Everybody for joining us. Thank you for the council on Global Affairs. We will be Live Streaming this evening. For those of you that cannot stay off of twitter. During the discussion, we have a few hashtags that we can use tonight. Also, hashtag at 70. With that i would like to welcome my panel. Lets just jump right into her. We have with this the last close to two decade experience covering and handling some of the biggest issues in world affairs. I am sitting with for the people that i would reach out to all the time for insights and thoughts. I cannot say that about many of them. Really, there is no one better to speak about in the milestone of the Nato Alliance. Im going to ask each of the ambassadors to start off. How it was brought home to them by their unique issues. And a little bit of the reflections of what it meant to them. Want to start. Good evening everybody. I want to thank them. They have done such a great job. It really is an internationally known present. Because of his efforts. Thank you for your hospitality. I will be brief. I was ambassador between 2001 and march 2005. On my 12 day, they had the greatest crashes. The very close friend of mine. September 11, we were hit hard. Everybody remembers where they were at. 6 hours ahead. We were in a meeting with our fellow investors. We were cut off in washington. They were all evacuated. The pentagon was hit physically. Evacuate the building. The phone started to ring. Defense department. Secretary colin powell. Secretary of defense rumsfeld. When the phone rang, it was the canadian ambassador. At that time, the thought about have you started approaching. Article 5. That key part of the contract. That would be attack on all of us. It was written in 1949. In the cold war. They will have to plan for the the town in the 20th century. We were attacked on september 11. The said the allies was supporting. We worked the phones. They got home. The next morning, september 12, 2001, we about article 5 of the first and only time in nato history. Just before we went down, as the leadership team, i called the president S National Security advisor. When in the presence person. What is the president to give us that because we will go to war with our nato. The president had a really bad day. It was 4 am. She said go for it. I said i would take that as my president ial instruction. She said it is good to have friends in the world. Our allies at that time with 17 others go with us. They all went into afghanistan with us. Most of them are still there with us. 1000 combat deaths in the last 18 years. We cannot purchase a alliance letter. Is our best friends in the world. For anyone to say this is important are vital. Im going to jump across the line. I think we talked about this before. The kind of encapsulated everything that they represented. You experience that you stop. I was with nick as his deputy. Then i went home for two years. Nick is a congenital optimist. A job article 5 home. We had 21 allies along the table. Others did not know what it meant. They did not know what we would do in response. Did not know what their legal obligations would be. They also had people who were representatives of the coalition government. The required approval. I remembered we were supposed to meet. We have one representative for one small mission. Crying on the couch of the secretarygeneral. I remember that we had another. They did not come together into the quarterly design. Women just get out the tree to make sure we could do it. She said go for it. She also said do not mess it up. She definitely did. I remember thinking of the day after the worst day in american history. If we do not get these other 20, we will not only be the victims. It did not go that way. I had them when i came back in 2005. You remember that germany and france. They were very opposed. We also had our allied about being needing protection. Needed to get the patriot batteries. In the event of counterstrike. I spent the first couple of years tragic events the allies. In his second term he was far more friendly than he had been in his first. We learned then. At that time there are very wellequipped for Territorial Defense. Getting all the way out. Maintaining their equipment out there. Actually setting an enemy who fought in the shadows was emerged the thing. Different kinds of capabilities. I think it was a far better way to go to mentor the allies. Help them to figure out. It makes a horrible for them. I remember traveling to nato with secretary clinton. She was the ambassador. At the time, theyre trying to get countries to commit more trips. He does not have time. Who are you trying to get. We do not divulge diplomatic conversations. I do remember it being an extremely important task for you. The u. S. Was going to put more skin in the games. The first thing we have to do. We had to research. In afghanistan. In 2009, they made the decision. They will put more troops into afghanistan. I can say in great detail. Having more troops go into afghanistan. The United States only do 30. The allies would have to do 10. It was why it was diplomatic secrets. We did that by the way. It was not just me. Was a government effort. They spent a lot of time on that. We got the troops. After that operation, have to training. That continues to be the case. I think its something that i learned. The 2011. We debated whether or not to go into libya. Not only are you the u. S. Ambassador to nato. Trying to educate capitalist about the importance. Other than to say the president of the United States said he was not going to get involved in nato. They would take the initial leave. They were more involved. Driving more of the process. They should find a way to carry the bulk of the operation. We would help them with the kind of forces that we had. The capabilities. We have targeting capabilities. We has some intelligence that our allies had. There would have to do to bulk of the operation. We would hit it off to someone. The thought about who they