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

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.