back to square one. >>At the end of the Clinton Administration we thought there was even a chance President Clinton would try to go with North Korea. >>I don’t know much about North Korea but could ask on a question? It strikes me and I focus for longtime, Clinton, Bush, Obama all could’ve start to do with this in a forceful way when the risk were lower than they are today and none of them chose to because of the risk at the time sort of scene down the road to note this may be wrong but kind of binary either we do something maybe dramatic or wind up with a rogue nation in the hands of a very strange, individual to say the least, where ICBM nuclear reaching the East Coast of the United States. >>I don’t know the answer to your question and that is why the President gets the big bucks that he does. >>Right. >>Still Secretary of Defense, he wanted to do that, beginning of the Clinton Administration, and I cannot remember whether he advocated and got be towed or withdrew from his own position. But that was seriously thought of back in the early 1990s. I think pretty dangerous now. >> John, it would be dangerous but isn’t it dangerous to have this quite unusual individual with ICBM that are nuclear? I think we are in a binary situation and all choices are terrible but not so sure which is the least terrible. >>Okay when George Bush and something I know bit about because I said in the oval when he would talk to me about it, George Bush during his presidency sent a message I think it was to who Jintao or his predecessor, Saint look I want to be clear and I want you to convey a message to North Korea that if they get these nuclear capabilities up the sky is the limit as far as our relationship is concerned and you can have full diplomatic and economic relationships and security guarantees and the whole nine yards and I believe that is sort of trumps attitude towards North Korea as well but that does not seem to be enough and he is offered a choice that you can have funds — buns or butter but does not want to give up all the guns to get the butter. Sum >>I’m not sure I would not do the same thing as he is. Cement I know because he fears what happened to Qaddafi for example. And now we have lived with some other rogue states. They have developed nuclear capabilities outside the nuclear nonproliferation Treaty. Like Pakistan for example. And they have a lot of nuclear weapons. We have sort of manage the situation but we always hate to get to that point of reconciling ourselves to the existence of another or yet another nuclear weapon. >>I will bring up now going back to the American economy, which a lot of people find their retirement accounts are getting fatter and their jobs or unemployment is way down, if the importance of our role internationally is to first get your house in order here, things are going okay? >>No. >>Why? >>If you go back to 2008 in 2009, when Obama — actually it was George W. Bush and then Obama with Tim and to all this thing, they got a speck out of the crisis that we were on the brink, really were. I think that might’ve been the title of his book, right? But we were in the break or on the brink. We have had a straight line ever since and now we are full employment and full capacity, and I think we have done almost nothing to deal with the policy issues that will determine whether or not we succeed in the years and decades ahead. I spoke to a friend of mine the other day who is a chief of research actually chief of — research Department much broader job than but major institution I would say and I say if you take the tax cut what you think the or the effect will be on the growth over 10 years and he said I think the average growth effect will be zero. And I think that is probably correct I would not or if there was a physical tragedy we have a small stimulus and last year and maybe coming back into this year, but basically this economy has been building on itself through this whole time and I think in terms of all these issues from the human capital issues we used to deal with an infrastructure, basic research, overcoming poverty, environmental issues including climate change I think sound fiscal policy, you probably know this but right now are deputy give or take seminary percent and CEO 103% 10 years from now the call current pose basis, and rising from there we are not on the sustainable path. Instead of dealing with these issues, we are simply not addressing any of these issues at the federal level. No, I think we have a great opportunity and enormous strength and I think we’re doing virtually none of what we need to do to realize the potential that we have. >>We are not consolidating the healthcare issue either. >>My Lord, yes, healthcare system is actually broken and we spent give or take 18% of GDP on healthcare and other democracies about 10% in our system is not providing better outcomes that we have been universal situation that I think is detrimental both in terms of fiscal effects and absolutely correct , competitive. Cement what bothers me is the father of relatively young children between the age of 37 and 23, if they lose their job or do not have a job for little while, they have to scramble for their health insurance. >>The think of making or touching it so much to your type of employment I think in the long run a real disadvantage. To the workforce. Cement absolutely because we need a whole different system but what that system would be is another complicated issue.