would hit it off too. When that decision came, that was interesting. That it was going to take the lead . The french . I do not see british. Under the french canal. That do not have the capacity to run the multinational force. We have to sell back to washington. The idea that they should take control of this operation. Very high levels. To say maybe not. We had to intricate. People in washington. Why it matters. Military understood it. In that godawful place. Not only spending a lot of time talking to your colleagues. Spent a lot of time talking to washington and educating washington about the importance. Often part of what it is we do on a daytoday basis. Coming to the Nato Alliance ambassador. Having to go to the military. You come in. Was that was a period of dealing with the ukraine. Russian designs. The kind of thoughts that nato took a turn. Into areas that were not necessarily considered part of its charter. Against russian aggression. The kind of feels like this is back to basics. It is a little familiar. We had a great face. That persisted for about six months. Late february or early march. Sell for must of completed. The police force. For the First Time Since world war ii. They took a piece of the smaller neighbors. Violated the territorial integrity. We occupied two provinces. In covert support. They are still there. That should have natos attention. In june 2014. That is happening right now. Is a boundary with all that. We had these successions. What i took from that very dense. Even though it was a 30year old bureaucracy. If you look back through the Rearview Mirror at that period, they have taken some very substantial adaptations that really account for this point. I want to circle back for me. For me the most experience. January 2017. It is traditional. After visiting. There is the use of the president s time. Reconnect on the american commitment. We imagine before he became President Trump. If we commemorating. What experienced firsthand that day. We do this by going to the 9 11 resume in new york. This is some artifact. It is a piece of twisted metal which is the point of impact. That is outside nato headquarters. Every day the employees worked pastor. The idea was, but the memorial laws. The potency of article 5. Our allies were there for us. The display was to be unveiled. It is called article 5 the world. And reminded everybody. However none of that happened. The podium was there. The new president showed disrespect to our allies in public. They never said the words article 5. That is a political statement. It reminded me of something that they typically granted for 70 years. That is the commitment of the overall office. It was such a sharp contrast. The praises to a shameless plug. I want to quote from the report about the challenges. About 10 big challenges they are facing. I really encourage you to check out the report. Represents the most severe crisis. Since the end of the cold war and perhaps ever. The question is if they can adapt to these changes. As we talk about how this is not a political statement, one of the big challenges, and what the report says, the single greatest threat is the absence of strong leadership for the first time in its history. It is the first president to talk about the eu as the competitor. This is not a political statement. This is to ambassadors from various political persuasions. Talking about a threat to the alliance. Nick, wanted to tell us a little bit about how President Trump, his desire to have the burden sharing. How has that damaged the alliance. Sometimes people say the Biggest Challenges they have is getting through the rest of this administration. Is sent both sides on the elliptic. Leaders in north america and europe. They will talk to members of congress. We try to approach on a nonpartisan basis. Our tradition is nonpartisanship. This just reiterate that. People who have served. Republican and democratic. Is very important to remember. We wrote the study. Trust to analyze nato. I want to start by saying we think nato is in great shape. It needs reform. Stephanie part of americas future. As we look at the problems and crisis, our first recommendation is the absence of strong president ial leadership. Truman and eisenhower. Both of the bushes. All of our postworld war ii president s thought this was essential. Just a couple of examples of the lack of principal leadership. He has several swings at the bar. He was asked. A hypothetical question. You think our sons and daughters should go to war to defend it . He says they are not sure the show. He had never taken on the issue of the interference. Since 2017. Has never convened. To talk about the fact that theyre using hybrid welfare. Most notably, their traveling in europe. The single greatest problem is the antidemocratic populace. In france. Gives them the evidence. President trump is not living a charge against the antidemocratic populace the way you picture Ronald Reagan. He has embraced the antidemocratic population. The polish government. He has made the focus of his criticism. The american policy towards the upside down. Gives you president ial leadership. That is the major analysis. There is a lot more on this report and just our view. The weakest american president. By far on the Nato Alliance. The reason for that. That requires u. S. President ial leadership. That is reserved for the United States president. Your handicapped. I think it is kind of meeting the challenges of arise in china. On the economic front. That is somewhere that he has been willing to confront china. It does seem he is emerging as a threat. To and a competitor certainly, seeking dominance in military technology that say threat to anywnato. We site two of the ten challenges is not here yet, but imminent. We call them on the horizon, meaning theyre in front of us. We can see it from here. One is emerging technologies, and we call for nato to update the way it applies commercial technologies to military purposes, and, in particular, getting