To welcome chris murphy from connecticut to join us in a series of dialog that we have been having here over the last few years, with a range of policy makers and an important contributor to the American Foreign policy debate, from many different points of view. This is partly out of houstons commitment to really intellectual engagement over serious questions. It also reflects my own view that if you look at the history of American Foreign policy often it works when you have many voices with many points of view, and out of that you have consensus exchanges, directions that no single American School of thought may have come up with on its own. If you think about it, thats the way our constitution works. Franklin wasnt all that pleased with it. The constitution was better than any of them to write what it was in their own head, so in that spirit i, hope we will have interesting conversation today. What i plan to do is to begin by exploring with senator murphys a series of ideas related to a very interesting article he has recently published in the atlantic magazine and accident may overlap, places where there is some tension between the ideas and ideas that you may hear around here, and in some places where i just want to press him a little bit further and find out a bit more clearly what he thinks. Beyond that, hes very graciously agreed to accept questions from the audience. We will do that in the form of asking you to write a question down, our staff for then called it them and try to put them together. Our goal its to make sure that the audience time is used in the most efficient way possible, reflecting the questions that seems to have the lightest interest among you. So with no further ado, well get started and its wonderful to be here and to be with you, senator. Thank you for being with me as well, im looking forward to it. As i read your article, and looked at some other things that you have been talking about over the years, one thing that really struck me was that you seemed to share a sense of concern, both about a new authoritarianism and maybe about china and russias role in promoting this that has begun in both parties and both on the left and the right to have more salient and American Foreign policy conversations. How do you see this new authoritarianism as a challenge to the United States or to our values and security . Thank you very much, again for having, me i really look forward to the conversation and i had maybe refer back to your opening remarks and which you referenced the founding of our nation. I believe this is an experiment, i believe that the whole concept of democracy is it means by which to run a country as a natural in the sense that we dont really run anything else thats important to us in our lives through democratic vote, whether be our family or our workplace, we tend to think of other governance structure that makes more sense for other things than are critical to us. So we have to have a sense of that fragility and understand where the threats to our experiments come. In so far as Vladimir Putin has made his model of governance more attractive to those around his periphery, as made people from erdogan to start to think about slow sly ways to transition democracies to something that looks more like autocracy, or chinas ability now to export the tools of autocratic rule, many of them technological tools to others who may want to pick them up, i think we have to see these threats as very very real. We also must accept that the more democracies there are, the safe for american interests probably our, its a little bit harder for democracies to go to war with each other, dragging the land seats, and harder for terrorists to organize in a democracy. We should be in the business of protecting ourselves from tools and models that may ultimately find refuge on american soil, but we should also just recognize that the advancement of democratic interests also tend to avoid the United States having to be embroiled in controversy and conflict overseas. My point in the atlantic pieces that, well, you are certainly going to get a democratic president who is going to be skeptical about largescale military operations overseas. I dont want my party, and i dont want my parties Foreign Policy platform in 2020 to be about a retreat from a global state, i want to be involved and the conversation about how to see the threats, how different they are then what they might have been 50 years ago but still have a strategy torrent to confront them outside of the conference of the United States. This struck me as one of the real points of difference in american politics as a whole, and maybe points of similarity that are bit more bipartisan, and people understand is that in the public at large, theres a certain sense that maybe there is less recent for the United States to be globally engaged but on the other hand, many people on the road of Foreign Policy look specifically at china and russia, and worried that there may be more dangers to american interests and security that and the very recent past. Youre getting this debate in both parties and very strong and lively debate over whether america is safer by pulling back or by staying engaged and making deeper engagements. How do you think about that . We have no choice but to be deeply engaged. Its tried to say it but the world doesnt stop at our borders any longer. Our economic interests are global, the ability for information to flow across borders and four other nations to use fairly lowcost mechanisms to mess with us in the United States outside of the projects in a military force its more menacing than ever before. I think if we are serious about protecting america then we have to be globally engaged. That doesnt mean that your endgame here is to defeat your adversary or your contestants abroad. Ultimately, i do think that if we can project and portray strength to go to russia and china then it may be that theres a better chance that they will decide to amend their political or economic behaviors to a standard that is much more in line with american interests but we simply dont have the capacity to meet them where they are today, and this is what i read about. Whether it fits china midwifeing transformative technologies or the way that russia is using corruption bribery and information propaganda to try to influence its neighborhood, today we simply arent having any meaningful conversation in congress about how to create capacities and our Foreign Policy tool kit that would be able to countenance what they are doing, never mind actually best them in the sense theyre operating without significant support from the United States. This point at something a lot of observers talk about, which is that it Congress Seems to