>>This leads me to kind of the heart of what the Miller Center is about. Talking about democracy through the lens of the presidency. >>Can have one more thing and I apologize? >>Yes. >>Invited this year might as will talk. You can ask us to leave I guess. >>[Laughter] >>We have had enormously increasing inequality and young people today, when you look at them, there’s a loss of faith in our economic system. And I think this is what I think, there is no country in the world today and no economy that is successful that does not have its own reasonable degree of attainment even China starting with going through these guys, a little more complicated on the ground and even China and India basically committed to market-based economic and China a little complicated. I don’t think there’s any question that that is the right form of organizing economic activity but the problem is the whole wide range of problems and issues that market some please won’t do — all kinds of things, and for that you need to have effective government and that is what we do not have an rising a problem is not a market place system and I think what is the immense problem is inability to function respectively as a government deal with the many, many issues that are critically important to both the functioning of our economy and social safety nets in dealing with inequality and wage etc. >>It would help if for the last 30 years competition had not just automatically assumed all government officials were bad. >>That is terrible, John. I was with President Clinton once after he gave a speech and refer to government officials as bureaucrats and I was with him after and I will never do that again he said. He had enormous respect really did for government officials and some recent he had that term and said I will never do that again. >>Absolutely right. >>Let us look at and I want to touch quickly on NAFTA mac which you negotiated. >>Yes. >>Call it Hills negotiation. US trade representative and I was ambassador to Mexico. Sum he had 4 jobs in the American government with the exception of Walker Bush. >>NAFTA, the way this President thought about throwing it out, renegotiating I guess, still work in progress, or is that going? >>This comes back and I will answer the question in a minute but it also comes back to the question just like we were talking about national security and the previous panel, the need for a system so the international economic order needs a system too and one of the systems we devised is to have these regional trade accords of which NAFTA was one and it was one of the first after we started negotiating free-trade agreements in the 1980s with Reagan administration. The third or fourth or so. >>It was a tremendous success in President Clinton was responsible for the ratification one of the first to approve the Congress the level of trade is tripled or quadrupled between us and Mexico during that time. More than $1 trillion worth of trade going between Canada and the US and Mexico and that is a good thing. I think the President ultimately realized that after saber rattling I guess against NAFTA and I think Sonny Perdue when in the secretary of ECHO culture went in and said Mr. President you realize in all 50 states either the first or second best customer for American agriculture products is Mexico? And you’re about to check the NAFTA over the side? I think they’re going to do their best to save it, a bit precarious but I think we are ultimately going to get it. >>Is this any way to run a government? >>We are getting there and be thankful that he actually didn’t do like what he did to DPP and decide to withdraw from. >>What happens, John, and I have no idea where this stands but what happens of democratics in Houston that supported? >> It stands in a couple of different places because it has been negotiated and there where the steel and aluminum takes which I believe we have decided will not apply to Canada and Mexico and that was a dealbreaker for the Canadians and Mexicans. So now I think the issue and some discussion about whether the labor legislation that the Mexicans just passed is sufficient and reach the bar that is been set in the minds of many Democrats but I understand that there have been talks with Pelosi and that she may, may, be disposed to given the agreement a vote before the end of the year when the administration decides to set it up. >>How do I handicap it? I would say 50-50. But I do not think the President is going to abandon it. Cement quick question before we opened questions from both of you who have stepped out of government had been at the very highest levels. >>Do presidents get the economic and financial information that they need and enough advice as the previous panel said, give a President conflicting advice to make sure he or she has choices? And then I would as the same thing particularly of John Negroponte of intelligence , what do you do when you walk in the Oval Office and the President does not believe what you’re telling them? Starting on economic. >>He did not believe me then I would not be happy. It depends on the President. During the transition in 1992 after the election we met with Governor Clinton resident elect Clinton in Little Rock and he sat around with incoming economic team and said I’m no leader of the free world, and he said, but if you don’t tell me what you really believe, I am dead and truly through that whole eight years whenever he said something he wanted people to disagree and nobody disagreed a look around the table and say what is the other point of view so if you have a President who has a kind of intellectual curiosity who sets up processes and abides by them and set up the NEC because he wanted to get exactly what we said, wanted to your other points of view on any issue that he face and I want to be able to reach his own decision on a fully informed basis, if that is not a President you have intellectual curiosity wants to hear your dissent and rather than reject or discouraging dissent, you’ll have a well-informed President to make decisions. If you like those various characteristics seems to meet you have a President who is making decisions on highly inadequate basis. >>Mr. ambassador, — >>I will not comment on the current administration. >>[Laughter] >>Mr. Bassett — >>Wasn’t that an economic question? >>[Laughter] >>Mr. ambassador, after 9/11, you were chosen by President Bush to be the first director of national intelligence involving the intelligent agencies connecting the.. Do you think from what you can see from the outside for the American intelligence community is giving good information to this administration, because sometimes the White House chooses not to believe it.