First I want to begin by thanking Reagent Weiser and Eileen Weiser for their generous donation to establish the Weiser Diplomacy Center. Many of you know Ron served as a U.S. Ambassador to Slovakia and Eileen served alongside him in their time in Bratislava. They are both passionately committed to the importance of diplomacy and to the men and women who serve our country abroad. They’re wonderful friends of the Ford School and of the University of Michigan and we’re grateful for their strong support of our school. Ron and Eileen this session today honors your work and the legacy you are providing to the students at the Ford School, University of Michigan and more broadly the realm of international relations. Thank you. [Applaus] I want to tell you a little bit about the Weiser Diplomacy Center. It serves as a unique hub for policy dialogue preparing our students to become our nation's next foreign policy leaders and experts in foreign affairs. As a meeting point for practitioners whose careers span the apex of foreign policy, the WDC provides a bridge between the University of Michigan and the foreign policy community. With ron and Eileen's help, the WDC can become a leading institution for international affairs. Three pillars guide the work. Hands on practical training and mentorship for rising foreign affairs including practice in international diplomacy, internships that span the globe. Our students have been placed in such sites as the organization for security and cooperation in Europe and the leading development organization in India. The WDC also funds shorter initiatives. Such as travelling to Beijing and third engagement with a foreign policy community on a wide array of topics ranging from peace and security to development to human rights and the environment. Our lineup this fall reflects our commitment to exposing our students to a breath of experiences and policy perspectives. Including Steve began last we're. Today's panelists. Stephen Hadley, Liz SCHRAYER and later Condoleeza Rice. It's moments of political divide such as we find ourselves in today where the craft of diplomacy is essential and when talking and listening across political and other differences is so critical. Today's session celebrates the craft of diplomacy and the support of education of future practitioners of the craft. Ran and Eileen Weiser, we salute you and the mission of the Weiser diplomacy center. Ron would you like to come say a few words? Please welcome ron Weiser. The one thing I learned in serving in Slovakia was the importance of the diplomacy and how much can be done on the imprint of a nation. When I got there, Slovakia was going in the wrong direction and now they are part of the EU and I had the privilege to lead. That's why diplomacy is so important because it can help change directions for especially for countries that are going in the wrong direction. Sometimes you can bring them back around. Anyhow, that's one of reasons I did that. The second is as you may all know, most of the diplomatic institutions of higher learning were on the west coast and east coast. I fell the central part of the country has a great deal of importance to America. Thank you very much. Thanks very much regent Weiser and Eileen for the tremendous advisory you have given to this university. We wanted to have a launch event that honored your service and chose to focus on diplomacy in a new transatlantic era. You served in Slovakia in a crucial time. Today 80 years after the opening shots in World War II, 70 years after NATO's creation, 30 years after the Berlin wall crumbled, the region faces new opportunities. Our goal is to help address the international policy issues across the Atlantic and around the world through engagement and education on foreign affairs. So to kick off we assembled a top flight panel. We have Liz Schrayer who a distinguished foreign affairs. A broad coalition of businesses and NGOs who stand for global leadership through development and diplomacy. You may have seen her quoted in the press as she successfully spear headed efforts to protect the U.S. budget for foreign aid which is often under attack and you am sure you will agree is crucial in advancing values overseas. She is president of SCHRAYER and associates and she is on USAID advisory on foreign aid. She was advisor to APEC and has extensive experience on Capitol Hill including having founded the national human rights caucus. Please help me in welcoming her and thanking her for the important work she's doing on foreign affairs. In a moment, I'm going to hand the microphone off. Just a note on format. After a moderated conversation on our panel, we will have audience Q& A, two of our outstanding students and aspires diplomats are going to lead off with a question each of their own and move around the audience and select others of you who can ask questions by raising your hand. We will start with questions from students who are after all core to our mission but we will also try to leave time at the end for questions from other members of the audience. Thank you. Congratulations to welcome to everybody. Especially Steve and Dan. I will introduce there more formally in a moment. What a fabulous moment this is. Congratulations to John, to Michael and most of all ambassador Weiser, ron and Eileen. I have been thinking as I was preparing for today. This is not just a special moment for the ford school or University of Michigan but every one of us who cares about America's role in the world, to have an academic rigor of thought leaders that line up you have coming up but to have a place in the heartland where all of those of us from who love the center of the world. So today I have the absolute privilege of moderating a conversation between one of most respected and highly knowledgeable national security experts in the nation. And one of most respected diplomats in the nation. And I know do either of these two things. I spent my career as John described as an advocate for what they do. And what they have done in their career. I want to just set the scene before introducing them for a couple thoughts to think about as we start this conversation about diplomacy in a new transatlantic era. about at a very important time in this conversation where we're about to have. End of the cold war where a lot of our fellow citizens said, we won. We could have a peace dividend and one of the things happening in the country is people thought you know what, we don't need to invest so much in our diplomacy. We don't need to invest in State Department and peace core and our USAID. There was a real effort to pull back on the civilian tool kits. I remember, I was in Washington at the time and I remember members of Congress literally going to the floor of the well of the Congress and bragging that they didn't own a passport as a badge of honor. They were consequences and this week was an 18 year anniversary of the consequences of when we pulled back in the world. Well, one good thing came out of that. Which is a group of individuals got together and said we need to build a domestic voice for engagement in the world. I'm very privileged to be a part of that effort. Today I run a coalition called the U.S. global leadership coalition that thank goodness, Steve Hadley is one of our advisors that includes 500 businesses and NGOs. We have every former living secretary of state on our advisory committee. We are in every single state in the state of Michigan our cochairs are people like Carl Levin and Rick Snyder and Hank Meyer and what we do is we're an advocacy group for diplomacy for development, for America's engagement in the world. As John said when there's an effort to cut back, our budget for this State Department, which there have been great attacks, there is a bipartisanship reaction on Capitol Hill to say that's not such a good idea and because of conversations like this that really talk about the importance of diplomacy. There are real challenges in the world and we're going to talk about a lot of them. There are real challenges and opportunities that we're going to talk about today particularly in this new transatlantic era. There are no two better people than I know we can talk with than Steve Hadley and Dan fried. So let me introduce them and we're going to get on with our conversation. So first, to my left. Your right. Steve Hadley is truly, rule one of most highly respected security experts in the nation. A long and impressive career in and out of politics. He is most well known as probably all of you know as the national security advisor for president George W. Bush. I found out you started in the national security consul working for a gentlemen whose name is up on the school, president Gerald ford. So I was glad to find out you were already connected to Gerald ford. Steve Hadley has worked at the Department of Defense, Department of State and now today a partner with his former colleagues now his current colleagues once again secretaries former secretary bob gates, former secretary condy rice. President of an amazing organization called the U.S. institute of peace that does work