Alongside james jones, john bolton, and Robert Mcfarlane will be on the panel together. All of them have served as assistant to the president for National Security affairs. More commonly referred to as National Security advisors. We will hear their insights about harnessing National Power and building interagency consensus to combat the most complicated security challenges of our time. The panel will be moderated by vivienne solana, national buty correspondent before we begin the Panel Discussion i would like to turn it over to my fellow Board Director michael anderson. Michael is the head of strategic at sob usa and has been an invaluable partner in advancing timely debates on crucial Strategic Issues here at the scowcroft center. We thank you for your 11 year partnership. We look been great and forward to many more events like these in the years to come. Before i turn it over, i want to remind everyone. And on theis Public Record and being aired on cspan. To ask questions and our moderator will choose among them during the q a session. I would like to thank all of you. Or being with us over to you, michael, and thank you. Thank you, paula. Its terrific to be here. I am mike anderson. Partneringlled to be with the command series. I must say i excited about this one. The commander series is the Atlantic Councils flagship speaking series for senior leaders. We have provided a platform across washingtons policy community including think takes, media and the government. The year, we have hosted chief of staff of the army, the commander of transportation chief of the National Guard bureau, and most recently, the air force leadership. What an exciting panel of luminaries we have gathered here today. We have these future challenges combined, are pals have 60 years of experience. They have led key decisions during times of crisis, spanning significant times from the cold war, the world terror, competition with china. Mean forhat it will National Security. There is no shortage of wisdom. Introducedelighted to our moderator, the national correspondent, from cnn. Nationalovered security for more than 70 countries. Thank you so much for moderating the conversation today. Over to you, vivian. Thank you, michael and paula. It is such an honor to be here. Im really honored to leave this conversation today. These gentlemen do not need an introduction, but for good measure, i will run through their bios. James jones, served under president brock obama as the 22nd National Security advisor beginning in january 2009. Previously he was the allied commander of europe and the 32nd commandant of the marine corps. The honorable Robert Mcfarlane is the cofounder and director of a Nuclear Technology company. 16th National Security adviser under president ronald reagan. And of course, ambassador joe served mostl bolton recently as the 27th National Security advisor under president ambassador donald trump. He was previously ambassador to the United Nations under president george w. Bush. Its great to have you here today. Its not ideal we are doing this on zoom. We do want to keep this as interactive as positive possible. You will see the q a the bottom of your screen. We definitely want to from you. Forget to put your affiliation and your name. We want to know who we are talking to. Also, join the discussion on twitter using a celections2020andforwarddefense. I thought we would talk about this is the ultimate goal, and for each of you, it would be great to hear your thoughts on the current National SecurityCouncil Structure and the role of the National Security council. These procedures improve policymaking, policymakers approach to National Issues . General jones, maybe we can start with you . General, i believe you are on mute, sir. General jones ok. Vivian go for it. General jones i should probably start out by quoting daniel , who president eisenhower used to like to quote and one of his famous quotes was america is great because it is good. That is something that we know through the century that is very complex and different from the 20th century. Nationalconcept of security and everything it entails is much broader. It is all happening at a much more rapid pace than ever before. Im sure that john would agree with this. Facing things every single day is almost doubled, does the pace of things every single day has almost doubled, if not triple. The ability to deal with the 24hour news cycle, technology, and the never ending demand of answers for complex questions never seems to go away. Characteristic has a great deal to do with the effectiveness of the National Security council. We should be as strategic as possible and we should serve as a coordinating mechanism across highlight they to presidency, those things he or she has in real time. This is complex. Work,ands an awful lot of and ability to deal with an everincreasing speed. Vivian the world was a different place when briscoe croft had this vision, brett croft whatpe you think you saw the nsc as needing to be under certain models into you think it was the right model . General jones ice that a lot of time with him before i accepted the challenge i spent a lot of time with him before accepted the challenge. Where the big differences between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration is we decided immediately to come there is one organization. Obama madet present decisions, it works better for him im not saying its the only way. Sure,e of the things for the president gets to shape the National Security council the. Ay they want to shape it that combination of Homeland Security and National Security i think john and i are in. Greement , where ambassador bolton