>>Right, will again we went through this and you know how Mr. Trump is, he will make kind of a statement very controversial and then back away from them over time. I think he has ultimately done that with the intelligence community initially he was saying he was not going to take the daily intelligence brief remember that? Presidential daily brief. He called it the so-called intelligence community. Cement you used to go in — >>Yes, I went. Cement every morning into the Oval Office. >>Is making the time I was with the intelligence office we would go in and brief to brief the President every day and of course Mr. Bush had that discipline, Bush 43, and Bush 41, even more because he had been the head of the CIA and I think they trusted the intelligence community and I think what they also realized is the intelligence is not a panacea, right? Is the best available information that we can obtain and then the best available analysis that you can apply to whatever it is you collect. And then what it helps you do is narrow the level of uncertainty, uncertainty was this white before you started, maybe you could narrow it down to that. In this complicated world, there’s always going to be risks involved in the decisions you make even if you have a terrific intelligence. Look at the effort to capture bin Laden, that was a very probabilistic decisions about whether he was or not in that house. Whatever it was, 40 7030 and I hate making decisions when I know there is a 40% chance of error. They are, the President took the chance and it turned out to be right. I think we have an intelligence community as good as any in the world, bar none. I think we have tremendous methods of collection, and we have a terrific community of analyst and these people when you go to the CIA or DIA, you meet people who have PhD’s in their area of expertise, who were real recognize scholars in their field and their the ones where analyzing China and Russia and so forth. That is very impressive and the last point I would make is that technology has been our friend. You talked about connecting the dots, I mean in the old days the FBI was keeping intelligence they collected on yellow legal pads and stashing them away in field offices and that is no way to integrate intelligence in our days we really use intelligence, computers and technology so that we can integrate aerial and geospatial intelligence and signals intelligence and human intelligence. So the point we could do something like find bin Laden or so Cowie, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq and he was killed because somebody got all of his telephone numbers and we were able to integrate that with aerial surveillance of it and finally we were able to get him through geospatial location efforts. Yes, we are much better at that than we used to be. Far better. >>Mr. Secretary? >>It occurred to me as John was talking about decisions, question of how do you inform President and so forth, when we decided Irwin Larry Greenspan said if we did not engage in supporting Mexico it would have make a negative effect. We went to see the President and I think the point here is that this was enormously complex and every significant issue is complex but we you need is a President who recognizes complexity and we said to the President, you’re right about this it is uncomfortable for problems and solutions to be probabilistic and we will not guarantee this will work and your politics may be difficult but we think the odds are in our favor and he related both to recognizing complexity of the decision and then to the complexity of our approach which was probabilistic and I think that is what you need in a President and I remember once sitting around the covenant room with him about something or another and so he said to me this is like a graduate seminar but used to beckon you think one of these people is a President in the United States and that is what you need in a President I think if you’re going to have an effective decision-making apparatus at the top of the administration. >>Real quick, real quick. Sum in the previous panel there was a lot of discussion about the way presidents organize to carry out their foreign policy.>>I would like to emphasize that every President has his own personal style all the way from Larry to Franklin Roosevelt and people in the White House, and he ran the largest war effort that ever could run in the history of mankind, pretty successfully. So there are many different variants to this model and related and quickly we were talking about the NSP advisor and secretary of defense and secretary of state and it is critical that those three people get along. Otherwise you have a lot of dysfunctionality and decision- making process. >>I can cite numerous holes with that. Some ladies and gentlemen, question from you and we have students will begin to read the questions and thank you so much. Cement hello and thank you for joining us. Although both of you agree the US air of supremacy cannot last our current President has promises of making America great again and how can you reconcile this sentiment with the reality of America’s changing role in the international order? >>You want to repeat the question? >>Maybe John got it because I did not. Some I think I can answer even if I cannot repeat the question. I can try to answer, — >>What did you tell them? >>I think the question was, in light of our — cement repeat it. Go ahead. >>[Laughter] >>All right. >>Sorry. >>Although both of you agree the US air of supremacy or global antimony cannot last our current President went on a promise of making America or America great again how can you reconcile this public sentiment with America’s reality in the Geo political sphere? >>I will give you a quick answer and John will give you more knowledge. >>[Laughter] >>I think the global order will not work and I don’t think we will have an effective transnational approach to climate change and nuclear weaponry and I don’t think it will have a successful global economy unless United dates a strong and effective economically and then reaches out on a multilateral basis. Working with the rest of the world. Does not mean we will be the hegemon any more because we are not and John said this before we need to expect this and recognize China will be a peer infect largest economy in the world not just friendship and that work with at least I think