at things like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and so forth. Nato is behind the game on that. The second, though, is the looming competition. I would call it competition with china. You know, today that competition from the perspective of our european allies is mostly commercial competition, you know, china is buying up transportation infrastructure, communications infrastructure. We read about the competition for 5g and the vulnerability if the chinese firm huawei embeds itself in the european infrastructure. But those commercial investments today, the greek port of por rayias, for example, is owned by the chinese is intended to have a political payoff down the road. Theyre buying these for commercial purposes, right . And thats all good and well, right . Theres in the marketplace competing. But theres an expectation of political influence that will follow this commercial influence. And thats what the report calls for our nato allies to sort of wake up and Pay Attention to this campaign of commercial and political investment in europe, not because we think the chinese are about to invade europe or that nato should send ships to the south china sea. It doesnt have to go into the military realm. But we think the opening salvos of commercial investment and political investment deserve natos full attention. Another important thing to note and its also noted in this excellent report is, you know, nato is struggling to confront what they call a potentially cancerous threat from within, that some of the governments in nato poland, hungary and turkey are starting to look a little undemocratic. And nato, you know, at its core, is an alliance of democracies here. And how does nato confront that from within, you know, should some of these countries have conditions that they have to meet here . So two points. Just to reemphasize, this alliance of 29, soon to be 30 countries only operates in one way. It only has one operating mode, and the operating mode is that it has a single driver, and the driver actually lives in washington and not in brussels. Isnt that part of the problem . Isnt that a little bit part of the problem, though . I mean heres where americans that support President Trump just to play devils advocate have a point. Should there be, you know, the United States kind of helping others take on, you know, responsibility . In order for them to take on that responsibility, somebody needs to drive the truck. Its what we call, in good diplomatic parlance, herding cats, right . Someone needs to herd cats. And if its not the United States, then it has to be someone else. And weve found that sometimes the secretarygeneral has a particular knack for diplomatic engagement, that they can do that. But in essence, it is the american power, prestige, and its commitment to nato that drives things. Now, how do you want to drive . The best way you drive them is for others to do more. So theres no disagreement in that sense between President Trump and all of his predecessors, all of whom have asked, since harry truman, since 1952, when harry truman says its time now that the war is over, that you guys start doing more for your defense. Thats been part of it. But the way you get them to do more is to be part of the solution, not to only point to them and say theyre the problem. So thats one thing. This idea of American Leadership is really fundamental in how do you have coalitions behave in a much more effective way. And that gets to the issue of democracy as i think nick rightly points out. If the United States embraces those who are questioning democracy, then more and more countries are saying, you know what . Maybe its okay for me to move in that direction, and it sort of starts to eat away at the structure of the institution. How do you lead in nato . You can only do it by example. There are no its not the European Union. No one can be thrown out of nato. Its impossible. The treaty doesnt allow for it. It is an alliance that is based on consensus decisionmaking, and the only way to change consen ses decisionmaking is for consensus to agree. If youre trying to ostracize a country, lets say for the sake of argument, turkey, you need the turks to agree that they should be ostracized. Thats very hard. So how do you do that . How do you do that . You start putting pressure on them, and somebody needs to lead that effort. You bring countries together and saying, the way you are behaving and the turks, for example, right now with regard to buying s400 Russian Air Defense systems, are not behaving in a way that is particularly good for the alliance. But you can do that in two ways. You can send your Vice President out and go publicly castigating them as mike pence did on the 75th anniversary of nato, or you can diplomatically engage with all of your allies and put the pressure on the turks and try to have them change their mind. And thats how it works. Its sometime hard work. Its diplomacy. Its greasing elbows. Its not always pretty, but it usually is effective. The one way you can guarantee its not offensive is to grandstand from a big stage and think that everything is going to change. Were going to open it up to questions in one minute. If you could take a Bigger Picture look at, you know, whether nato has you know, i think all the panelists here would argue that it hasnt, but whether nato has outlived its usefulness. What does a world look like without nato . Well, first of all, when you think about the International Organizations we have, whether its the united nations, the world bank, the imf, the wto, any of them, theyve all tried to reform. Nato actually has reformed again and again and again. At the end of the cold war, the first threat that we had was out of area. It was in the balkans, the wars in bosnia, the wars in kosovo. It was not obvious. We were not defending our own neighbors, our own members, and nonetheless, nato took the lead in those engagements. And it was because nato was in charge that all the