have, of the three branches of government, congress is the one that seems to have the hardest time shaping policy and thats regardless of party but with the relative weakness of congress, both the executive and judicial branches have become much more important to the country. You have a lot of people who think that a Congressional Election is important because it may support the Supreme Court and how does congress recapture its momentum in Foreign Policy is it the Senate ForeignRelations Committee or does they need institutional resources . The first thing is to get serious about our most sacred Foreign Policy realm and thats the declaration of war something we dont do anymore and its understandable why we dont do it, is not the same as it was 75 years ago, there arent armies marching against each other, and peace treaties that wrap up the end of hostilities. War is messy, and your enemy is shadowy and undefined. That doesnt mean theres a responsibility to set the parameters of war making. The first thing congress can do is get that in that game. That means we need to think a little bit more creatively about how we write these authorizations. We probably have to sunset them and revisit them every few years to make sure we are getting definitions right, but the biggest grant of authority is in our ability to authorize war. The point i make is that so much of what ails American Foreign policy today is a lack of capability. We say russia acts a symmetrically because we dont have anything to meet what they are doing so use our Energy Resources to bully neighbors or run are 24 hours, two countries around the world. Congress could create new capacities but if we gave them the executive it would be better than we have today. We did a few years ago when rob portman and i were a piece of legislation establishing a new counter propaganda operation interpreter . Its relatively meager and scope, 60 Million Dollars but for the first time the state department had to think about what they would do if they really wanted to be president infighting the information wars in and around the russia and they stood up capacities to do that. Congress could do that, right . We have legislation now pending a one billion dollar fund which could actually get our goverment in the business of spending money to help countries become energy independent, and places like russia, rather than just giving advice on how to do it. Congress could actually create that nuke to look at that ive been talking about for years. How much money are we talking . We dont bat an eyelash when we plus up the department of defense by 50 to 70 billion dollars a year. That amount of money represents the entirety of the non defense non entail Foreign Policy budget, so i put a plan on the table to double the size of the state department, which sounds revolutionary until you realize that is what we give the department of defense on a oneyear basis and increased funding, and i would argue that theyre having a little bit of a hard time figuring out how to spend all the money that we are giving them effectively today. So i put it on the, table i have another document which is a detailed plan by which you would, over the course of five years, a double the size of the state department and the u. S. Id and i do its mine leslie but to create this kind of capacities that would meet these new threats. I think this issue of the Institutional Reforms needed to adapt america and Foreign Policy capabilities to the 24 century is a very solid concept. It is about adapting to these new realities and really answering what the department of defense has been good at is being adaptable, it could move into places very quickly. If you wanted to give advice to farmers in afghanistan, did find a way to tell you that they can do it, generally not doing effectively but they can say yes. The state department is not saying yes, there in the business of saying no,. Theres money thats criminally siloed that cannot be moved so you have to create not just additional money and authority, you have to carry additional flexibility outside of the department of defense. My critique on syria is that 2000 marines or soldiers really werent going to do the trick and a place that needed diplomats and political help to try to figure out how to create a governance structure that the era, of the kurds and the turks could all live with so you have to create the ability for diplomats to get to places that they did not need to get to before. Its about flexibility, new capabilities, and new funding. One thing on the state Department Capability of notice is that, over the years ive done a lot of visits and lectures, a lot of embassies and consulates and some very interesting places, ive noticed that where we need the diplomats most, they only stay for about one year, and in the dangerous hotspots, american diplomats are usually station for just one year rather than the normal threeyear tour and because people are getting on leave and they dont all come out at the same time the such turned its hard to function. How can you fix that . Of course theres a way to fix that. Its not easy to go to a place that is incredibly difficult, but nobody signed up for these jobs understanding its going to be easy. The structure of our assignments with the state department frankly have not changed in the decades and when it was a bipolar world in which you have to understand the basics of how you argued against soviet expansion, you are dealing with all sorts of contestants that were vying for space, maybe short term deployments made more sense, but today, by the time you learn the afghanistan piece, you are ten months into a one year turnaround time. Once again, very quietly the department of defense has started to think about how to deal with that. The young soldiers go into these places and come out in a year. Special operatives go in they have expertise in parts of the world and they stick around, a lot of the radar screen for a long enough that they dont have contacts and an ability to understand the nuances of places. The state Department Must catch up. I think youre right. Every u. S. President since bill clinton has tried to build a constructive relationship with Vladimir Putin. Weve had a resets, weve looked into his eyes, weve done all kinds of things but we seem to end up with the same relationship, hostile relationship. Is that just, said he wont say yes and we must take no for an answer, or is there a way to rethink u. S. And russia relations . At some point you must learn the lessons that are in front of you and there is a psychology to russia that its not lend itself to cooperation with the major power that helps to organize the rest of the world. I think you have to understand that about the