throughout the world and the only complaint I have is that he grew up in Ohio and had the wrong pedigrees in school. He went to Cornell and went to Yale law school. I still think he's brilliant and you're going to learn why he's so brilliant. We're thrilled to have him here. Along with him in our conversation is ambassador Dan fried. He's has a 40 year career in the foreign silence. He has literally helped shape American policy in Europe and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Dan has been long list of career items let me just tell you some them of works under president Clinton and bush. Ambassador to state with Russia. Became known as one of U.S. experts. One of your last assignments at State Department was our first envoy to try to do closures at Gitmo. He is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic consul. Gentlemen welcome. Let's give them a round of applause. So I have lots of questions to them. Do you mind if I ask them a question first. Let me start with just a show of hands. I know everybody is going to have to put your hand up here. How many of you have travelled around the world. Keep your hand up if you have worked around the world in the government. A lot of hands went down. If you worked in a State Department mission ever? Now we're down to just a few. How many want to pursue a career possibly in diplomacy somewhere? Got a few more hands up. Now on this question, how many think the state of transatlantic relationship system either strong, weak or adequate? The state of transatlantic relationships between America and the transat Lantic region is strong, weak or adequate. How much say strong, weak? Adequate? You can decide. My last question is how many think that diplomacy could make it even better? Yeah. Okay. Our title is diplomacy in a transatlantic era. So, you're going to get a little mini keynote. You get at to 10 minutes depending on how long you want to go. I want you to focus on this. For about 70 years, American foreign policy has largely been defined how we in the WONKY call the liberal international order. The alliances and institution that is have more or less kept us safe and peaceful and Republicans and Democrats we disagreed that everybody has disagreed on different thing. We agree these institutions work until recently and there's been a major disruption that has gone on. Challenges to the structure and particularly with our Transatlantic partners. What is state of the order? The challenges you're seeing around the globe and how does it impact us here in the U.S.? And you get not two hours but about 10 minutes. So, the international system is under challenge in a way that is has not been in my lifetime. And I think that accounts for a lot of the chaos and disruption you see in the world. At the end, it was established at the end of World War II by the United States working with Europe, and it basically reflected our values and principles, human rights, rule of law. Wildly successful. Not universal. Certainly disputed by the Soviet Union. We engaged in the cold war. '89-90 the Cold War is over and our values and principals have swept the field and the only global paradigm. And that turned out not to be true. There are a number of shocks I think that began to undermine the system. The first was in 2008 with the financial crisis. Everyone viewed the financial system as an American and European institution and we knew how to run it. Well, guess what? We had a melt down that produced the greatest recession since the depression. That was a big JOLT to people's confidence in our ability it on run the system that we had established. I would say the second one occurred in 2011 with the Arab spring that turned out to be an Arab nightmare. Rather than bringing democracy to the region, a region that the U.S. had made huge investments over a decade. It brought chaos and melt down in Syria and Libya or return to authoritarianism. The third was our election in It showed a surprising result that reflected a fact for a large number of Americans, there was a really disaffection with the international system we supported. This is a group of people that felt that had been victimized by globalization. Threatened by immigration. Abandoned by their politicians and betrayed by their elites and gave president Trump as a disruptor in chief who was really going to disrupt the international system with a sector of the population and begin to raise questions about whether the United States wanted to continue to support that international system that was our creation. As Liz points out. At the same time, Europe was turning inward. In parallel with all of this, as the United States and Europe seemed to be either disabled or stepping back from the international system, It's challenged. It's challenged by the re-emergence of great power competition, a Russia which at the beginning of the post cold war period looked like it would be a partner of the United States and now migrated to the point it's a spoiler on every issue trying to frustrate American policy. The emergence of China. China is a potential competitor like we have never known. Soviet Union was a huge military competitor but an economic Pygmy. With a political system that collapsed of its own weight. China, on the other hand is a geo political, economic military rival of enormous capabilities. And in parallel with re-emergence of great power is the re-emergence of ideals. The authoritarian practice is gaining adherence because it seems to be a more affective way of addressing the issues of people. In parallel with all of that, there is a disaffection within democracies with our own system and people questioning any democracy and free market is the way. You see it in Brexit, the rise of the extremist parties in Europe and in our own country. Artificial intelligence. Autonomy. Edge computing, a whole series of technology that will transform our system and put pressure on our system, in for which there is not for the the international system a set of rules how to make sure that bioengineering producing real benefits for health of the world rather than produces the next pandemic that is going to threaten all of our health. We have seen this revolution particularly in the area of communications and social media. I thought that social media was going to be a great force of democratization empowering people to take more responsibility for their lives. What we have seen, it can be a tool for the authoritarians to exert more control over people. In Democratic societies, it has been an accelerant of division that's put real pressure on our political systems and ushered in an era of disinformation and of the ability, used to say see is believing, you can't believe your eyes with deep fake images manufactured having president Obama saying things he never said. At a time when the United States seems to be pulling away from leading that system that we have established and been the protector of for 70 years and Europe seems to be increasingly worrying and focused on its own internal problems. We have never faced I think as difficult an international situation since I think the Cold War and including the Cold War and are less positioned to deal with it. I'm not dispairing, I'm optimistic. Hate to be the prophet of doom and gloom here. It's a new and challenging situation you students will be grappling with for the next 20 years. We will get to your optimism. All right. You get the other half, it's called diplomacy in a new transatlantic era. Dan what I would love to hear you talk about is again we will get into the details of your expertise on NATO. I'm interested for you to give us your take on where diplomacy sits in this challenging to the international order of, values based versus our own interest and where you see U.S.A. diplomatic role right now. This is from 40 years as a diplomat. So embassies work daily with reality as it is on the ground. A lot of work of embassies is asked to do with explaining to Washington, which is habitualy impatient what is possible in a given country at a given time. That realism with a smart art, tactical realism is what diplomats carry around in their heads. What is possible today. You usually have to explain why some big theory which a secretary of state or president has put in a speech or tweet is difficult to achieve. Good luck with that. Small arm realism is the world tends to be the default world view of diplomats. Most of successful diplomatic work is working within this sphere. And within that sphere, good embassies know how to work a problem in a foreign country politically. I don't mean partisan. But to solve a problem, you need to frame up the issue so the foreign country's political system can handle it and do so well. You frame the issues in ways they can work with. That is the day-to-day work of an embassy. But, there are two examples of when embassies and diplomats have to break out of that usual system. One is when as ambassador Weiser said, the country you're in, you're serving in is going in a wrong direction and Washington has asked you to do something about it. Now, I know about this because I