you share your thoughts . Ambassador bolton in my book i quote a paragraph from johnson w news johnson new new sununus memoir, where he said when the president was in town there would be an intelligent briefing followed by half an hour of briscoe croft talking about National Security, and it went on for a while and he was day on and the governor would discuss with president the present domestic and political issues, and as i said in the box, if that were the way in the book, if that were the way things worked in the Trump White House i would have felt like i died and had gone to heaven. In National SecurityCouncil Structure has to adapt to a president leaving the country. Purpose,he councils the reasoning behind its. Reation and functioning it has no independent purpose. Ther than that the effectiveness of the nfc and i think for the problem i know were not supposed to be to topical is it just does not suit the current incumbent and we will see what happens in the next administration, whoever it might be. A what was the vision when you served originally . Was the world demanding a certain model model . He was rightthink that the president will design the council the way he or she wants it. It goes back to Henry Kissinger deputy, is and as his was working for brett at the time. , i would onlytaff , to enable john said the formation of designs to accomplish the goal the president has set. We are looking to build u. S. For Foreign Policy toward the middle east. They publish a direct to say is directions saying we want to accomplish this following goal thehe middle east with economic and military dimensions of how they will do that and then weeks later they come back and basin kissinger the three , that has probably been the way it has run. The point in that approaches this. , it is about publishing daysaper, and in the old there is probably a dozen papers to start with on our more differentiated set of policy , u. S. Policy toward allies, toward the middle east, andchina, toward russia that way with speeches, you got a public collaboration from the president or the security advisor or the secretary of state about the nittygritty of what our policy is in each of these domains. A certainthat meant order to the Relationship Building around the world, and riding and in oral discourse. The staff has always been too big. It was in the 50s under kissinger and i think i had it 58. Of the da but you dont need 400. I think john would agree. The beginning of wisdom is to have about a dozen in numbers system thatage the can enable the president to make sensible decisions and a staff of 400 is far to many to do that. I agree. Found the things that i upon my arrival is National Security advisor was the National Security council was severely underfunded. And severely overpopulated. It is therefore paid for by their Parent Organization and what happened was, this loan was temporary. Or two years, not much more than that. What we found was after one year , about half of the staff rotated and new people came in and i thought that was unsatisfactory and argued for more funding and basically an ability to make the national with the typeil do. Ounsel that they need to yes, i think 400 is way too many. I think it would be great to have a National Security council that would have a smaller staff. Vivian let me throw out another question. Im going to start with you, ambassador holton. Discovered that different National Security advisor seven on foreigniews versus domestic. Spokenticularly, i have to the current National Security advisor about this very issue. Its like the pandemic we are currently dealing with. Where was the responsibilities of the National Security advisor fall when you have very large Domestic Group . Ambassador bolton . I think it iston important what the coordination is on that side, and each president has their own vision of that. Thewn view is its not decisionmaking on the domestic side takes into account the International Aspects and there are some questions that obviously affect both like trade or the handling of the pandemic, but i think just as it historically, going back to Henry Kissinger, but i think we owe the original effort eisenhower, and he understood that was a great plan even if you were not voting the plan too long after you get it done because theres a lot to learn and planning how to do it. Do not exist on the domestic side, but is ultimately up to the president , whether he wants to work through the nsc structure, whether he wants to work through the someavirus Task Force President s, including the current one, do not necessarily agree with that. Vivian where is the line andeen Homeland Security what the National Security advisor. Is much of a role does the National Security advisor lay in play in Homeland Security . Administration, and johntop Deputy Brennan was the homeland , and we are all located in the white house, and the president he was present. They could coordinate how that meeting went to make the best use of the president s time. As a structure, that seem to be a valid way in consonants without president obama liked to make decisions, which was very much from the autumn of instead of the top down. It was not until the Trump Administration came around i model thatyou structure . Ambassador bolton the National Security and Homeland Security are fundamentally the same thing. I think were talking about the same homelands. The notion of these being separate. I think ultimately, you need to bring it back to a more coherent approach. I would make other structural , but that is beyond the scope of our discussion. I would like to get into some of the larger threat, the larger nsc. Ture