what I’m about to say is a little bit antithetical me been awake the next talk about such things, but I think we sort of have to have an informal almost new kind of arrangement with them although never declaring to be such. But I don’t think any of this will work unless we are effective in our own economic policy. Processes. And their respective economy. >>Richard Haas wrote this book saying economy begins at home and I don’t think we should sell ourselves short though and maybe our position in relative terms is somewhat different today because of the rising China. But on the other hand we are still a heck of a strong country both the economy and the start of our military budget and capabilities of our military which are unparalleled. And the strength of many though not all of some of our social institutions like University system which is still the envy of the world. So you know maybe a position has declined somewhat but I would not write us off. >>Yes, you are familiar with facility strap, that is what we need to avoid but I think John is absolutely right we have tremendous strengths and I would rather invest here into business in the United States and any other economy but it does depend on our political system coming back and does not mean we have to be stronger than China but just be strong ourselves and work with China and the rest of the world. >>This question, thank you. >> Our second question is some believe economic sanctions can and have resulted in successful democratization in the successful achievement of other US foreign policy goals. Do you believe this administration strategy of continued and increased sanctions is effective? >>John? >>Secretaries of treasury traditionally and Bob will correct me if I am wrong have not necessarily liked sanctions because it is contrary to the notion of free and open market and free trade and so forth. I can remember a number of times running into that kind of reaction. One we wanted to put sanctions on the Noriega regime in Panama. >>I think now things have rather changed dramatically the whole enforcement division, law enforcement side of the Treasury Department , it has become very, very large and the have an intelligence position and they built the the office of foreign assets control. And they got very much in 9/11 and after 9/11, looking for terrorists and so forth and it was a very good but I want to rot a who worked on these issues during that period after 9/11 both treasury war and there were happy to get into this sort of combat against international terrorism but how effective all of it is I would credit the sanctions and the efforts to tie up the money of terrorists and things like that more than I would the sanctioning against the different regimes. Sometimes I have questions about how effective that really is. And once you impose them, they are very hard to lift. Sum those sanctions work best when there multilateral. >>Yes. >>My view whatever it is worth I think we are wrongheaded in this and we are behaving as though we are the big bully on the street and sanction all the people we disagree with and I think that is not going to work. I think it creates animosity in the long run and makes us unreliable partners and a green and one thing or another if we pull out of them but I think we are positioning ourselves that now and in the long term and I think we should be reaching out to work with other countries and then the use of sanctions should be the rare exception rather than what seems to be their centerpiece of the foreign policy. Cement we do have some agreed sanctions against North Korea and agreed once against I ran and I’ll give you an example of when I do not think is particularly wise and all these individual sanctions against Venezuela political and military leaders and I don’t think I believe that is move the needle in terms of replacing the maduro regime. He has enough of a dictator to not be bothered by the fact that some of his people are laboring under economic sanctions from the United States. >>Next question. >>Is there a reason in today’s economic system to renew our enforcement of antitrust laws? >>I don’t think that traditional or traditional interest serves a purpose and it can be used when necessary but I don’t think that is the issue anymore and Jason ferment chairman of the CEA and second term of Obama wrote a good paper in which he argued that traditional antitrust laws do not deal with the issues the country now faces which is some of the companies have become very large and engaging in monopolistic practices and very sized and discourages a may be almost impossible competition in the areas they are involved with. His view and that paper was that we need to rethink how we deal with corporate size as opposed to thinking of it in traditional antitrust terms and it is a lot of focus on it now with at least some of the Democratic presidential candidate whether dealing with serious purpose or goodness and I don’t know but I think there’s a serious underlying issue of what we do about these companies that become so dominant that really discourages competitive activity in the areas that they are in. >>Next question. Thank you. >>You discussed internal economic challenges. In addition to the challenges to her social safety net to what degree does deepening domestic inequality affect America’s role in the global economy? >>Repeat the last part. So make sure. In addition to the challenges to her social safety net, to what degree does deepening domestic inequality affect America’s role in the global economy? >> Go ahead. Cement I think your problem is this Alan Greenspan said this to me many years ago, he said if you are not going to get and not enough this is right but you will not get public support and therefore not get political support for sound economic policy globalization, market-based economics, flexible labor and capital markets and all that which goes with these approaches, unless the great preponderance of American people expect to benefit from them and in the world we are in today, the majority of the American people are not benefiting from the economic growth that we have. So I think the answer to your question is, we have to have or you can have a whole array of policies which I think would be inclusive growth policies, that would address inequality and address wage stagnation and have an economy in which the benefits are very widely shared which would think of as political support we need for good policies that are populism and nationalism . I think dealing with inequality is central to our economy and therefore our place in the world. >>[Applause] >>So the US national debt is a huge concern for many Americans and other than national tax of some sort, what other viable options exist? >>Could you repeat or ratio is at the course and? >>Reducing national debt. >>I don’t think it is very complicated.