sort of asked ron Weiser to do something about it in Slovakia. Then it takes skill of a higher order to actually reach a foreign society in ways that don't look like American bullying or arrogance or over reach or any number of sins to which we Americans are prone. And being able to get inside a foreign country's political space without being blasted out, coming charred and scarred, is a much higher level skill. And I have to say that ron Weiser did a terrific job. By the way, as a footnote, political ambassadors who professional diplomats are supposed to despise or patronize are often better than foreign service officers. The outsides of political ambassadors are high. So are the down sides. This is on the record. Yeah, yeah. I will take that. But, ron Weiser was on the right, way over on the right on that bell curve. And but then there's a third level the highest kind of diplomatic skill and recognizing when things are about to change in a big way. Steve Hadley was talking about the challenges to the international system. When you're in a country that is, and this is rare, it's almost never going to happen but when it does, when a country is about to go very bad or very good, can you break out of that small realist practical minded MIND set and make the call and warn Washington? Okay, an example of a failure is when our embassy in Yugoslavia didn't recognize the warning signs until it was too late in the 80s. An example of success is when our embassy in Poland understood the communism was coming apart at the seams and the future belonged to solidarity. They made the call. Nobody in Washington believed them. I did but was too insignificant to count. But it was an example of strategic insight and foresight. I mention this because when you're in a world of systemic challenges, Steve Hadley accurately described, you're going to find COUNTRIES at a borderline of major change. So, what is happening in Russia? I'm not sure that Putin is the wave of future. Doesn't matter what I think. Russians including Russian officials are using words like perpetual stagnation, which is a code word for the late period to describe what is happening in Russia now. I am not privy to the diplomatic cables coming from Moscow. But I know how good our embassies can be. Was there a junior political officer in in TEHRAN that was writing that it was evaporating? That's what diplomacy means. Sometimes making that call. That's great. Terrific. Terrific. We're going through a couple topics quickly. Let me start with one that both of you touched upon. Which is America's leadership. America global leadership. And get a sense of where you think we are. I was a student here, I will admit me age. We were deep in the Cold War and I was sitting where a lot of students are. We had maps, red and blue, it was really clear. Today It's not really clear am it's complicated and America's leadership is kind of shifting. So Steve, one of the questions I want to ask you, the perception of America's leadership. I look at polls a lot. If you ask Americans how every other country views us, guess what we're a little huberrist, we think we're doing great. The rest of world doesn't feel like we're doing great. Pew and gallop ask the question. Gallop asked leaders in 130 countries. We hit 31% have a high opinion of us. We were lower than China. The pew study in the last five years dropped 15 points. I often hear the claims that allies turn and say, you can't rely on the U.S. anymore. Both of us know any country would be delighted to have any American business knock on their door. My question is talk for a moment about how are you concerned about the fair weather friend of America for our allies mantra? Is that something you're worried about. You travel all the time. Do you hear that? I think it's more profound than that. Our brand doesn't look so good. People watch us. And we have an economy that is now pretty clear produce growth and did not produce inclusive growth from which all Americans could benefit. That's very evident. Our politics looks most to the world broken. Full of ranker and division and not fixing the problems that face the country, and you know, we have known for two decades what to do about immigration re form. We really know what to do about Social Security reform. We're working with the issue of medical reform. What we don't seem to have is the political will to solve these problems and the world has noticed and now we have had an election in 2016 that surprised everybody. And a foreign policy that talks about America first. I want to come back to that a little bit. The first problem is, our brand doesn't look so good. We are not really dealing with our problems at home and not showing we have a kind of political system to provide prosperity for our people. China is looking pretty good. What is the point of America first? I think President Trump reflected a real problem in our politics, something that the elites in the country and the politicians had ignored and it needs to be addressed. We can discuss about how he's trying to address it. The problem with America first is that it's being read internationally as America at other people's expense. A win-lose. Very short term definition of American interests. That's not why we have been. Yes it's America first. Every country puts its people's interest and security first. But we had for 70 years a long-term view of what was America's interest. And it was a view that said for example, it's in our interest to help rebuild Japan and Germany after the end of World War II and help them rebuild as Democratic free market societies because they will be more peaceful and that's the best way we can ensure we don't have to descend into a world war three. President Bush decided it was in our long-term interests to deal with the HIV-aids epidemic in Africa. Partly because chaos in Africa would deny business in Africa but because he had a sense it's the right thing to do. It's what we as Americans do. We take on and try to help solve the world's problems and in the end of the day, it's in our interests to do so and it will generate good will for America. The world will actually tolerate a lot of American mistakes because the alternative to American leadership is worse. And World War II is FACISM. If the alternative is China, they say not so bad. At home reconnect to the principles and values that served this country well. As Madeleine albright says, we need to renew our values and to a much more enlightened view of what America's role should be. Let me, Dan ask you to play off on this America first question ask bring it back to the theme transatlantic era. You know something about NATO because one of the first policy agenda on the America first agenda of the president was he took off right on the box after NATO. He got praised for putting on the table, pay your fair share, he got criticized saying he went after our NATO allies pretty harshly. What is the state in your view of the U.S. NATO relationship? NATO was set up as a means to an end. It's an instrument. The end was an undivided transatlantic securities basin. Because we were tired of world wars. President Trump isn't the first U.S. president to be irritated with lack of European nations defense capability. That goes back to Eisenhower. That goes back to Eisenhower when he was at NATO. That's not new. What is new is the president's questioning of article 5 and alliance solidarity which is part of what Steve Hadley rightly calls a narrow definition of America first. So NATO was a means to an end. Because frankly you know dealing with European union ornato can be frustrating. A European problem, a real problem in Europe, that's Omaha beach and the battle of the bulge. That's European problem. That's wars. Or the Berlin wall. These are not hard problems. Frustrated by the EU, this is like a job for guys. Men and women like me. Send us in and have us work the problem. The genius and I'm bouncing off of what Steve Hadley was saying, the genius of the American grand strategy is we wouldn't lower ourselves to have a sphere of influence. It only works if we set up a system where we can all prosper together. And Steve is right. We failed of that promise financial crash, lack of equity in American economic growth and the vision remains valid and the articulation of a united Democratic community to face the authoritarian challenges is half the problem and the other half is fixing the solutions. We met with students and asked what are you worried about. One student talked about the multilateral forums. We had a G 7. And two weeks we're I guess next week the world is going to descend on New York the UNgeneral assembly. Maybe you don't have to go to anymore. I'm going to get to go. Where do you see, there's NATO but how the U.S. plays in these multilateral forums that affect the transatlantic partnerships. We still have foot in the door there? Well, I do a lot of work with Madeleine albright who is a wonderful work. She says Americans don't like multilateralism because it has too many syllables and ends in an ISM. The feeling is we're surrendering sovereignty to the multinational