countries were able to participate. Next comes afghanistan as we talked about. A conflict a thousand miles away in the desert, not on anybodys border. Who would have ever thought when nato was founded that its first that it would end up in afghanistan and in afghanistan for, what, 15, 17 years with every single ally participating. Then all of a sudden in ukraine, deploying every single ally on the eastern edge of the alliance and getting that done under dougs leadership within a month and a half. So nato is a flexible, adaptable organization. But more importantly than that, yes, its a military alliance. But more importantly, it is a political alliance. And all four of us spent every week that we were at nato in a tuesday lunch with all of our nato allies, a wednesday formal nato meeting session that could go on anywhere from an hour to six hours depending upon what we were doing, to afternoon meetings on wednesday with our partner countries in the middle east, in africa, in asia, to thursdays special sessions on topic a or topic b. So it was a permanent conversation between the United States and its closest, most democratic, strongest allies in the world. It is a family in permanent conversation around a nonstop dinner table. So as the issues change, as the challenges and threats changed, when they changed from Territorial Defense to terrorism, for example, we were able to have that conversation about what we could all bring to the table, what was needed, how to approach this. And on the china issue that doug spoke about so eloquently, what is needed now is a transatlantic conversation about what appropriate investment from china looks like versus more rapacious investment or that might undercut our security or privacy, et cetera. We can, because we have the standing family dinner table, which is always at the ready and with permanent representatives who know each other, trust each other, and are trusted by their governments, work on issues like that together. And when we dont use it, we are simply throwing away one of these Great National assets thats been built over decades. Now, a lot of us believe that our liberal, open, free, prosperous way of life now faces a far more significant ideological challenge than it has in decades and perhaps then communism imposed in the form of these autocratic governments who dont like the rules of the road that we set for global ecosystems, for basic fundamentals of the postcold war both of the postworld war ii era, that you can bite off a piece of your neighbor anytime you feel like it, that generally trade should be free, that you should have independent judiciaries, that you should be open to free media, that you should have alter nation of power. That system duoesnt serve the governance model of Vladimir Putin or xi jinping, and they are now Strong Enough for a variety of reasons and working more closely together to challenge the system and try to change the rules. That system has served us very well for a very, very long time. So either we can work with our family and closest friends to defend it and strengthen it and encourage china and russia to take a less zero sum, more collaborative view, or we can attack our family and provide lots of comfort and avenues for encroachment by folks who do not believe in the same things that we believe in and who do not always wish us well. We have some questions here that have been submitted, and i think we already answered we already answered several of them in the last few minutes. If you have a question, you can raise your hand, or also we have some Great Questions here that have been submitted. Nick, what role does a stable eu have in the future of nato . Will brexit turmoil or future eu Foreign Policy impact natos mission . So think of the European Union as the twin brother or twin sister of the Nato Alliance. Were not part of it, but when the europeans were trying to recover from the devastation of the second world war, harry truman was the one who encour e encourag encouraged, the coal and steel community, common market, single currency. Weve always been in support of it. And three data points. The eu is our largest trade partner. Its the largest investor in the american economy, and europe provides the largest number of american treaty allies. Victoria was in charge of our relationship with europe when she was assistant secretary of state. Were involved with europe on climate change, on regulatory issues of tech companies. The European Union has been the critical regulator of google and amazon and others. Everything under the sun that concerns the United States concerns the other democratic countries across the pond, and donald trump is the First American president im sorry to keep going back to him, but i must. He describes the eu as a foe and competitor of the United States. Thats never how any american president has seen it. So we have to have that vital relationship. Okay. Wed like you to introduce yourself. State your affiliation and a very short question. Im going to ask the panel to keep the answers short so we can get to as many questions. This gentleman in the purple shirt right here. My name is uri mccar. As you can guess by my name, i was originally born in ukraine. Ive been in the states for 22 years now. If you can give me some patience. We dont have a lot of patience. We have a short question. Please, we want to get to as many questions. Thats okay. I can shorten it. So with all the things that russia has done, why dont we, United States, eu, nato, get outside of looking at isolated incidents where we condemn russia and the russian government and look at them from a general perspective as an enemy of democracy . Thank you. Doug, why dont you take that one . Well, first of all, theres no question that they are a challenge. I mean our report cites that. Its very clear that putin has torn up the rule book which has governed the postworld war ii. Why dont we just go after them . The issue is theres still a significant body of