Stephen Hadley, Daniel Fried and Liz Schrayer: Diplomacy in a New Transatlantic Era | Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

Stephen Hadley, Daniel Fried and Liz Schrayer: Diplomacy in a New Transatlantic Era

September 13, 2019 1:54:12
Kaltura Video

Stephen Hadley, Daniel Fried and Liz Schrayer analyze key challenges facing the United States and its partners in Europe and beyond. September, 2019.

Transcript:

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.