constitutions to the detriment of our own ability to be captains of our fate. I think that reflects in over estimation of just how most of these, how powerful most of these multilateral institutions are. I used to have a debate with president George Bush. He would say, that's a problem I don't want to deal with. Let's give it to the united nations. I say Mr. President, if you give it to the united nations without America being engaged, you're saying we're not going to solve this problem. These multilateral institutions only work if the key COUNTRIES that are members of them are willing to use them in an affective way to solve problems, and I think it's in our interests to do so. They bring other people to the party or the problem. They give us a legitimacy that we don't have if we act alone. We shouldn't be slave to them but recognize they are enormous instruments for American influence because we can really have an enormous impact on what they do. So I think this whole issue of multilateralism is a misdiagnosis of those institutions of giving them more credit and more powerful than they have and failing to appreciate how much they really can be enormous tools for American values and interest. Let's go to chaos that's not in the U.S. and that goes to you, Mr. Fried. Something called the UK is making the U.S. look like we're just got it altogether. So, share with us you know Brexit, a little snap election potentially coming up. Give us your insight on what in the world is going on over at the UK but more persoimportantly, what is the UK, U.S. relationship. That is the right point. What is happening in the UK is national versions of the same trend. That is a widely varying versions of doubts about the international system that the United States has led since 1945 and which we expanded after And a lot of these issues have to do with what Steve described as fears about sovereignty. Challenged by the UN in the US or the EU in the case of the British or a cultural globalism at the expense of national traditions and national feelings. And these are powerful forces. If you want to be, so Steve isn't alone in his pessimistic phrasing, it's as if we were inoculated in 1945 against the disease of nationalism so we start flirting with it. I don't believe that's how we're going to end up. But it is certainly where we and the British are that and a lot of other countries. It's a challenge to the international order more profound than any since the authoritarianisms and communisms were the wave of the future. Such was the sentiment. The British love being the guides to the energetic but needful Americans. We are still the colonials. They are very good at giving us advice about how to play Europe. This is a good thing. Actually the brits are awfully good at this. We do need their advice. I needed it when I was negotiating with the EU on various issues. The loss, the post Brexit loss to the United States means the EU will be bereft of a major contributor and we will lose a major friend in the E.U. it's the job of diplomats to make things work afterwards. People are thinking about the work arounds and how you tie things. But it's a problem, the underlying solution is not just whatever wiring diagrams post Brexit but how we deal with the underlying challenges to reaffirm, renew our vows and fix the problems that brought us here. And American leadership is going to be critical in articulating that way ahead. Students recognize there's definitely a theme from these two. While we're on these transatlantic challenge. I want to pick up one more for you, Stephen and I'm sure there will be others. We're all watching major demographic and political shifts in Europe. I want to pick on two. You mentioned a little bit both in your opening. I want to dig deeper. We are seeing more displaced people throughout the world and obviously happening throughout Europe than any time since World War II. The populist movements you talked about rising up. Battles are brewing between this inward push and open societies. We see an authoritarian rise not just in Europe but elsewhere. I'm really interested in your commentary what America should be do or doing on the mass migration going on in Europe in the rise of authoritarianism. I know we heard it with some of the students earlier. This is a worry spot and how American leadership can make a difference when you see the CURRENTs happening altogether. And bringing a less settled world. And we will talk about fragility. I want your talk on the mass migration. What America has traditionally done is be the lead on humanitarian assistance. The American elites have been deep in it. This administration is reflecting the concerns Americans have about immigration has allowed it to spill over to being fairly hostile to humanitarian assistance. It's something we always do. One of the reasons and why it's important is that the fact of the migrations that have almost broken the political systems in Europe, is in part a function of American policy. It's about Syria, and the migrations and the pressure on Europe that brought you the rise of parties on the right and Brexit in some sense was the result of Syria and you know, we really need to start looking at the lessons. A lot of people looked at Iraq which was not a popular war and said we should never do that again. And then we had Syria. And because we were concerned about not making another Iraq. We stood by as Syria melted down. A number of us were saying, if you don't address Syria, you are going to, more people are going to die. It is going to be open the door to extremism. It is going to destabilize the region because of terrorism. What we didn't think it would destabilize the region and Europe politically because of the refugee flows. I we have a role for humanitarian terms to deal with refugee flows and other humanitarian disasters. What the United States really does is lead the world to address the underlying problems that can give rise to those kinds of refugee flows. And that's where I think the stepping back of the United States from global leadership runs a risk of affects that are contrary on our interest and ultimately affect American security. The other piece we have done is stand for democracy, human rights rule of law. Those are now being questioned. We had this debate. How much should American foreign policy reflect the ideals? How much should it reflect the interest Americans have? I always felt the highest American interest is to have a world that reflects our ideals because the world to be more congenial to American interests. That is now under some questioning. I think it's important for America to stand for those ideals. One to show they have produce a political and economic system that provides prosperity and security to our people but also to be that beacon to the world and to give hope to those people who endorse those ideals in authoritarian societies so that when the moment comes, they feel they have a friend in making political and social change. You know, there's a view around that authoritarians are having their day and people point particularly to the Middle East. Guess what, democracy and freedom and people's desire for that is not dead. If you don't believe that, look at what is happening in alGERIA. Look at what is happening in Sudan and there are other examples in Europe. America is right. Our values and principles do reflect the deepest longing of the people. If people are given a choice, free from coercion between authoritarian and democracy and freedom, they will pick democracy and freedom. We need to be a beacon to keep hope Alive as Jesse Jackson says. I'm going to open up one more topic. I love when you asked the audience who might want to pursue a career in diplomacy. A lot of hands went up. I want to ask you about diplomacy. A mutual friend of ours. Ambassador bill Barnes retired with the highest U.S. foreign rank and recently wrote a book. I think he was here not too long ago called the back channel. It's a glimpse into the state of diplomacy. I want to share a short excerpt from his book and get your reaction and a couple questions. Short of war, diplomacy is the plan instrument we employ to manage international relations and explore opportunities to advance our security. It's among the oldest of professions and among the most misunderstood and the most unsatisfying to describe. Yet, it is never been a necessary tool. It's rebirth is crucial to a new strategy for a new century. It's full of great peril and even greater promise for America. I think it's already playing out in the comments that we're having here. Dan I want to start with you first. One of the things we talked about earlier is over the past three years, I already mentioned, we have seen this attack on cuts to diplomacy. Ron and I were talking about 80 senior posts remain vacant at DOD. Jordan, Pakistan. Half of the nominees are sitting in the Senate not confirmed. We know because of all the slow downs. A little of midlevel very talented people have said I'm done. I'm going to encourage you to keep going. I want you to comment about what is the impact on your