for the im going to start with you on this one. Were talking about the number threat. Biological weapons, defining National Security and defense. If the homeland is no longer a sanctuary, how do we explore those issues . , if you can talk a little bit about these asymmetric threat . Threats . Foremostlane the family of threats is the in the United States stems from china and the challenges it offering in every domain from cyber to conventional military to kind of a novel approach expanding influence with apparently benign offers. We will build in london or congo. , the appearance of innocent offerings quickly turns into country where they borrow from china the money to build the port, lets say, in sri lanka. The debt,nnot Service China offers to turn it into equity or ownership. You can see how it does not take long before gradually china becomes the owner of the port or the highway where the power plant. China begins to have enormous influence over that governments policies. That has happened in more than 60 countries. Chinas goal is to expand its influence and presence, virtually to coal the sovereignty of country after , totry for three reasons gain resources like cobalt in congo and lithium intellect. Secondly, key locations such as malaga, canal, gibraltar, strategic locations int enable them to function the event of conflict and to project their forces with , on seace on land throughout the world as a crisis may require. That is a gradual but effective way to establish your presence and your ability to operate in peace and war very effectively. Penetrateoal is to theets, to ensure that initiative allows them to get into the huge market of western with confidence, control over the institutions as well as the infrastructure. China has raised concerns. Other countries, as well as lone wolf actors. Can you elaborate . The description of china was wonderful. Im not going to try to add to it. At the strategic level, we have two basic threats. One is russia. The other is china i think the russian threat represents the putin regime playing bad hand very well, especially in the past several years. Even a good example of how a declining economic power like russia can use asymmetric warfare techniques like in cyberspace in particular and depressed advantage with the resources it does have in the space of the former soviet union, in the middle east, and respecting us. I think these strategic threats are going to be critical for the next administration. Is the existential threat of the 21st century. Even though those are important and significant at a strategic level, i do not think you can dismiss the more immediate threat of Nuclear Proliferation from north korea and iran, which continue to grow worse, and the continuing threat of terrorism. Is weoblem the u. S. Faces are seeing threats across a Broad Spectrum which require a Broad Spectrum of capabilities and response. One thing i think is going to be critical over the next four tors, this is not a time reduce the Defense Department budget. We need to expand our capabilities in light of this broad range of threats we are facing. General jones, i was going to elaborate based on ambassador bolton. Ambassador you recently said the world is living in the shadow of Nuclear Catastrophe and pointed to escalation with the Trump Administration and china. You have pointed to the relationship between the u. S. And russia. Are feuding. Istan north korea continues to be an issue. Irans nuclear deal is on the rocks. What you make of all this and what can the United States do to diffuse the increasing tension, especially among these Nuclear Powers . Theral jones the one thing send a strong is message that we are committed to remaining a nation of great influence and we are going to do those things required to maintain that greatness. Doubt about our commitment. If you look at the middle east and going back to the Obama Administration, towards the end of that administration the arab world was seriously doubting our commitment. As a result of players like russia and others, filled with doubt. Pullingtalk about forces back to the continental United States from overseas, europe in particular. That is worrisome to our friends and allies. One of the first things we have to do is come out with a clear policy statement backed up by clear action, that we are committed, that we do want to maintain our position as a global leader. We know china is a threat. Butnow russia is a nuisance a clever one. We know iran is not going to hold to its agreements. Know the war on terror will find its way to the african continent and so on. There is a lot to do. The first step is to reassure our friends and allies, particularly international , whereations like nato is a validfense concept after years of thinking somehow russia was going to. Hoose to be with mr. Putin as president , we know that is not true. As a result, we need to make sure that, as we move our forwards defense of europe closer to the black sea and baltic sea that we do those things that are essential to reassure our friends and allies and build those relationships. Allies. Friends and china does not really have a friend or ally. They are doing it on their own. Every now and then, a reach out to the russians, but we do have ,riends and allies relationships going back to world war i. This is important. We need to build those relationships up again and show by our actions that we are committed to maintaining the traditional role of the united to restate our commitment to those values that we hold dear. You served as national during. He soviet era given what general jones is , we talk about multilateral organizations the Trump Administration