common interest even with a misbehaving russia. Russia has 7,000 nuclear weapons. Nobody else comes close. And the control of those nuclear weapons, the security of those nuclear weapons, the management of those systems is a fundamental, existential challenge to the United States. We cant do that by ourselves. We have to enter into a dialogue with russia with regard to nuclear security. They have a very large sunni muslim population. There were more russian citizens who migrated into Northern Syria and Northern Iraq and joined isis okay, the Islamic State than any other nationality. Number one nationalist to join isis from outside the combat zo zone were russians and those russians are making their way back home. This is not good news. Climate, energy, on and on. An american doesnt get to space these days, okay, unless we have collaboration with russia. Theyre launched from russian territory on russian rockets. So theres a whole number of things. While we disagree on some very big issues like the invasion of ukraine and the assault, as nick said, on our election system i mean this is not hypothetical for americans. Nobody should leave this room tonight doubting that russia attacked us in the election process in 2016. Well, do you think theyd ever test article 5 . No. I think the reason they revert to things like election interference and disinformation campaigns and so forth is because they understand article 5, and they intend very much to stay clear of article 5. So they take techniques, they use tools that are below the level of armed attack. So theres a lot to compete and contest with russia, but theres some very important things in which we have to still talk to them about. Okay. Sir, right here. Y yes, you. Yes . Wait for the microphone. Wait for the mic. Quick question, please. Were going to try to get as many questions in the remaining time. Thank you all for your service, first of all, to the country. I want to come back to a point that you made, and that is there are undemocratic actors in nato. Theres a rise of nationalism. Are you concerned that if things stay as they are, that we in the third century now will face a large war . And how would you rate the risk . I know nothing is guaranteed, but how would you rate the risk if things stay as they are, and simply said, is winter coming . Thank you. Do you want to follow up . So the reason we havent had a large war in 70 years, a great power war, is because the greatest generation that fought world war ii decided that they could actually learn from history, that when you fight a war in europe and then go home and then put on large numbers of tariffs and stop trading with each other, youre likely to create conditions that will lead to the renewal of war. By the way, thats why the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was founded in 1922, to say that probably wasnt the smartest decision we ever made. So in 1945, we made the decision that the United States needed to be involved in the world, that a big power that has big economic and military capabilities and believes in democracy needs to be part of that system. And my view is that as long as the United States is engaged in the world, creating Strong Security structures in europe and asia and in other parts of the world, as long as we believe in the system that allows for open and free trade and we support and defend democracy and freedom around the world, and we do it together with our friends and allies, which, as nick said, its the one thing we have that the chinese and the russians dont have. Weve got allies. Theyve got clients, and theres a huge difference between the two. Quick yes or no. Do we so no. As long as we do this does nato just wait out new u. S. Leadership . Nato wont, in the long term, survive without strong american commitment as part of that alliance. And the reason were seeing undemocratic leaders being able to exert more and more influence is because theres no counterpressure because everybody is turning inward. Everybody says what happens at home is more important than what happens abroad. As a result, the kind of commonality, the kind of cooperation that weve had for 70 years is starting to wane. Tori, do you want to i believe winter will come if we do not go back to working with our liberal allies and friends to maintain the system that ivo described. And if we continue to behave selfishly and aggressively visavis our own democratic family. Just very short, i dont want to i want to emphasize but not overemphasize the role of American Leadership here because it is essential. But the europeans have to step up too, right . And here President Trump is right to shine the light on underperforming european allies who need to do more. So theyve got their own political challenge too. So an essential ingredient is president ial leadership, but equally important is that we have committed european allies that pull their weight. So hes right about this point. One of the questions that came from our online or people that just submitted it is, is continued nato expansion in the best interests of the alliance . And another question, would accepting russia as a member strengthen or diminish the alliance . I mean, look, you can laugh, but is there an effort here should there be more of an effort and i know there has been in the past to not coddle russia but try and reach out and say, hey, you know, we can do more together than apart . I was in a meeting with Boris Yeltsin in 1993 where he actually raised the prospect of russia one day being a member of nato. This was at the time when we thought nato was on a fully democratizing, open path, and when it appeared to want to be russia was appeared to want to be a very large germany if that was possible. And we always said that the door should remain open to a russia that was as democratic as germany. But i think one of the lessons that weve learned from the democratic backsliding inside the alliance and im actually somebody who believes that we do need to take that on as a Nato Alliance, and we do need to start to grade each other, including grading the United States as necessary on our democratic strength and backsliding and start to pressure each other in that direction because that is what differentiates us. So if we had a different russia on a different course, we should of course say yes, and it should be part of the big carrot that the russian people, who are now only supporting their president at 36 because all of these Great Adventures hes been on in the last decade or so have not improved their hospitals, their schools, their quality of life. So, you know, i think we need to be open to that. But i dont see a country right now on natos periphery that is ready to meet our high standards, and i worry about those inside who are sligding backwards. I wanted to support toria that each of us has spent a lot of time with russian diplomats. In 2002, putin felt an identification with us because he felt attacked as well by terrorists, and we created an interrussia counsel, and we had weekly, biweekly meetings with the russian ambassador. We gave them a chance, and toria really lived this issue probably longer than any of us. We gave them a chance, and they never showed that they were ready for nato membership, far from it. We actually really thought that the vast majority of issues that came to the nato table would morph and move to the nato russia table, and it would only be Nuclear Things and a few small things that would stay with the smaller club. But russia, under putin, was never able to see that as an opportunity. They always saw it in zerosum terms, evening things like we tried to do missile defenses together to defeat iran, and we just couldnt get there. I think the door needs to be open to another russia, not this one, but another one, which might meet the criteria for a closer relationship with nato. Its useful to remember that in bosnia and later in kosovo, we had Russian Troops operating inside the u. S. Chain of command. Some people are talking about now making another stab at china permanently solve the kosovo issue too. Weve had bright spots here in the nato russia relationship. This is a dark period right now, though. But we might get past it. Okay. Im going to just take a very, very, very quick lightning round, and im going to ask the panelists to close up with a closing thought, take whichever question you like, with this in mind. Where do we see nato in the next 70 years . One, two, three, four. Were going to go a few minutes over, but im going to ask ivo to forgive me. Could you on the panel talk about the realworld effects of the hollowing out of the ambassadorial ranks around the world, the hollowing out of the state department in its current form, and what realworld effects thats had on the mission that youre trying to put forward . Okay. Thank you. Sir. Thank you. Wait for the microphone because you wont be on cspan. Okay. I know its the lightning round. Maam, maam oh, okay. Give that to him so hes ready. Good evening. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. My name is seth johnson. Im from the Harvard University faculty of arts and sciences. Ambassador daalder, you menti mentioned in the libya case, there was no Ad Hoc Coalition that would have been successful. It was necessary for nato to take up leadership. A few years later when nato confronted the Islamic State as ambassador lute mentioned, nato institutionally joined the Global Coalition and so did all nato member states. But a Global Coalition on an ad hoc basis was the preferred organization for that. Why the change . Okay. Thank you. Sir . Justin britefelder. Is it possible that President Trumps position on nato is an art of the deal negotiating tactic, especially on issues like closing the funding gap . Good question. And right here, sir. Since you asked about 70 years from now, i want to stick with what ivo said. Without American Leadership, i heard that the harvard report looked at the challenge is china. But china is coming. Its extending belt and road into europe. Were telling european allies, dont take chinese 5g. What do we want them to do . Stick with 3g, 4g . We just did the build act, but most of our european allies dont qualify for it. So how do we change what tolls does nato need and doesnt that require exactly what ivo said, American Leadership . Nato doesnt have other economic tools. Thats a lot of good food for thought. Were going to ask each of our panelists to close up. We have a few outstanding issues. I want to deep it to nato, but i think weve discussed that weakens u. S. Leadership, and that includes the hollowing out of the state department and other issues of u. S. Diplomatic instruments is certainly contributing to it. How have things changed now with the Islamic State visavis versus libya . Art of the deal. And china. And with an eye towards the next 70 years, nick. Final statements, then. Yeah. Id just say this. When we look ahead over the next couple of decades, i think the u. S. Governments right under President Trump leadership. Weve got to focus on counterterrorism, but the larger threat is an authoritarian china and an authoritarian russia. We can contain putin in Eastern Europe in conventional terms, but weve got to be able to respond to his hybrid threat to weaken our democracy, to flood social media with false information. We need a strong governmental effort to do that. We dont have that right now. China is an entirely different matter, but weve got to be strong in asefrtiserting not ev battle of ideas, that our democracy is worth saving, and our democracy is the best model for the rest of the world, not the chinese model. Again, we dont have a leader saying that the way that Ronald Reagan would have said or john f. Kennedy. But hopefully we will in the next 70 years. We hopefully will. And in conclusion id just say we obviously need to have a strong diplomatic core. Were 8,500 american diplomats versus 2. 