profession? Diplomacy has never been popular in America. It's considered to be elitist. Striped pants. Cookie pushers. Back in the 50s and 60s. Foreign service officers sometimes wear nice suits and sometimes body armor. All the people we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to fortified embassies but with the troops. It can be dangerous work. Diplomatic ambassadors with rank and clout can influence things in their country to which they're assigned and lower ranking can't do the same. Washington can't run relations with every country. You can't even make a phone call. You need people on the ground. And you need people on the ground who are both as I said earlier, realist, realistic small R and also mindful of the larger principles that Steve Hadley laid out, which is freedom ultimately appeals to people's deeper natures because authoritarianisms rip them off. And people get tired of being hit up by broads and having their future foreshortened. Which is why by the way the Hong Kong protesters are waving American flags. And diplomats have to work with what is, you know the day-to-day reality and the larger interests. And when you cut the budget, it cripples our ability to get stuff done. For years during the ColdWar, the United States promoted dissidence and every year Congress would consider us complete failures because what were the metrics of success? From 1984 to 1987, we were all idiots. We were obviously wasting the taxpayer money on silly programs. And from 1986 to 1989, we all game geniuses who changed the world. State Department budgets and foreign assistance budgets can be used to great affect and sometimes this stuff really works. If President Trump put to me the question, you know what good did our foreign assistance to Poland do? I would say they tripled their GDP in one generation and buying a lot more American stuff. That's pretty good. And that is -- that's what, and success you know success looks like from one measure and success from another measure means cities flourish and people are happy and can go on to explain about other things. And failure, when you fail, the bodies stack up real fast. The consequences are real. It's real. Since you haven't asked that but I'm going to jump in to say, any of you considering diplomacy as a profession, don't be discouraged. I am going to ask that at the very end to give it. I will hold. No. That's the closer. But Steve, I do want you to talk about why, because we talked about it earlier. Why your, why this is important. Meaning why a diplomacy center here is important. You, we live on the coast. So we live in elite arena, you grew up in the midwest. What is the importance of the Weiser center here? One of the things that's important about this center and why I think it's such a terrific thing you two have done to put University of Michigan on the map with this. The policy debate is really driven by the two coasts and dominated by the two coasts. And that does not reflect I think an important perspective for this country. And I think it's terribly important to have a diplomacy center in what I consider the heartland. The thing that keeps the two coasts together so they don't drift off. I think you have a perspective you don't get on the coast. We talked about how to take the work that is done here and find a way, a transmission belt so it can have an impact on policy. So I think it's terrifically important and salute the two of you for what you allowed these folks to do here. I have also been a strong voice and resisting the cuts in our non-defense national security portfolios. Which is diplomacy development, democracy promotion and others. But I am going to go off script a little bit. I love Liz because Liz is the leading edge of the fight for maintaining funding and support for these nonmilitary aspects of national security. She is a national resource of an enormous importance. In parallel with that effort. To defend what we've got. We have to ask questions what diplomacy looks like. The military is the biggest advocate for the non-military aspects of our national security. They get into these wars. They deal with the bad guys and in a place like Afghanistan. You can't kill your way to peace and the military are the first people to know it. They depend on our diplomats and other experts to build a diplomatic and civilian future that avoiding us needing to deploy our military forces. So, we go into Iraq and Afghanistan. We have these wonderful captains and majors who in Iraq for example defeat al-Qaeda and Iraq and then being told, you have to help the Iraqis rebuild. You have to get the energy grid up. You have to get economic activity going. You have to help them build a noncorrupt political institutions and the military folks say we're not trained to do that. Where are the civilian capabilities? Well, we have invested in our military, we have the world's greatest military. And we have under invested in all of those civilian capabilities that the military needs so they can finish their job and go home and not have to go back. And so we started asking our diplomats trained to do what Dan was talking about. To look around the corner and see what is happening politically and we suddenly put them as heads of operations to get electricity grids going again. We asked them to do things they were not trained and prepared for. One of the questions is, as part of our diplomacy. Do we need to have a different skill set in our society but not in our foreign service that we can mobilize to help in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraqi and the Afghan people rebuild their economies and political structures and social structures and the like. I think so. Another example. Al-Qaeda started to use social media and all the communication things made and invested in America and used them against us in a very effective way. And they beat us in the communication war day in and day out. So I convened a meeting in the Roosevelt room and they all looked like me. Guys with gray hair that knew how to do press releases. That's not going to get the job done. We had an invitation of C.E.O.s in silicon valley. They were young, no ties and long hair and knew how to do this job. We got recommendations. There is a whole new theater of operations information war. Countering disinformation we're getting whether it's al-Qaeda or the Russians, this is a theater of operation. We haven't developed -- So the skill set of 21st century and beyond of a diplomat is so different from when you both started you're career. What are the three or four things that weren't even on the radar screen. Certainly economics. Communications, what are some of the other ones? The question is, you try to bring them in the foreign service and train foreign service officers or have a system that says we will bring in elsewhere from society those kinds of capabilities? I'm sure they'll have questions to build on what Steve was saying. If you want to combat al-Qaeda or ISIS disinformation, you're not going to have a, even the silicon valley people can't do it because they're not Arabic speakers. You need to reach out to native speakers of language in two ways. One, there are a lot of Arab Americans. Recruit them. When I joined the foreign service in the mid 70s, it was still pardon the expression, just emerging from being a white boy's club. It's changed. Our advantage as a country, we are a universal nation. Everybody gets to be an American. Well, I want native Arabic speakers working with prodemocracy Arab activists, they're the ones who will come up with the counter messaging. How do you think we did it in the cold war? CIA in one of smarter moves started working with European socialists who didn't like the Truman administration but hated Stalin and were good at fighting Stalinist propaganda to detect in ways that frankly American diplomats didn't have a clue. We need to take advantage of the true nature of American society. Recruit those people and have them work with activists in countries and empower them. And let them go. Please don't give it to the press office of the State Department. Working on the press release. There's a lot of reform. First first time, the current spokes person at the State Department, Morgan orTEGAS showed up and said instead of having an old fashioned briefing book had it on an ipad. We haven't touched Afghanistan or Russia. We talked about Iraq and Syria. The two students will take over and ask questions and get your questions in. We look forward to it. Introduce yourself. Hi, my name is STAVIL in the U.S. policy DA program. I worked with the Greek ambassador to the UN thanks to the Weiser center. I was at the discussion with students and I think we had a very important discussion about leadership. More specifically we spoke about the United States. But I would like to know what your personal challenges have been as an American building relations with other countries and what, how you faced those challenges and what advice you could offer to future leaders in diplomacy who are representing America in that sense. Take both gives. Give us one example of a tough situation