>>[Laughter] >>Okay, what is complicated is the politics and not the substance. Tax revenues as a percent of GDP in the units is projected for this year give or take 16 and have percent. Full employment economy over long period of time is 18.5% and demographics for whatever it was that you think you should be higher but at the end of the Clinton administration we had excellent economic conditions, it was a little bit over 20%. We need a very very substantial increase in revenue and it should be and I think only clinical reality is that ultimately will be on highly progressive basis. But the politics of all that are to say or extremely difficult. >>Do you want to add? >>Just one thing, the only thing Republicans and Democrats in Congress can seem to consistently agree upon is to spend money for each other’s budget. I will support your budget if you support mine. And there and I think last part of the problem. I mean, there is no real frugality anymore. >>John, I agree with that. I really do agree with that payment you may not agree with this but when push one for those tax cuts, I set with the merits of the and you can argue with it but I don’t think it was a good idea but I think what he would do as it would undermine the code which is fragile and — the political code or coalescence I should say fiscal discipline and everything that both parties said simply further erode that and when this tax cut past the winches past I can tell you there are a lot of Democrats that were saying that was fiscally responsible but if they can do responsible why can we do that? That is a pathway to tradition a terrible place for us to be in political. Cement I think we can get in 2 more questions. >>We started out by talking about the Bretton Woods system. What qualities if any of that system should we keep as we rethink the international order or what qualities do you think need to be changed to better fit today’s political reality? Seven Beasley something there — >>I’m not sure what I would change. So much as what I would just try to make work. I think when countries other than the developed world seek to reform the international system, what they are usually asking for is more of a voice and what is done. I can think better about the UN Security Council example where there are people like to countries like India, and others that are arguing the system you set up at the end of World War II does not reflect the geopolitical realities and the demographic realities of the day and that is the angle I would look at more which means more inclusion in the decision-making and the activities of the different institutions. Will give you an example, OECD, I think we have been a little stingy about letting certain countries into the OECD over the years and I think that should be a more inclusive organization. >>I think I agree with John and I would add in the 90s in response to Mexico and Asia, and even Russia although — that was because the United States was such a powerful force. And John may disagree with this but I think the probability of the IMF, World Bank, and the UN, been sufficiently effective to deal with the transnational challenges we now face, and I hope I am wrong but I think no matter what is done I think it is very low. They have no enforcement, we all know that, not efficient — they have no enforcement capability and decision-making process massively complicated and that is what I said before I think a relationship with China is still critically important because the 2 of us together can work on these issues and then I think you have a real force. >>Also although we have not talked about it, that is not forget that these institutions may be part of the problem but they are not all of it and really the individual governance of individual countries is probably more important issue in terms of the well-being of the world because everyone of these failed states ends up being a huge drag on the global economy and political system. So when you have systematic failure in certain regions of the world, that becomes a huge problem that then becomes or suppresses a capability of any of these institutions to deal with. >>Last question, please. >>What are the main lessons from the oh eighth financial crisis ? Are we headed for another and are we prepared? >>Telus quick . >>[Laughter] >>Something we could use. >>That is not an uncomplicated question. If you go back to 2008, there were a lot of people talking about excesses , but virtually nobody saw the possibility of the worst crisis since the 1930s but that occurred and unfortunately for us and unfortunately for you the United states our political system reacted well to it. We did a stimulus, car, enormously difficult politically as we know and the Fed did all kinds of measures, and so we dealt with it and then we did a financial reform to try to deal with what had not been recognized but turned out to be vulnerabilities of our system and we have to consumer protection agency assuming it is run perfectly for large part it has been and I know but the moment. I don’t think it was particularly important but nevertheless we had measures. The problem now it seems to me is that response was a function of a political system that even in all of her difficulty functioned effectively. There will be another crisis and sooner or later it will not come from the simply some big banks are okay now. Big financial institutions are okay and a lot of the small I am if you and so may disagree with this but you can have a