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.