you had leading and representing the U.S. with leadership. Introduce yourself. My name is A. ELLIOT. I am a masters student. I set up a think tank. Working on transatlantic relations. It's great to have something great to bond over with Americans and build the transatlantic relations. My question has a sort of national security focus. In this last year in the UK and the national security strategy. State level, state actors climbed above acts of terrorism as a threat to the U.S. do you see this as a case that's going to be happening in America too and how do you see that potentially affecting transat Lantic relations? Eight is from Russia and the poisoning case. Interested to hear your opinions. Each take one. Why don't you start with the leadership challenge. Where did you find yourself struggling and then if you want to take state. You can take both if you want. So, my second to last job in government was the, as you pointed out, the closure of Guantanamo and I had to try to talk foreign governments into accepting transfer of Guantanamo detainees when the U.S. wouldn't accept any ourselves. That was an obvious challenge. How did it go? Not bad. I got 70 transferred 40 to third countries. The way I approached this or the way a diplomat should approach any problem is figure out what argument works and understand whom you're talking to is what do they want? What pressures are they under? Especially worked if government has slammed the bush administration because of Guantanamo for years and years. I told them the good news, you get to help end the problem that so upset you. They didn't have to like that argument. If it played well in the press. They would have to help. This is an example of using of playing an issue politically but not in a partisan way. What are the politics of an issue and how do you make it work? But an adage isalways tell the truth and act with honor. Never lie. Ever. Ever. People have got to understand that your word is serious and you will always tell the truth. And that's not old school. That's necessary school. So, work the politics, Terrific. Steve. Give you two examples. When I was deputy advisor to President Bush, Israeli Palestinian peace and Sheronne was the father of the settlement movement. I was sent to persuade him we looked for a path to peace. I sat down with the president and said, prime minister, the president needs to understand your view about settlements. And he has instructed me to sit here and ask you everything you know on settlements and I'm not supposed to and back to Washington until that's done. Bill Barnes thought I was crazy. He said no one has ever asked me that before. I would say you start out by the most important thing in intra country regulations is respect. Showing respect for the other person. A willingness to listen and a want to understand their views. Once you do that, it allows you to do what James A. Baker III was able to do. Take the things we need and structure them in the language and in terms of what Nazis needed for the Soviet Union at the time. Before you go to your second story. That's kind -- That's it. I was going to say, that's the basis of we listen. We are talking about earlier. Is the students that are here, how many have gone to a we listen program? Quite a few of you. This is, when you show respect by just listening to the other. Show respect. Listen. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. And let that drive your argument. So you heard just one of the really significant example at the highest level of national security. State, nonstate actors. Look, as a country, we have been worried about nonstate actors. We need to continue to be worried about nonstate actors. But we took our eye off the emergence of China. We now have got to correct it. We have a strategic panic. We sort of overreacted. We're in the process of developing a strategy which will allow us to deal with China. Let's take these two. Each of you have Please introduce yourself. Okay. Gentlemen first off, thank you for being here. My name is Matt Rigdon. I'm a first year MPP student and a member of the military. What you said about Afghanistan is true. I was trained as an artillary man and have no idea how a water system works. We talked about American values and the difference between American values and other parts of the world. My question specifically to Afghanistan and Iraq. And people said we have values and may be trying to push those values as we rebuild those countries and societies. How do you gentlemen see a clash of values there and how do we reconcile American values as we try to put in structures and organizations in those COUNTRIES that will be affective for that population? I'm sure everybody would be interested in either of your perspectives. Your Afghanistan. Hello. I'm a little nervous. I'm a senior and my question is about the U.S. Navy. We have the four class carriers coming out. The U.S. has been able to dominate the waters in a way that hasn't really been seen, post World War II. And I was just wondering how that affects U.S. diplomacy and specifically with China, how we're talking about a rivalry with China. How does that affect the conversations with China when they are an export, import based economy. If I can use Iraq Sure. Please. We went into Iraq to deal with what we thought was a national security challenge of an Iraq that pursued weapons of mass destruction. We tried for 12 years with sanctions and diplomacy and UN resolutions to fix that problem. We couldn't. So we removed Saddam Hussein. The question is what obligation to we have to the Iraqi people? Do we allow a new Iraqi general to take control of the country so long as they didn't pursue weapons of mass destruction? And President Bush decided we are Americans, we stand for certain principles. We have the obligation to give the Iraqis an opportunity to establish a Democratic regime that respected human rights and rule of law if that's what they chose to do. You could say that was about American ideals but it was also realistic and pragmatic. The Sunni, Shiite and KurdS would not stay together if there wasn't a Democratic framework they could all participate in. There's a case where both, if you're a realist or an idealist. It left you in the same place. Now, helping Iraq provide that, we made a lot of mistakes. But they just may make it. Do you want to comment on where you think Afghanistan is now. Afghanistan, we will see, the dialogue will resume but it needs to be refrained. At the end of the day, the afghan people have to work out their own peace. We have to get them at the table with the Taliban and us to define a common future and secondly, we have to get a cease-fire. It's intolerable to negotiate with the Taliban with every day they are killing Afghans. Specifically in the Pacific, illustrates advantages of the exercise of American power and why a broad definition of American interests is works better than an Arab definition of the Trump administration argues in one of best documents it's issued the national security that was issued. The U.S. Navy acting in thes service of general security in the pacific. It's an asset because it lets all other countries we are present and present to ensure the principles of open sea lanes. President Trump sometimes undercuts his own national security power when he says we should with draw because of countries like south Korea aren't pulling their weight. In fact, the presence and strength of the U.S. Navy make its easier for us to come up with a reasonable approach to dealing with the rise of China and to make sure in the 21st century and to help make sure that rise happens in a way that is compatible with the larger American interest which is the challenge Steve is talking about. It's not I'm talking about using the Navy to threaten China. I'm saying having the Navy there opens the conversation to what is crucial to American interests. We're taking the world a better place and making it better for yourself. This is America first properly understood as opposed to America first understood in a narrow sense. So, as a diplomat, I love going to payCOM, talking to understanding the what the Navy needs and helping them. But doesn't matter what I think. It's the countries like Vietnam and Indonesia and nothing to say about Taiwan helps us to deal with the problems we face. Want to take one more? Hi, thank you. My name is Michael vice. I'm a first year MPP student here. We talked about various security issues. I'm curious about one and that is climate change and the energy presence. Hello. I like to thank you all for holding a talk to an issue with this. I am Henry, first year student at the MA institute. I would like to hold the question on how can the U.S. deal with an Ally that presses against its interest. Specifically Turkey that have pushed against Kurdish and the S-400 issue that was happening recently and the antagonism with Greece and Cyprus. Two great questions. All right. Who would like to -- I think Dan should answer them both. See, he's such a good diplomat. He got that one out first. So Dan, you could take one and throw the other one to