has frowned theecause they do not like lack of giveandtake between certaino they criticize organizations where there have been where the ministration has called them out. Especially an organization like nato, which was initially part of a vision in europe. You and jim have made a point that is salient. That is the importance of allies. Yearve taken about a 30 holiday since the end of the cold war where we deluded ourselves into believing the rest of the world would evolve toward adopting freedom and the rule of law and so forth. It has not happened. And awakening only in the last five years or so to the reality that there are such things as ambition, lust for power and inire that currently reposes russia and china, as jim and john have describes, and trying alone, americaas is no longer plausible or feasible. We must have allies. Recent examples such as chinas interests, expanding its control over the telecommunications of europe with 5g and the United Kingdom has had the courage to stand up here about five months ago and say, no, we are not going to have you penetrating our communications. The next day, i will call and raise you. A will pull out of building power plant for you. How do you like those apples . Fortunately, secretary pompeo had the gumption to stand up and say, mr. Prime minister, boris johnson, we are with you. We will be with you tomorrow to help you replace whatever china had promised to do for you. That was the right thing to say. When you look around at our ability to build the power plants that china refused to build, we find out we have not built one in 30 years. We need allies to fill in the blanks of where the United States no longer has the capability to provide the assistance cannot be it military or domestic and industrial. Bringing the south koreans, japanese United Kingdom, france, asia fromst australia, new zealand, japan, and india, a partner we have not formed a long term historic relationship that must be thisht in to rally against threat being posed by china and russia. Bolton, you have stressed the importance of alliances but been critical of certain organizations in terms of burden sharing and other issues. Can you elaborate on that talking about threats that exist today . Not allor Bolton International organizations are created equal. Nato is not the same as the United Nations. Alliance andnse serves the interests of the members. For natot is important members to live up to the obligations they freely undertook about what percentage of their gdp they are going to spend on defense. It is a widely held view in the United States that everybody should bear their fair share of the burden. I do not think that ghost undercutting nato. I think there are some people in high places today who see it as an excuse to break the alliance. That is not what most people think. Think, looking at the structures we have built over a sustained period of time, they need to be strengthened. We are in a time of challenge and adversity. This is hardly the time to say we should be withdrawing significant American Forces from around the world and expecting that the oceans are going to protect us. That was a great idea on the 18th century. That is not where we are today. Right. Twont to touch upon Security Council members and current discussions in the news right now. The Trump Administration has getowledged it is trying to Nuclear Talks with russia off in ground and possibly do so a swift way that they will be able to reach some sort of agreement that might ultimately extend the new start agreement which expires in february. The Trump Administration has insisted it would prefer trilateral Nuclear Talks with china included in those talks. China and russia have never been enthusiastic about that idea. Now it seems like the administration is proceeding with talks with russia alone, potentially with some concessions on warheads and other issues. The in and talk to me about state of play with those Nuclear Powers in particular and this vision the Trump Administration has about having a trilateral clear deal, especially given the atmosphere we are living in today tensions rising with both countries. John has the most recent experience, but i will say the last treaty signed during the Obama Administration was the highlight probably of the u. S. Russian relations. Everything seems to go downhill after that. I refer to you for more contemporary analysis. I opposed newton start at the time in 2010 as two thirds of the republicans in the senate did. It did not cover Tactical Nuclear weapons. New Technological Developments like hypersonic cruise missiles, clearly not covered adequately. Now, and this issue of china, which did not really come up then for the advocates of new start or its opponents i think is critical. The chinese basically said our forces are so small. Come back when it is more appropriate, meaning after we build up your levels. Then we will talk about arms control. I do not think we ought to buy that. A critical strategic question for the United States. We are not in a bipolar Nuclear World anymore and the chinese are going to have to face up to this. I do not think we ought to let them off easily. Where there are disproportionate powers and play at Different Levels of weapons give abilities. We are backd think to cold war, bilateral Nuclear Deals where we just let china have a free pass. John is right about that. It is fair to say that russia has adopted the stance of sponsoring an outdated treaty that goes back 10 years and adopting a false metaphor that what is theirs is theirs and what is ours is negotiable. Sounding like they are wrapping themselves in the blanket of peace that is 