5 million soldiers, active duty and reserve. And for the first half of the trump administration, we saw an historic hollowing out of the state department, 30 budget cut proposals, blocked by republicans and democrats in congress. The administration wanted to eviscerate state, major ambassadorships and assistant secretaryships unfilled, but i think secretary mike pompeo believes in the institution of a state department. Hes trying his best to fill those opportunities. He needs the cooperation of his own president and of both parties in congress. So i think secretary pompeo is a breath of fresh air here. Is trump somehow, in a crazy art of the deal trying to just get more money out of the allies . Is that good for the alliance . Weve seen four consecutive years of real growth in the Defense Budgets of almost every nato ally. Two under president obama caused by the putins invasion of crimea and two under President Trump. President trump has not done the essential job of the american president leading nato, and thats to commit to article 5 and to show the europeans that we are committed to them. So whether its i dont know what game hes playing, but its a game of failure. The alliance is strong. It will survive this, and the next american president , of whichever party, of either party, is going to be a strong supporter of nato. So the art of the deal, just to expand on nicks point, the president we should credit for the four consecutive years is not obama, and its not trump. Its putin, okay . The reason the europeans have increased defense spending for four years is because of everything that happened in those sort of six months of early 2014. When the president of the United States castigates and shows disrespect to allied leaders in public, that gets played back into the capitals of the alliance, into the parliaments of the alliance, and actually is counterproductive because they all have a political problem. They face the guns and butter debate in capitals like berlin, for example, and Angela Merkel has got to go home after getting yelled at in public, right . Go home and make her case to increase defense spending. Its not easier when donald trump is yelling at you. So its actually, i believe, been counterproductive, but despite that, the europeans have sustained four years of real growth. So thats a credit. The next 70 years, i have optimism on two counts. First of all, nato has done this before. Its faced a strategic Inflection Point like this. I believe it can again adapt. The second source of confidence, though, is you, the Chicago Council has done polling that reflects that 75 of us, the american public, either wish to sustain the current level of commitment to nato or increase it. So when you sum up sustained and increase, you get Something Like 75. I mean what other issue these days do 75 of americans agree on . Second of all, the Important Role, the buffering role of the u. S. Congress where you have strong, outspoken, bipartisan support for the alliance. So both of those issues, i think weve done this before, and really the institutions of the American Government are behind us, give me confidence. Toria. I couldnt have answered those two better, so i wont except to say on the diplomatic core, we talked about this permanent conversation that nato is when you have strong, empowered diplomats in every capital of the world and working regionally, that puts the United States in a permanent conversation to solve problems with countries. When you have nobody there, we just dont get it done, and our adversaries fall into the breach as weve seen, particularly with chinas very active diplomacy and so many of our vulnerable partners, partly in europe falling prey to corruption and other pressure tactics of russia and others. On the isis coalition, you know, the interesting thing about nato is now in the last two decades, it often serves as the core of a larger Global Coalition, particularly when the issue like isis affects countries well beyond europe. So combating isis, you also want your gulf allies. You want israel. You want as many of the african nations in that coalition. You want asians. So when nato comes first and joins as an institution, it often gives legitimacy and strength and organization to a larger global effort and military teeth. So there are just so many dimensions to this institution. 5g build, this goes to the point that doug made. When you just yell at your allies and dont have a conversation about how to fix the problem, whether its defense spending or whether its how to build a 5g Network Without the chinese, youre unlikely to get to a good solution. When you put forward great support for u. S. Companies but then you dont have ambassadors working with u. S. Business in the field to harness it, to compete with china, et cetera, for these procurement bids, whether theyre in europe or africa or elsewhere, we are frittering away our national power. We have so much we need to do on this planet. We need to do it with friends. These are tools that are not being used well at the moment. Before i ask ivo to close, you brought up the issue of ambassadors. Several people in the audience were asking about kay bailey hutchinson. How is she doing at nato, and is she able to stand her own against what clearly is, you know, some negative feelings about how the administration is treating nato . At the nato summit in the summer of 2018, when we had just had the example at the g7 where the president came in and refused to sign the communique of the seven nations, kay bailey hutchinson, working with colleagues in washington, took a note and said, before we start our summit, allies, lets all sign this joint document and get the negotiation finished so at least we have a common body of agreement. So i give her big props for that. I also give her big props for her very strong statements about the importance of nato unity then going into the putin trump summit in helsinki. So i think that shes got a certain independence and a certain political stature of her own that she has displayed thats a different matter than when you know, when an ambassador speaks, its great. Weve all been there. But its not so great when your president then contradicts you. Let me just emphasize that we are very lucky to have her at this time. We could do much, much worse than kay bailey hutchinson. She has galvanized senate and house support on the hill as a former fourterm senator from texas in a way that i dont think any of us had that kind of congressional impact. Important to note that others in the administration, whether it was rex tillerson, mike pompeo, mike pence, jim mattis, have spoken, you know, very forcefully about the importance of the alliance. So youve just experienced something that you dont get to experience very often, nato ambassadors going on and on past our time. You know, when i left, by the time you were there, when i left they started putting a clock in front of you. The clock says zero. Its been blinking. Red light. We like to end on time in Chicago Council, but not when you have four nato ambassadors. Not going to happen. So let me just ayei just wano make two points, also saying amen on kay bailey hutchinson. Nick burns also agrees. We have consensus. Important. Two things. George schultz said diplomacy is like gardening. Youve got to go out and tend it. Take out the weeds and water the garden and make sure it happens. When you dont have ambassadors, when the Foreign Service atrophies, the garden starts to become taken over by weeds and the jungle grows, if we can use that phrase. And its a very dangerous thing. We underestimate how important it is for people to go out, and its not just ambassadors. The whole Foreign Service, the american presence, its the department of justice and the fbi and the dea and everybody else who is out there as part of our presence in the world, gardening, gardening our military, everything, as part of that presence and the peaceful way that were there. If you dont believe thats important, you start to undermine the strength of the United States. The second point on the specific question on the isis coalition, completely agreeing with toria, the United States can lead any coalition. But if you dont have the United States, which is what the problem was or the issue was in libya, the president of the United States said, were going to hand the command and control of this operation off to somebody else. Theres no one out there saying, well do it. And unless nato takes over, it doesnt get done, which by the way of course is also a u. S. Led military coalition. So the u. S. Military is pretty central to both of those things. And that just underscores the fundamental point. The system we have created over the last 70 years is based on American Leadership. And if the americans isnt there, the systems going to change. I dont think its going to change for the better. Its going to be like winter, and the chinese may rule in a way that we dont like. So if we dont like the alternative, we have to support a continuing american engagement in the world. I think that one thing is clear or two things actually. One is that obviously weve discussed how nato still has an Important Role to play as a Global Alliance military, political, economic. But also if the u. S. Continues to have ambassadors like these four and like kay bailey hutchinson, i think well be in good shape for the foreseeable future. So thank you very much to the panel for this excellent discussion. Thank you to the council. And thank you for joining us, and for those watching online, thank you. [ applause ] this weekend, book tv will have live coverage of the 35th annual printers row lit fest, the largest literary showcase in the midwest, starting saturday at 11 00 a. M. Eastern, featuring journalist Rachel Louise snyder, gun reform advocate andy parker, university of chicago history professor kathleen belew, historian, annalisa cox. And on sunday, our live coverage continues at 11 00 a. M. Eastern with slate National Editor josh levine, education activist bill ayers, journalist Dorothy Butler gilliam, and university of chicago professor eve ewing. Watch our live weekend coverage of the 35th annual printers row lit fest from chicago, starting saturday morning at 11 00 eastern on book tv on cspan2. Sunday night on afterwards, in his latest book the conservative sensibility, pulitzer prizewinning columnist george will offers his thoughts on american conservatism. Hes interviewed by National ReviewSenior Editor jonah goldberg. I believe our country is superior, so to that extent, im a nationalist. Superior to an extent that it embodies a philosophy that is right and not suitable for all people at all times, but everyone ought to aspire to it. I dont want to exploit it at bayonet point. I want to make it available to people. I want to help them where we can, and we have a lot of experience with the civil society, of a democratic society. So im a mild nationalist. Watch afterwards sunday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on book tv on cspan2. The complete guide to congress is now available. It has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. Contact and bio information about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. The 2019 congressional directory is a handy, spiralbound guide. Order your copy from the cspan online store for 18. 95. The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that employees can file employment discrimination lawsuits prior to filing a claim with the eeoc under certain circumstances. The case involved lois davis, a fort bend county, texas, Government Employee who filed a claim with the eeoc alleging Sexual Harassment and retaliation for reporting harassment. As the eeoc was considering her case, ms. Davis was fired for a different reason. She amended her eeoc complaint to include her dismissal. The county said the suit should be dismissed because both incidents werent part of the initial filing. Heres the oral argument from april. Its just under an hour