cascading problem with smaller institutions that could then be analog of something that happened to the big sufficient but the question is will our political system deal with it effectively? I think that is much more of a question today than it was then. The place that I worry most about when I think about a crisis is our fiscal trajectory. As I said a moment ago, it is steeply increasing debt to fee ratio and none of the facts are being dealt well, very few of the effects are being felt now and I do think at some point there is not an ultimate and total and definitely free run and I think that poses a very serious risk with the timing and factors around it that may precipitate it. And we don’t know what would happen. Summit what would happen in the history? >>John, I think that it — if you look at people now we are writing the position so matter and exactly what you do and they say interest rates are low and therefore ineffective and that is fine until they are no longer low. And then remember the Greek bonds traded at a very narrow spread for years and years and years and I used to say to people and not a know much about grease but does that make any sense and they said you are worried about something that does not happen and but it did happen and when it happened it was dramatic and that crisis so things are market can change and I think that is exactly right the can change very quickly and if interest rates all of a sudden strike up we are in it extremely difficult position. >>I want to bring this to a close impact to some things that the President Jim Ryan said at the beginning of our President today, big ideas that we are dealing with here. They talked about the idea of democracies are not as thriving in the world, the spread of democracy, strength of some democracies are not as strong in other countries with successful democracies. Not as numerous as they once were. What would you saying to a new administration after 2020 election, not just this President but a congressional leadership, the kind of agencies that the government and the American public , what will this country need going forward in 2020? What priorities are the going to have to focus on? I will start with Ambassador John Negroponte . >>Improvement of democracy? >>And position in the world. >> Well, we are here with the founders, right? Three of the first secretary of state and two presidents or three also , and in the papers they wrote, Federalist papers, they talked about the need for an educated electorate. Democracy cannot exist unless each citizen takes it upon him or herself to actually be knowledgeable about the kind of issues and problems that we are dealing with. So we desperately need to strengthening the interest in and the commitment to educating our citizenry and civic topics. I think that was the probably — my priority number 1, as far as strengthening our democracy system. >>Secretary Bob Rubin ? >>I would disagree a little bit with the way your President is framing that, there are fewer democracies but almost no successful democracies today and if you define success as meaning functioning effectively to do with the issues they face a look at us and look at the or in terms of what I would say to the President, I think I would say that what you ought to do is decide what your policy agenda is going to be, with respect to creating an inclusive growth economy so that we have strong growth and widespread anticipation I think you should do just what John said and I think you should take a leadership role in educating the American people in apolitical people, a non- ideological nonpolitical way about these issues and then I think you should reach out to the opposition in Congress or wherever they may be, unseat if you can create some kind of coming together and recognize and Fritz Mondale Tommy when I was there we always fought with all kinds of stuff but at the end of the day most of the members of the Senate were committed to governing. And some recognizing all these differences in political or another nevertheless see if you can reach some coming together around national purpose and also reach out to the American people who are so much divisiveness right now and see if you can bring the bearable — market people back together yet despite varying views around — greatness of this country and the values that was created for, and its potential for enormous success going forward if we can function effectively. >>So the function is or question is can you have an effective economy in a society of 340 million people? >>It is a challenge, right? And I think we have to be able to do it. >>And I would throw and that the media needs to do more as well. Sum that is meant please thank both Secretary Bob Rubin and Ambassador John Negroponte. >>[Applause]>>Thank you to Ann Compton , for moderating the terrific conversation. >>[Applause] >>I’m the director of Miller Center and thrilled to have you here with us and many familiar faces in the crowd and if you’re new to the University or the Miller Center, we study the American presidency and public policy and where an office of the President of the University and working with all the other schools and centers of the University to bring important ideas to policymakers and the public and we are thrilled to have you with us. A few housekeeping items and if you’re going to lunch break out session, they are listed in the program and if you can get one coming in, stacks of programs on the tables upstairs and follow the ushers and other volunteers and student volunteers, in the orange T- shirts and they will get you to the five breakout sessions. They start at 12:30 PM and you will need a ticket for the lunch, ticket one B works for lunch and then the afternoon planner is here are it 2:30 PM and you will be ticket one C for that and doors open at 1:30 PM. I want to thank the two students who ask questions Baltazar and Ann Kita. >>[Applause] >>Alessandra to open the session and governing Council of the Miller Center who helped make this possible and all of you for coming and we look forward to seeing you over the next three days. And thank you. >>[Applause]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *