Foreign policy. I am jane harman president and ceo of the wilson center, member of congress and happy to be here at a place where we engage in bipartisan civil conversation, deep research into active thinking about the future of the worlworld into that spirit, lete introduce the fifth time that ivo dallder and the Chicago Council are here to release their survey of the American Public opinion. Its a Great Partnership that we have in the prior report and its an enduring alliance. Its also reassuring to me to learn the good news in this report that americans in huge bipartisan margins continue their support in an active u. S. Role in Foreign Policy and world affairs. Much of the vision for that role, to brag here, started with woodrow wilsobouguereau will ser 28th president for whom the sentrys name who served a century ago. Downstairs in memorial hall, wilsons word part of the quotes davis is a fearful thing to leave this great peaceful people into war, but the right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts. For democracy, for the right of those that submit to authority to have a voice in their own government. For a universal opinion of rights by such a concert of three people to bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. That was the addition of century ago. He tried hard, die, die trying literally, but a hundred years later we are still struggling with the challenges that he raised and the audience in this auditorium and online does this send her into the Chicago Council are needed more than ever to conduct deep scholarship and leadership to the global challenges. So, welcome to the panel today. Especially to our dear friend and presenter. I think i told you i was in brussels about a month ago and stayed with our current ambassador to former twoterm number from texas and all on the wall was ivo dallder. We have had great successors including her, she has the brief tougher than the one you said. No one should forget two days before 9 11 that on 9 11 they tow was ready to come to the common defense. Also here are Richard Fontaine ive been hinting about him, but fairly newly minted head and executive director for north american Trilateral Commission, which is a group that many of you have heard of you im involved with its committee they are back to play a more active role in the International Affairs and finally, the woman who knows everything o does evee Chicago Council senior fellow dina smeltz who will amplify parts of the report. The answer is that i sit down which i will do right now and ask them questions to elicit some of the reviews and then guess what, we want the smartest audience in the world, that would be you, to ask some questions, not mak not because , but identify yourself and i see in the audience he will send Council Member who was a great consumer like all of you are. Welcome to the panel and lets get going. As this is our fifth rodeo, theres some dispute between the site if its the fifth rodeo i am recalling all of your good reports said basically the same thing that americans by an overwhelming authority wont be part of the foreignpolicy. In the Public Opinion it stayed pretty constant. Why do you think this is . The public has a basic view of how they engage and it hasnt really changed from the cold war. Go into the postcold war period into whatever. How we are living in now and i dont know if i want to characterize it in a way t thato say that its different. That is fundamentally bought into what we call now the postwar rulesbased International Order not only of the country that has created continues to shape and maintain International Order based on three fundamental principles and once again this reaffirms the commitment to the principles. Number one, that we engage the Security Affairs to the allies and alliances and have the supporting alliances now and greater levels than any time in 45 years including that organization we just talked about in order to maintain or increase the commitment it is now at the highest level in 45 years. And with support as the highest since we first asked the question in 2002. In the middle east that remains extremely high as the question whether they should use the troops to defend its allies. So, in all of those ways the Public Opinion remains supportive of alliances. In the open Economic System based on the concept of trade come in again the public is more supportive now than it has been any time weve asked questions about trade including one to believe that its good for the American Economy. A piece of , that is a large number finally one of the new things needed in this report, we have been asking the question that goes back to 1946 should the United States played an active role in this year as last year we reached near record high. It includes things like alliances, International Trade agreements. The United States has to be the beacon for freedom and democracy and human rights for supportive nois moresupportive now than itr been in the time that ive been asking these questions. Am i watchinanion watching at movie in the last several years we expect the nato allies to make a big difference for some of the projects in the country. In spite of all of that, the American Public stays constant. Are they not riding into the . They are rejecting it in a very fundamental way. Its very important findings it if its mostly the allies that are mutually beneficial, large majorities of their either a truly beneficial or benefit the United States. So if the european alliances with support of the 65 or benefit to the United States or only 20 of those pink with the president thinks witches they are beneficial only for the hour. The same is true on trade and we ask the question do you think trade is useful for those we are trading with us or for both overwhelmingly the answer is both. So this idea of the transactional relationship where we do stuff in return for payment as opposed to the mutual interest to the both of us it is by the way it has been for 75 years. Do you want to add something to that . We have been tracking it over the past three years and in fact you might expect some of the America First policies. The u. S. Economy into relations with the United States and other countries so it is even to underscore what theyve always said the last 40 to 45 years. Let me probe of the more with you. Its more or less constant if you do the math they have more support. The loudest part of the elite on the trunk side believe the same thing. They are louder and take up more space in the Public Discourse is. So they still capture that portion of the vote and they care more perhaps about some of these issues than the add generic and who doesnt always have the time and attention to page two things about alliances but that is where the issue is like immigration and Climate Change they might attract some voters or that might be what they are both engaged about. Have had a slew of ambassadors. He said he didnt ask. He was just told her that its pretty darn amazing. Okay so, richard, we havent talked about congress. You did work there for one lifetime for john mccain. Aoff like two lifetimes. I would like you to think about john mccain and what he taught so many of us about foreignpolicy. He was the leader of many congressional delegations on international trips. I went on at least ten to the security conference in munich germany in february and then attended another decade since. But john mccain among other things was the pied piper of foreignpolicy and he taught all of us how to think about a world and its challenges. It would be helpful to tell us about that and also tell us about what you are doing at the Trilateral Commission and how a person outside of this report thinks about what they just achieved. Some of the findings in this particular report would coincide with where senator mccain came down on the side of the world. Since the end of world war ii, there have been three animating principles of the foreignpolicy to keep the peace we would have strong alliances underwritten by the former deployment of american troops and increased prosperity to the international Economic System by free trade into the disparate forces of freedom when possible, we would have a bias in favor of democratic systems versus the autocrats. The debate between republicans and democrats and conservatives and liberals its more how you do those things, how you make the tradeoff and embrace the princely autocrats verse is the democracy movement, how big of a military do you need. Its not really whether we do those things and i think weve gotten into the time theres a lot of questioning of the most senior levels whether those are the right principles and its good to have alliances and free trade or should we all forgot, is it good to promote democracy when we should put our noses in places its not welcome. Then you get into the argument about how to do with all that its not a reputation. The fact that there does seem to be the public feeling one way. It is diffuse benefits of the concentrated costs. Raise your hand if you feel the cost associated in the tariffs. Probably nobody can feel that there is a cost. Does anybody feel those costs . If you work in the aluminum industry that you are going to lose your job come even though the cost to the American Economy was 700,000 it certainly isnt your salary, then you feel it a lot more strongly so you are more likely to vote on that issue. If john mccain were still in the senate, i wish he were, but what would he be saying right now . Andree would probably be on a plane to afghanistan right now and i think that he would be wondering a couple of things. One, as he did frankly until his passing a year ago if we adopt a policy of entrenchment, whatever you want to call it, what comes next, is it true if the United States steps back whether its the will tliterally, diplomatict of friendly local step up in a spirit of burden sharing, fill the gap and do things in our interest that we would prefer not to do, i think the answer is no. The answer would be no. Is that the cas it the case that sort of get out of afghanistan for example didnfor example har assurances that they will behave in trade with an appropriately we dont have to be there and we can have what we want out of it and the then that puts a set of requirements on the United States for engagement that gets back to the foreignpolicy sum of the political leaders today. Let me stay with that for one minute because nobody missed the news the last 24 hours about the canceled talks with the taliban and at camp david. I want everyone in congress except one person who authorized the use of military force against those that attacked us based on afghanistan. I voted for it. Barbara lee was the only no vote, 535 votes and she did that as a matter of principle and i respect her courage in doing that. Weve prosecuted our case. I would say looking back especially when you add iraq that we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for either of the war and we are still in them especially the one in afghanistan is do we have a day after strategy for getting out of the war . The answer is no. I suppose the United States would be staying in some capacity they cobbled together the present but the day after strategy seemed to be turned over to the locals in hopes that things go well after we leave afghanistan and appears the best deal we can get making perfectly clear we are getting out irrespective of what the deal looks like a. Anybody that has done these things if you want to see certain conditions you have to be willing to go back in terms of Public Opinion personnel i think generally speaking that is probably not a bad analytical judgment on their part is and i think there are lessons to be learned. We are now in the third administration. We forgot about afghanistan with enough humor to it focused on iraq and didnt resource the strategy as well as we should. The general talks about the failure of tora bora into the decisions he was leading in lean kandahar into the mountains to deal with that issue and in everything that has come before. One of the things we shouldnt forget if this is a war that even today, one third of all the forces that are in afghanistan are not american. They are allied forces both who continue to fight alongside th them. He was a romanian soldier that was killed on thursday alongside that we didnt have a strategy for resolving the issue and frankly the strategy we now have is not that different from the strategy we had the previous administration. How do we get out without anyone noticing, the problem is the other guy notices when we leave it as a result will take action locally to our interest is to the interest of i would add to the strategy may be the wrong word. Word. We are in a transaction to try to achieve results. You hav have said that you are solved. Were solved. This stuff shouldnt be when lose. It should be winwin. I looked at this again and just have everyone contemplate this and then we will go. Its a fearful thing to lead us into the war the right is more s more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things weve carried nearest you mentioned that there are two places, i think that its too and you mentioned it again, or three instead of th the americans pulg together with more robust support, they are pulling apart and one of them is immigration where you say that fears about t immigration are growing 78 . 78 to 19. Second one is Climate Change, which is at the top of the democrats agenda. 70 of democrats see it as critical, where 23 of republicans see it as critical and third is the development of china as a world power and the majority of republicans are concerned for the First Time Since 2002. Explain to us by th why the cons is growing in other areas. Climate change and immigration have long been issues that are dividing the American People. If you look at page 25 it shows immigration is a threat to you can see that early on the back of the republicans ar were not really that different. Now in the trunk era, republicans are even more fearful of immigration in the democrats have been steadily declining. Part of that has to do with the Democratic Party it is younger and more diverse than the Republican Party which has pretty much stayed the same but. Tell us about the polling sample. It reminds me because lets be sure that you did this perfectly. Shuler. It was a sample of about 2,000 people we used an online polling organization that draws the sample from the actual addresses and its not like those that you often see in the newspapers or online where people self select and answer some of these people are actually chosen in a statistical way so that nationwide representative on page 39 issues what kind of breaks down according to the demographics and if you have questions, we can. There is a divide on immigration having to do with the Democratic Party. And its barely enough. In our dna and others come immigration was a key factor in support for donald trump come of antiimmigration and he is hes amplified it in a way that is done and you can also see that on page 26, despite that gap, there is a bit of overlap. Its funnand its funny becausee past when comprehensive Immigration Reform seems like a possibility in the George Bush Administration i should point out. The large majority support it. You can get a hint of that on page 26t 26 majorities of democ, republicans and did support a pathway to citizenship for the Illegal Immigrants int and havea clean criminal record. Its also bipartisan. That is the basis of coming to some kind of an agreement. But we know that it hasnt been able to occur. It has really captured so much attention and legislative. What about the Climate Change. So, we had a brief but is coming out soon including questions to ask about what the democrats want. The Green New Deal and the candidates are talking about the Climate Change and it could be that theyve pushed the delete but anyway they are on the same page. Denying the fact is Climate Change with what happened a couple of years ago in a further recount with all the hurricane damage in grenada damage in the u. S. And the rising heat in the summer. They then say its Climate Change and might be manmade or both manmade and cyclical. As a threat if only moved a little bit from 2016 to 23. We are questioning whether it is a really a problem and it needs to be addressed. These changes are happening slowly and that is still in my view an improvement for questioning whether it needs to be addressed at all and part of this politicization of Climate Change has happened in. In the 90s Climate Change and Global Warming got attached to al gore which the creativity very politicized view of issue much like bush and the tribe a lot of that is carried over but there are some Republican Leaders and stalwarts like George Shultz is the Carbon Tax Initiative and media is more republican elites. In the conversations with the American People and in the senate at the time every other light bulb, its funny we should talk about light bulbs these days, with turned on if the press conference for along timeg time ago and its gotten uneven attention over many years but i think at this point many people see it as a crisis. You wanted to come in and we still want to talk about china. The interesting thing on the republican side on the Climate Change issue was the generational splits because i love james baker and George Shultz but i dont think they are going to be the vanguard of changing republican views on Climate Change, but millennial spies because if you look at the polling not in this particular survey that including some of the other republican polls but millennial is in general would put Climate Change is the number one Security Threat and republican millennial schools sometimes put at number one as well commit or number one or number two. It is the product of the natural variations but no millennial skamania in, they tend to put twice as much as the oldest. That group is becoming a bigger share of voters and they enter the voting base and vote often so what this all comes down to is a member of Republican Leaders kind of saying weve got to have a Climate Change policy or we are going to start losing millennial saying we might lose them forever if they no longer vote republican and this is their number one issue. And they are already looking toward the Democratic Party. Im not trying to handicap which party wins. Im talking about how they see these issues. I was elected to congress in 1992 and i remember china as a bipartisan punching bag in the 90s. I remember being called an agent of communist china by one of my opponents o, democrats and one f i races back in my law practice days lobbying for the beijing chamber of commerce. My view is china has consistently been on a bipartisan basis viewed as a critical threat and frankly speaking as a democrat, i cant president of trump credit for confronting china with some of the practices that hav have confounded us for a decade or so more. Explain why you see China Growing bipartisan divide and being viewed more by republicans. When we all got together at the council we were always surprised, compounded its such a big problem and issue and threat and the American Public doesnt seem to register that. This past year, the republicans see china as a critical threat and its not a super high threat thasuperhigh threadbut its a de issue where we dont see a lot of issues usually. It is definitely catching on. And on page 30, we can see the republicans in particular are more supportive of restricting the exchange of Scientific Research which has been great. 74 , 54 and the independent. They support a number in the united stateUnited States if itn heading into the diplomatic realm. So, yes it is the messaging from the white house catching on with an mac. A microphone must come to you before you speak. Speak. Identify your self and ask a question. Do not take a speed, please. Do i see somebody in the very back . Though i dont. Yes i do. On the left, my left about three rows in. From the university of maryland, one quick point and one question. Quick point, we did a poll on u. S. Trade in june and is strikingly similar results. We are not supposed to be reporting that asking questions. I would comment itself is strikingly similar. One thing that has been true in Public Opinion over a long period of time is a reversal of the partisan divide on trade. In the 80s and 90s democrats were marked trade skeptical than the beginning around 20002005 so whats the question. It seems to predate trump and i wonder if the survey can shed any light on that. I know trade was one of just several issues. Part of it has to do with the change and come position of the Republican Party. Party. A lot of the better educated whites in particular used to be part of the Republican Party and they have now shifted allegiance so that part of the response because the shift upward among the americans today is partly because i think it wouldve republicans think President Trump can improve trade agreements so they are banking on his being able to create economic positives. I would observe each party has a strong antiand pro weighing and that has been true for a long time. The pro trade crowd together and not the majority i would say anymore. Maybe in personal terms it is, but the new nafta is going to have some suppressed feeling. It may be part of a more comprehensive deal. I dont know if anyone else wants to comment. Whats remarkable about the trade numbers is the partisan difference. The difference between republicans and democrats with its good for american companies, its five Percentage Points whether trade is beneficial for the relations with other countries. The partisan differences zero. 90 of the bigoted republicans think the trade is beneficial for the relationships in the United States with other countries. We have a very strange phenomenon that both democrats and republicans are becoming more and more. One of the reasons republicans are becoming more traitors because they think it has an effective policy for promoting trade and so when you start Digging Deeper about what is it that we should be doing, you will have a much greater partisan difference but overall you now have a basis for thinking of trade has less of a political football that used to be. We are going to keep the questions and answers short. You write here third row in a blue shirt and then we would continue next. The microphone isnt working. Do we have another . Spin a i have a question at the intersection of military alliances with other countries and trade. There was a very distressing figure im a sick that some weapons to other countries makes us less safe. 74 think that military Alliance Makes us safer and 87 to take a first stab at that. Americans dont like selling weapons to other countries. We asked about taiwan and whether it is a good thing or bad thing but. They are the bipartisan majority on page 30. There is a very Strong Negative bipartisan view that it doesnt make americans safer or isnt a good thing to do. That said im sure that it would change the way that it gets raised to believe the United States should divide and sell military equipment im pretty sure that would get high numbe numbers. As an issue the president in particular has raised within sales as the beall and endall according to the relationship with saudi arabia. The American People are not buying that. Front row over here. I wonder if you could talk a little bit deeper. I heard two things here. Americans support the traditional view of being Robust International engagement, but at the same time its clear that americans are tired of these wars. So which one is it, do they support afghanistan or not . I know its not that simple, so tell me why that is. In the military intervention, the polling numbers and in others its distinctly unpopular and i would put in a different category from the other forms of engagement in the world. If you define engagement as trading relations into diplomatic relations and alliances and all the other things they ask about, those numbers are high. Military intervention is a cost associated with those over the past two decades and with the perceived lack of results the past two decades has been distinctly unpopular. Now, that said, again it gets to what is the intensity of the opposition and does that translate for an exampl examplea president saying the American People dont want to be in afghanistan anymore. I have to sort of pull out completely. No, i dont think so. If you look at the popular opinion traditionally can suppor, supportor lack of suppos been related to lower the costs financially in terms of casualties and what are the perceived progress or lack thereof towards a particular objective that is stated if you have progress towards an objective and relatively low cost, people may not actually like it, but they would acquiesce t to policymakers to k he gets in the interest of the United States to continue doing it. Its when they see high cost if no progress but it becomes very unpopular and thats what we have had in the various or over the years so as an enterprise military intervention is the one element of the sort of traditionathis with traditionale downhill very quickly. Let me add, because this goes to the heart of what we are seeing here which is in the normal foreig Foreign Policy eao circle, which we all live in in the swamp, theres an assumption that if you are against come if you think that it was iraq and afghanistan highcost if you are against us than yogodthat you are against s militant and you are no longer needing to be tough in the willingness to intervene with other countries. The system is completely different. It says that in fact the way that you make america safe is the traditional way which the United States has made america safe which is used military superiority, strong alliances, basing forces over, been wanting tbeingwilling to defend your als when they are attacked. Forward basing continues to be strongly supported particularly in asia, a little less in europe but still there is support for that. There is no support for, theres military intervention to resolve conflicts which is how we made the question. That is depending alice, yes to being there, yes to being strong and determined and out to the kind of interventionism that we had in the past 20 25 years. Thats where the distinction would rise. It doesnt matter if you think i iraq or of ghana stan and dont enterethey would turn out to be successful when they said it. They are not the way to do it. That does not mean youre against the lines organs military forces, it does not mean youre against spending on the military. It means you want to have a strong american presence in the World Without having to use it in some places that have not proven effective. I would add what i think is true, the use of military forces is not the first option. We have robust and Lindsey Graham as an example would say we have a robust diplomatic and we can win a lot of wars. Including Woodward Wilson. We will question over here. Fourth row, second from my right. Thank you i am sending with the voice of america. And you mention that the president has had harsh words for traditional u. S. Allies, and the other side of that, he prays on the north Korean Leader in the russian president and other authoritarian leaders. Does your survey say anything about how americans view that, do you think that will be important when they go to the voting booth . We did not really ask about that, we asked about opinions of the leaders which are low of kim jongun in higher among republican statistics. Its still a small minority. I would say, i think that perhaps this president ial election round, more than others, people will be judging the character, the way the president imports himself to our allies in the world and even more diffused than a specific policy or reader and thats how it might come into play. Other questions . In the back and then we will go to you. Thank you. Aaron hurley. On my page 16 when looking at making the usa, maintaining u. S. Military superiority. What if the panel would reflect on that finding in particular in the current 2020 democratic residential field in the fact that joe biden is the only one that seems to be standing fully in line with the findings. Anybody . I was going to say im not the right person to answer this but its washington, what the hell. [laughter] one, i think you have to attribute to candidates, their own views and not just responsiveness to the voting public. So we should not imagine that theres only a mere what the public would support and two, you have to look at where the intellectual energy is on the democratic side during the primaries which is to move in a more progressive Foreign Policy direction which means cutting the Defense Budget for example in order to plow the funds into domestic priorities, again. Beyond the Vice President biden, it seems that tends to be the talking point for most of the other candidates who have spoken out on that. I would suppose if you asked a democratic candidate would you be military superior or inferior i imagine people would say inferior in the party word now is moving the cost with superiority into domestic priorities whereas on the republican side, i think part of this is was specifically related to china threats and the idea of their investing in these things and yes would love to have domestic priorities but because of the nature of the threat we attribute to china in the future, it is worth now investing more in the military that we otherwise would. The issue of increased defense spending in particular is one that splits the moderate and conservative among the democrats and liberal democrats. Does that mean perhaps avoid that topic or not hammer on it too hard right now . Also i think the American Public takes it for granted. I would also add the energy in the democratic side is around other issues. I dont think this gets attention that it could and certainly as one who represented the district, id a lot of constituents who were democrats and republicans who supported robust defense spending as i did. I think now the focus is on Climate Change and cultural issues and so forth. And that is where the candidates are talking about. In the middle on the other side and the will go to you in front and were running out of time. Maybe we will do a lightning round and take the master questions. That might be best. Identify yourself and ask your question then will take yours i wondered if you look underneath the third priority which is the democratic and human rights around the world, how people often do that since i was part of a mission . Go to the same question to the one in front and will have a wrap up by each candidate to answer these questions and make comments they would like to. Richard coleman, cbp. Every question to sharpen the focus on what was called nationbuilding in places like afghanistan who have no democratic tradition or capacity that we can see. Who goes first . On the question of how to promote democracy around the world, we didnt ask the how, we asked the weather and to see whether americas think in general, do they think promoting a democracy of human rights is useful for making america safe or not, is a part of how we have to engage in how to do that, we did not go into details. In the past we have looked at and ask questions, should we use troops for this purpose and thats with support for using force as a means from the democracy were lower than this finding, about two thirds of americans. 56 of americans think its safer. I think the two are connected. Promoting democracy and human rights in the nation in terms, i think is bright and promoting democracy around the world can be done in many ways. And i think that is probably what the American Public has a mind in that particular question. Nationbuilding, as we talked about earlier, the American Public is willing to use the u. S. Troops to defend the United States or allies against direct threat. But they do not support the u. S. Forces in getting involved in conflicts that are within their own internal politics. They do not want to get involv involved, they will support to fight but not to get involved in the civil war. I dont know if that completely answers your questions but theres not a lot of support for nationbuilding in terms of the military. Im getting uses opportunity to make a point that has not come up so far, in addition to trade numbers, the thing i found striking was on page 34 when asked americans what the threat to the United States were. Yesterday, the secretary of defense said in a speech the power competition is a National Security focused in the competition in china and russia. His predecessor said Great Power Competition is not terrorism is the top challenge to u. S. Events policy and the National Security policy both reflect that in that theres anything on these issue its a Great Power Competition and we have to hyperfocus on. On page 341 of the threats, russia and china are all the way down the list. Foreign interference, political poor laissez shane, immigrants, refugees, all those things than the military power of russia or china as a world power. That is just the great power disconnect between the policymakers and the public individually have profound impacts and the numbers on china are raising the stat still way w these other things. In the competition that it will require a whole society effort of the longterm competition. American people certainly do not seem to be there. So not only does that suggest to me that there is work to do in addressing the gap, it also suggest there can be Great Power Competition unless you address the other issues of the American People. Thats a good place to end. Let me add a point, for 16 years after 9 11, all of our security doctrine spok focus on counterterrorism. We were attacked, shocked, put in place of a number of policies, some of which were over corrections and we have not abated the goal but were focused on something else, the American People are saying through the very good pull, wait a minute, this is what we care about, this is what our country stands for. It is very important to step back and take a deep breath and try to make sure what is going on in the bubble of washington is in touch with the country. Thats with the Chicago Council has done again. And thats what has showed up to present here again and thats why were happy to host these things in the six the rodeo starts a year from now and will hope that would read real son, the president and certainly the Woodward Wilson center will be very proud of the people of this country who have made their voices heard and really want a Foreign Policy that reflects their values which are enduring american values. Thank you folks for coming over and sharing detailed and interesting findings. Thank you very much. [applause] bessler. This is two hours and 20 minutes. Good morning everyone. Thank you everyone for coming here this morning and those of you that dont know me on the national city