10 years out of date. John is right. We deserve a balance here, but is misguided, wrongheaded. We have to someday bring china into this discussion because it is accelerating its military strength far quicker than even russia. I am going to hit upon, partly because i am a space junkie, given these countries are involved in the space race as well and the dominance of the great frontier, what are the challenges and opportunities presented by new domains of space . How has the creation of the space force impacted our approach to Space Security and defense issues . Anyone . I think the jury is still out on that one, but why not . Something we are going to be competitive with the russians and chinese on for sure. The u. S. Has signaled it is back in terms of its emphasis on space. We will see what happens. Given Everything Else happening in the world, do you think that should be a priority . General jones absolutely. Wee critics would argue already had a dedicated the to paydo thention to space, but creation of the space force, we will have to wait and see what happens. Departments have two services. One is the navy, and now the air force as well. It will be interesting to see what happens very much dependent on the outcome of the election, i think. Is no one else besides me . Hypersonicne vehicles alone would justify an intense focus on how in the world are we going to cope with it was the consensus among the joint chiefs that the air force belonged that the air force had other priorities as well. We needed a dedicated force, in my opinion. However, there are limits to how often you can create a new independent force that will inevitably be at odds for getting a bigger budget with the existing services. There are limits to how often you can keep creating a new space force. Lets not get on the treadmill forever. I think webolton have to be dominant in space. That will be increasingly important. The nishida to other countries is not in our interest. I do nothing we should have a separate space force. Technology in the field of i think we risk having budget competition where we do not need it. I would have kept it together not because i underestimate the priority. I think by keeping one Aerospace Force or whatever you want to call it we could have remained more focused. We will see what happens. I wanted to hit on a couple more things while i still have time. We have an election in two weeks and today, but who is counting . Obviously, Election Security has been a major issue. It is always a major issue but i am talking to you all who served as National Security advisers from the foreign influence perspective. What more should we be doing to protect the integrity of the election . Lets keep it to that topic given the roles you served. . Where are we falling short without taking this too i want to ask what we can do to protect our elections from foreign players. You, ambassador bolton, since you served most recently. Foreignor bolton interference in our elections is an act of war against the constitution. We should not tolerate it. Offensiveincrease our capabilities and create structures of deterrence. You are going to pay a higher cost if you try to mess with our elections then you think you will be able to achieve. This is classic authoritarian efforts to disrupt democratic societies. It is not a question of picking one candidate over another. They are trying to undermine our basic institutions and our approach should be zero tolerance. Were National Security advisor today, what would you do to combat this . I agree with what john said. One of the big things the next administration sued concentrate on is repairing fractured relationships, somewhat personal relationships too at the National Level that it is just not in our best interest to sustain. The rest ofthink the 21st century is going to be back to a bipolar world instead of the u. S. And the soviet union will be the u. S. And china and everybody between the two is going to have to pick sides. A lot of countries want to have it both ways. If you look at china and what they are doing with the concentration camps for the muslim population, that does not seem to spark a lot of outrage and people from other countries who want to have economic dealings with china and pretend like that is not important. One of the things that is very important for the future is to reassess what our values are, restate our values, make sure our allies share those values in terms of behavior on the global playing field. The 21st century is about cyber security. The 20th century was about nuclear power. The problem with cybersecurity is there are no Regulatory Frameworks that can control the spread of this technology. People are free to use it as they see fit. We see in our own country the results of Big Tech Companies using technology anyway they ints to, whether it is confidence with our constitution or not. There are big issues that are completely unregulated. We are going to have to be the champions of International Regulations because the wolfrity is closest to the door. States has developed thatoncept technologies democracies would gravitate towards, secure 5g, impenetrable available to be used on legacy systems as well. Toare in good position resume the mantle of leadership on this critical question. Mr. Mcfarlane jim is spot on with that. Beyond cyberspace, china has penetrated other institutions in our country with great advantage to themselves, even the stock markets. We have had over one hundred 60 Chinese Companies register on american stock exchanges. Opportunity, they reap trillions of dollars that have now gone to advancing chinas strategies throughout the world. They are having it both ways. Education. They have penetrated our institutions of advanced scholarship and universities throughout our country. Through the confucius institutions, they are sowing doctrine of the Chinese Communist party. Ofy conditioned the thinking the next generation of young americans. You see where this is going. Technology, stealing it from us, penetrating the institutions that advance it. We have our hands full and we need to overcome our shortcomings. We have to be the leader countering this chinese onslaught. Have about one million more questions myself, but i am going to turn it over to the audience. I am juggling gadgets. I will try to make this work. The first question is from a student at the Georgetown University school of foreign service. I wanted to dig in on it a little more. How will the threat of bioterrorism and biological weapons evolve over the next five to 10 years, and what are the applications . Implications . Ambassador bolton i am that the spread and course of the coronavirus in this country this year has taught our adversaries a significant lesson about how vulnerable we are and how badly fumbled this incident. Of a biological weapons attack is similar to the epidemiology of a pandemic at least under some scenarios. We have not done a good job. Thats long been the case chemical weapons and biological weapons have been called the poor man . Nuclear weapons. A lot of people will look at that. It is not just attacks on the human population. It could be an attack on our food supply as well. Clearly something we need to learn and prepare for better in the future. It has also told us something about china and the way they behave. There are reasons to believe we still do not know but a small part of what happened with this disease in china. It is clear that chinas handling of it has adversely affected opinions about china quite justifiably around the world. Doterms of the priority, i not know what you need other than this ongoing tragedy to see that bio defense needs more attention. Completely agree. We are going to move on. Tackleasks, how do we security risks of Climate Change beyond polarizing rhetoric and turn into action over the longterm . Go for it. Mr. Mcfarlane there are several things we must do. The basic issue is how do we stop encouraging the emission of carbon in our Transportation Systems as well as our Power Generation and so forth. We have to examine the alternatives. Electricity is so fundamental. How do youexamine get it . Most of our electricity comes from coal for the past 100 years , and we are finding that coal puts out a lot of carbon. What else . Natural gas, oil, renewables like wind and solar. Yes, that makes sense. You find out that solar and wind are limited in their ability to provide baseload power available all the time and large enough to as well as chargingwellindustrs new electric vehicles. Should lead us back to a way of generating electricity that is well known to us. This is the only source of power that is available 20 47 and does not admit anything. , the blessing is there are American Companies as well as british, polish, and others exploring different kinds of power plants. Gates, new scale, others in. Reat britain, rollsroyce new, adaptable ways of generating power are coming online. The policyvercome issue. Suddenly they are awakening to the fact that this is the only way to get from here to the paris accord standards. Thank you. I want to piggyback on that by saying one of the greatest things that happened recently was global position with regard particularly where oil and gas is concerned. I think that is a tremendous technological achievement that has really put the United States in a position of great leadership. Im old enough to remember the early days of the 70s. I would go to get a couple. Allons of gas in my volkswagen look at where we are today. Celebrate and we should invest in the responsibility for managing the spectrum of our energy good , not just one or two. Spects of the Energy Portfolio its not just the department of nuclear energy, but total energy for the United States. Is thats very important. Ambassador bolton, one point on the International Aspect of this. There has not been one climate agreement today including the paris accords that do anything in terms of verification and enforcement. Theres a lot of political rhetoric from a lot of places including our friends in europe, but particularly china and india , but if you look at the continuing sources of this problem, it remains countries that make promises and dont fulfill them. Until there is something more involved and how these agreements are going to be made workable i think we could do with less rhetoric and more thinking about that issue frankly. A lot of arm waving by china and russia and yet China Remains the biggest in midair of carbon in the world by many multiples. A lot of folks argue you get the framework in place and they and approve it over time so, what do you say to people who say get a framework in place. They are very different issues. Ofit goes to the question the country you are trying to affect, whether it is iran and andnuclear program or china is Carbon Emissions are put in a stronger or weaker position by the underlying agreement. I would say it depends on the circumstances, but we were so eager,o have a deal, so you have the problem of how you change the relative positions. I think this is more of a retarded rhetorical rhetorical issue. Vivian ok. I want to get a couple more questions and. We have just about 10 minutes last. We have a former deputy legal advisor. What should the longterm strategy be, and is the vision to simply block these technologies or take punitive action. Any of you jump in please with your thoughts. At ambassador bolton i think we should do more than block them. I think there are a lot of things and again, china is the issue. Stealers of biggest property of any magnitude around the world. Not for ines, its technology, but things that china and others have stolen from us. There are a range of things that show how serious we can be. Its not only that ambassador bolton its a very good point. In ahinese get huawei position where it gets involved in Telecommunication Systems and then it is in a better position going forward. All of this has to do with the chinese approach and we have got to do better to combat it. Think china has decided on two things one, i think china playbook, stolen our starting very hard how the United States came from where it was in the earlier part of the 20 a century to a position of absolute preeminence by the end of the century. What they have adapted it kind thatthreestep strategy hedges on penetration of the markets and they have a very seductive way of doing that. They are very appealing, very nonthreatening. Economically viable. They will obviously pay bribes to anyone who will take bribes, and once they have achieved that generally, when they get contracts, they bring it and inhe labor force algeria, the even wrought prison ships. So they do not use local work and they do not share their technology. The third step is to you is that dependence to manipulate the government of a particular company country. One of our closest allies in south korea, their economy is almost 30 dependent on china and china is lecturing the south koreans, our closest ally, they tot them to do in relation security agreements with the United States and so on and so forth. There are Korean Companies that have no relation with the United States that are only dependent on their relationship with china and they argue for going soft on china. Its very ingenious. Its very subtle. Longtermastating consequences and we have to be able to accept that. Exactly right. Its not just korea. When you look at what china has done. There is the critical commodity applicationsy and and similarly in to a with in of ourand the penetration markets and the millions of dollars they have raised from i amvestors going to ask you about the a significant the u. S. Presence in the region in general. I would love to hear you reflects on that plan. Ambassador bolton investor bolton i think it would be a huge mistake. The advantage of keeping a substantial american force, not only for counterterrorism purposes, but for others in afghanistan should be clear, but obviously it isnt. Its not that we are eager to have wars go on forever. The question should be what is americas National Security interest. America fromtect terrorists or more conventional enemies, that will apply. This kneejerk assumption that home, itng the forces has been disproved so many times frustrating to hear. I think the tragedy of in a sense and iraq is the case to put up our government following the military victory. Whoeverto accepting of emerged as a leader in the case. Karzai and Prime Minister maliki and we did not spend enough time making sure that it was capable and spend a lot of time on reform. Revival and we are not going to do nationbuilding. I think that this is a big mistake. Right. Ink hes been there and done that and understands what we have to achieve in afghanistan. The bottom line, however, it seems to me is to put our trust way thatliban in a does not enable us to assure against the takeover by the taliban in the months ahead is misguided. I think, to go back to your , today, there is a meeting of an Alliance Taking isce in eastern europe, and all those countries that have lose who have lived under the boot of the soviet union. It is exactly the kind of rebuilding of alliances we need to focus on in the months and years ahead. It is a big decline in that domain. 30 seconds for each of you left. Tell us what keeps you up at night. I think this is important. I go back to president address. Rs farewell he said america is the most influential country in the world realizeontinues you this forave to use human betterment. It is to enhance liberty and failurey and then any traceable to arrogance or the readiness to sacrifice has inflicted upon us grievous hurt. Vivian thank you. Just and 20 seconds, where your final thoughts . Just in 20 seconds, what are your final thoughts . Effortmbined cooperative by russia and china is a central threat we must face and it isnt every domain, military,. Conomic, health care wehave to get better at how defend, not only cyber, but the subtle offers of encumbering countries all over the world to enormous debt they can never service. Alliesdo it, but we need to do it and leadership, leadership, leadership. Thank you, sir. Ambassador bolton . Ambassador bolton the parties have a tendency to take, lets focus on domestic issues, and lets not worry about these issues internationally. American strong presence we will not have a Strong Society and economy here. Period. Vivian very interesting discussion. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining me. I am glad that we got to talk virtually. I would like to thank the Atlantic Council for this fantastic and timely event. Stay safe out there. Jim, john. See you, likewise. Good to see you. This was fun. President trump is campaigning with a rally in tucson. Whats live at 6 p. M. Eastern. The representative from washington you state recently fair about the need for a tax code. Groupas sponsored by a called the patriotic millionaires. Hello, welcome to tax the rich, save america