him. You're getting Turkey. For climate change. Now, I'll take climate change. It's these geopolitical threats. Today it used to be country to country. Today we're really dealing with big geopolitical threats. So, what really kills me about climate change is compared to 20 years ago. Technological solutions are much closer at hand. were fringe industries. Iowa produces 50% of its electricity through wind. And that's up from 22%. You know three years ago when I drove through Iowa and picked up that statistic. That's big business. That's money. Between technology, which allows us to have alternatives to the internal combustion engine, hybrid, wind and solar and the economies of those, this is not as insolvable a problem as it appeared a generation ago. So who, there are solutions that are at hand. That solution is probably going to involve nuclear power. I wonder what Merkel was thinking appeasing the greens to leave coal and nuclear and depend on Russian gas. Like WHOOPS. These are still fixable problems. This is in the realm of the possible. Two, you can't fight something with nothing. You know I remember in the early bush administration when we left the KYOTO accord. We all knew early on that was a mistake. And we, if you're going to leave the Paris accord, you better come up with a credible climate plan. Right now we don't have one. But we're going to need one. The politics are going to push us in that direction anyway. But this is in the category of this is fixable, it's just a matter of going out and doing it. The politics don't permit that right now. But this is in theory, not a bad problem, a problem with solutions at hand. I'm a relative optimist on that. If we can get our head, in the right place. I will justad a a couple points that are useful for the diplomacy side. There's a lot going on at the state and local diplomacy side private sector. Significant activity and frankly the private sector side is so far ahead and the governors and the mayors are way ahead of where the federal government is. So where it may not be happening at the State Department and the traditional diplomats of how we're talking about it here. It's happening at the nonstate diplomatic actor level at a super speed level number one. Number two it's really interesting to look at polling data on this. There was a poll that came out today that showed overwhelming Americans, what is interesting. The first time we're seeing higher numbers on the Republican side believing we have to, America has to lead on climate. look at 40% and younger Republicans, they look like Democrats. So this will change eventually in terms of where this country is going on climate, it's just a matter of time. So, I think the diplomacy question is a great question do you want to touch climate or go right to Turkey. I will take a broad question and hit Turkey. This discussion is terribly important and why we should be optimistic about the future of our country. Sam Huntington, known for clash of civilians wrote an essay about American declinism. Every 15, 20 years, someone decides that America is in decline. I have been through four of them and the only good thing about them, the only good thing about them is they galvanize the Americans to pull up their socks and address their problems. Secondly, this is a country that reinvents itself. That's the genius of America. But we reinvent ourselves from the bottom up not the top down. This Paris climate accord is a good example. The Trump administration takes it out of the climate accord. The states and the corporations and non-profit organizations say, we're going to comply with the Paris climate objectives anyway. That's how this country does it. So if you want to know the future of the country, get out there and see what's happening at the state and local level because that's our future. Turkey. Four points. Terribly important country. V Very exasperating. They have their own point of view. They are a huge victim of our enattention to Syria. They have been housing three to four million Syrians. They have done it without complaint. The PKK has killed lots of turks. It's a real terrorist threat. They have their own point of view. We are working the issues. The real problem is an underlying problem about Democratic decay. When ERDOWAN came in, we all cheered but they, he stayed too long in power. And the Turkish political system didn't find a way to get rid of him. Because the opposition parties were weak and he took over the AK party and there was no alternative. That's the real underlying problem in Turkey. The a regime that is stayed too long and a country that political system has not figured out a way to get rid of ERDOWAN who has not gotten better with age as a leader and that's not something we can do much to address. Take some more. Thank you very much. I am victor coming from Kenya. First year MPP student. Given the current state of affairs including the emergence of China and the fact that for a long time, the U.S. has been involved in humanitarian assistance. What do you think is the U.S., thinking about it the next 10 years, what foreign approximately positions do you think the U.S. can take towards Africa. Great. Let's take one more. Thank you very much. [Inaudible] from Afghanistan. Masters student in ford school. You talked about cold war. For me, it was really hard. Because in that war we lost country including my family members. After that cold war, during the cold war, United States in the traditional community especially those country covered by NATO, they were very supportive to us. I was living in a camp in Pakistan. We were getting all the support of society especially United States of America. But after the end of cold war, the western forgot us and we went into a civil war. And that finally resulted in so many devastation including the rise of Taliban that we see today. How do you see this for me it was a mystic. How do you see it foreign policy in light of foreign policy as well as diplomacy of United States. This like, which I say mystic. And the last comment that I would say, is that all these things that have gone in my life in 40 years. They make us look so bad. They make us Afghan people, the people of Afghanistan are always want fight. It was not the case. Fight wars, war was imposed on us. Let's get to the question. I think you've got it. Thank you. We have African and Afghanistan and ask you final questions before we close up. Do you want to do Africa. You will get this Okay. I'm sorry. Which one? I would do Afghanistan. Please. I think the premise of your question comment is correct. I think the United States allowed a problem to grow in Afghanistan and reached out and hit us hard on September 11, And that illustrates a larger point which is that we can close ourselves in but we cannot shut out the world. That American leadership isn't a luxury. It's a necessity for our own interests. And when problems that arise in a far corner of the world can grow and hurt us. That doesn't mean we are the world's police men. That doesn't mean we have to run every country. But it does mean that we are, that the world is no longer a place we can simply write off. So I think you are correct. And I think that part of the str struggle that is U.S. is going with the current negotiations with the Taliban is we don't want to end up in a situation where we leave Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban as they were. Okay. We can make the same mistake twice? What is the deal, what is the deal that's acceptable to us. I think the bush administration has a good record on that. I think we have gone to sleep on Africa again. My concern is we will refocus attention not because it's Africa but because we're worried the Chinese are going to establish their own control in Africa in a way contrary to our interests. What we should be doing is doing what Americans can do well is identifying those countries in Africa that have leaders that want to build governments that are not corrupt, focus on providing services and a better life for their people and partner with those leaders to help them realize their vision for their country. That's what we should be doing. So, I'm going to round up with what I call lightning round. I did this with your friend Madeleine albright and see how you two of you do. It means as a diplomat. You can't talk long. I will tell you one funny story. I said this to the UN secretary general. I said I'm going to do this. It's like being on morning Joe. But I'm not going to cut you up. But you have to go really fast. He says what is morning Joe? I said okay. So I am going to throw out. A sentence each. It's like a sentence each. And every one of these topics you could go on for an hour. You get to throw out a few too. Let me start. Ones I have been taking notes. Venezuela. I told you. This is hard. If this was easy, I wouldn't have two brilliant people with me. Judge this is an example of a leader that has destroyed his country. And we need to support the opposition and I think at some point it will, they will prevail and maDURo will go. You can skip or. You can be like those game shows where you can go -- Do you want Venezuela? He's got Russia. I will take Russia. Russia is an acute problem more and a threat to its neighbors more than a long-term challenge. Long-term challenge is China. But Russia can do a lot of damage. Resist Russian aggression now, the better to reach a better future which I believe is possible. With a different Russia. Middle East peace. Sadly, neither of the politics with the Palestinian community or Israel offer the prospects for any negotiated peace. The risk is if Netanyahu is reelected, he will establish the terms of Palestinian piece and it may not bring peace. Iran. Haven't even touched that one. The administration may need to decide whether it wants regime change, a radical change of Iranian behavior or an improved nuclear deal. It could possibly get a new nuclear deal. Unlikely to get radical change across the board and ignoring the one great asset America has. A large part of Iranian society really likes us. We need to factor that into our calculations as well. Northern triangle. You it What is that? No. 'Ll Guatemala, El Salvador. We are cutting off aid. This is the problem of fragile states. Fragile states. We need a strategy and we need those non-military tools that will allow us to help fragile states build governments that have the support of their people that can provide services and will allow the government to prevent fragile states from being sources of terrorism migration flows or the like. The idea we cut assistance to build a border wall I think is backwards. ISIS. I don't think I heard that one come up yet. Go get them. There you go. National security advisor. It's a great job. Somebody might want it. If you get a chance to be national security advisor, you ought to take it. Do you know anybody who might want it? Either one of you can take this one. Trade. A good thing. It should be free and fair. Okay. This one is coming to you. The Democratic candidates in foreign policy. Sorry. It is the election season. I don't know if you watch the debate. Don't take it -- They were 40 minutes last night. I counted on foreign policy which was better than any other debate. Don't take it too seriously. My experience that is that foreign policy discussions in presidential campaigns is a discussion of straw men or women and read herring. We have not had a realistic discussion of foreign policy in a presidential campaign in I can't remember when. Too bad. We need it. And a good example of that is the president that you worked for who did a, some great things, one of the greatest things when it comes to the area I work in when it comes to development. He's not going to nation build as a candidate. There you go. Let's do this in our last few minutes. I will ask you both question. You can throw out two more lightning round, not questions but words. Words or word we haven't addressed. Who has a word? Just a word. European integration and whether Brexit is an obstacle or opportunity. European immigration good, Brexit bad. We must deal with the consequences. Just yell it out. The arctic. Used to be cold, isn't so cold anymore. Okay. Who else? Gentlemen back there. All the way in the back. That's you. [Inaudible] that one is, Yep. Okay. Long overdue. There we go. Absolutely. And slow still. Who else? Anybody else? Last one. Go ahead. Persistence of NATO in a post Soviet era. A good idea. He has a theme. Yep. China [Inaudible] policy. China's about what? Bell road. Over hyped. Over hyped, over extended. But won't go away by itself. We need can't fight something with nothing. Compete and win where it's important to us. And let China do the rest. I'm going to ask them two last closing questions ask John will close it up. Second to last question is the one I cut you off on. Make the best case to these students here both of you, you have one minute on this and the last closing question is, why after all the scary things we just talked about, which is that the world is really in crisis, why the world would they want to go into diplomacy? The life is pretty rough. I mean, ask my children. Moving all the time. Me on the road for weeks at a time. You're making this really appealing. That's real. Look. And the names on the wall of those who died in foreign service. They are names and now they're names of friends. People I know. I'm not going to tell you to join up without you know being honest with you. But, my God. Where else would I have been able to do what I did? It gave the foreign service, the foreign service gave my opportunities I never would have had in any other career. If you're a graduate student. They really wanted to make a difference. I got to be there when the Berlin wall fell. As condy rice said, to get your hands around history and give it a push. The foreign service gave me that experience. That's worth a lot. There's nothing more satisfying and no higher honor than to be able to represent your country if you're country is the United States of America. That's beautiful. So, that deserves a clap. I agree. With everything we said, there was a poll that came out on globe affairs said 70% of our citizens want the U.S. to play an active role. There are beautiful numbers of what it means to be American leadership. They want us to be engaged with Americans want us to be engaged in trade at almost 90% to provide humanitarian aid over Promote democracy and human rights. These are EXACTLY the issues we talked about. I'm going to ask each of you to share one story from your travels. Anywhere from your 40 years in foreign service. Long career of going back to Gerald ford. This is how America leadership really matters. I saw it in any store front and any embassy and village that you visited. To remind us why global leadership of America makes a difference. Ambassador fried. So, in the early days, they weren't sure they were going to make it. I served in the U.S. embassy in Warsaw. Polls wanted to know can we do this? Is this possible? What we're trying to do now is taking fish soup and turning it back into an aquarium. They wanted to know that America believed in them and that may have made, it was a marginal, what we thought was a marginal difference. Sometimes it's where history happens. That's a particular example of Steve Hadley's general principle. I was able to say the values that we try to practice in America, try to practice, are the ones which you can take adapt them to your conditions and you will succeed. And they believed in us. And in 2014, the Ukrainian demonstrators in Kiev also believed in us. And the Hong Kong demonstrators fly the American flag. We stand for something at our best. And COUNTRIES are willing to forgive us our sins because we stand for something higher and that still means something today. I am desperate that our country not forget what we have achieved and who we are at our best. Beautiful. Thank you. I want to go a little deeper direction. If we want to get to being our best, there's something people in this room have to do particularly the young people in the room. You should be confident about the future of the country. I think our values are right. Our economy is strong. We have a wonderful education system. We have a tradition of entrepreneurship and innovation. All that will serve us well. And we have you which I think is a generation well prepared to deal with the challenges this country is going to face. You need to get involved and you need to get involved in politics if you help lead America back to being America at its best. And if the young people in this country will organize, we will get involved in politics, will turn out and vote, you can set the future direction of this country. And you should do it because it's your country and your future. Please the time is Time is now. Ladies and gentlemen. John is going to close up. Please join me in not only thanking Dan and Steve for being here and the wisdom they shared with us but for their service to our countries. [Applause] Thank you all so much. To Liz for moderating to Stephen and Dan. This is a wonderful launch to the Weiser diplomacy center and a fitting tribute to ron and Eileen Weiser who are inspired by this conversation. Come get involved. Come visit us upstairs on the 30 floor. Sign up for our simulations and our workshops. Send in proposals for things you want to do overseas to engage to learn and to shape the kinds of skills that you will be able to deploy in foreign affairs and for all you in the room who are watching online. Keep coming to our public sessions. Samantha power, Condoleeza Rice Hillary Clinton and many more. We will have a rich array that cover both American and International Perspectives, a variety of different backgrounds and persuasions as way to foster This conversation about foreign policy and make Ann Arbor the hub in the midwest that everyone thinks of when you come to talk about and learn about foreign affairs. Tell you friends, tell your family members, get them to come to our events, get them to apply to our program, and we look forward to a very exciting year ahead. One more thanks please for the Weisers and panelists and join us for a reception outside.