very foundations of russian psyche, we have to also understand the vladimir britain has done nothing to suggest that is interested in anything other than using the United States as a political fulcrum to be able to control his own population. That being, said i dont mean to keep beating a dead horse but we simply put him in a position to win when we continue to drive our spending towards aircraft carriers and drones. Instead of figuring out that really would make him most nervous is to have countries around his edges who dont need his oil and his gas, and today all we are left to do is bully countries into not building russian pipelines and set of going with hard dollars to help them build any suite of Domestic Energy sources, whether they be nuclear or solar or wind or interconnections to other places, we spend four billion dollars every year on the european insurance initiative, and i dont think thats money badly spent but clearly, putin would worry more if we spend four billion dollars trying to weave countries around him off of his revenue making products rather than on brigades deployed in nato countries that is not likely going to invade with his conventional army anytime soon,. Theyre saying it poland had gone into fracking, would be better off, if russian money went into trying to prevent that . Fracking is not terribly popular in europe these days but i think we should be, if you think about how you would spend a new 600 700 billion dollars a year to make our country safer and to give those who wish us ill a little bit harder time, i dont think you choose to spend zero on making other countries independent of the main Revenue Source of money or primary adversaries. Another point where there is some interesting left right consensus is on the question of money laundering, dark money and i was struck with the initiative here and i was struck with how much importance you gave that issue. It is the most oldfashioned means of trying to protect your influence, is to just buy it and to use oldfashioned intimidation and bribery to try to win people to your side. In a world in which it is very easy to cloud the truth, and create a narrative in which no one believes any narratives, that provides cover for this kind of oldfashioned corruption. Yet we are very badly resourced to meet that threat overseas. If you go into these embassies you are going to find a handful of political officers who are charged with doing a whole ton of things, one of which is running and tech ruptured programs. So why not recognize that this is a real life, daily tool of all sorts of countries, not just the russians and create a classification of Foreign Policy officers dedicated only to corruption, spend more money on funding Anti Corruption projects. Some of the stuff that weve done where we spend direct dollars like our effort to professionalize the Municipal Police forces have been very successful, but we spend that money not often 5 million, 10 million there if, you really spend money and put officers all across the world to highlight and fight corruption, you do a much better job than what we are currently doing today, which is largely just complaining about it. The other side of this is how easy it is for corrupt dictators overseas to move money into the west, including into the United States. Corruption everywhere is bad but we are looking at the chinese case where the money is not freelance rich people just trying to get their money safe, as it is often connected to state power and moved around for political purposes, how do we address this problem . We become pretty adept at tracking terrorist financing and finding it where it exists, closing down the shelters that harbor it, you can certainly choose to use those same tools to track the illicit gains of all of darks and government officials but it is a little bit harder because these are often countries in which we still need to maintain a relationship with that executive who is either putting the money into his own accounts or handing it out to others who are putting it into their accounts you dont have any legitimate interests with those organizations that you are trying to protect. Again, i dont think weve really put in the word at trying to put a middle ground to find the same tools to go after some of these corrupt people that surround these autocrats, or would be autocrats. This has been really, great id like to turn to some areas where some folks at hudson would have some questions about some of the points that youve raised. I think one of them would be the question of the relationship of geopolitics and values where you say in your article that we should not extend security guarantees to countries that, for example this number journalists. Speaking as a, journalist i am entirely in agreement with a policy that seeks to discourage this heinous behavior. But i do note that the u. S. Saudi relationship began in the 1940s when slavery was still legal in saudi arabia. It was not a very great place, and the Franklin Roosevelt that may have been the most progressive president of the United States has ever had in terms of real accomplishments made an alliance with the worst mass murderer of the 20th century up to that point, stalin. Because he really felt he had no choice. At one end of this, geopolitical necessity can over some come even the horror of stalin, but you dont want to simply raise the white flag and say, well morals are for other people so how do we balance that i try to answer that very simply and that i dont necessarily by that we should create two different categories, one in which there are u. S. Interests and the other in which there are u. S. Values. I think we should think of values like human rights as interests. I think that it was easy to sort them into different buckets when you believed that the world was just on this march towards everyone having access to democracy and full Civil Liberties so were having i think were seeing things swing back the other way and, thus we have to see democracy or the advancement of human rights as a critical u. S. Interest today because i believe as dictators get more nimble and stronger overseas, it may ultimately give more ideas to folks in the United States who may want to go about the process of converting our government to something that looks very different than what we have today. So i would simply put those conversations altogether and that doesnt necessarily mean that he right off every country that has a less than stellar human rights record, you just dont see them as two separate conversations, i think saudi its just an example of a country that has crossed that line. I think they have crossed the line that our signal and continuing a fairly no questions asked alliance as an invitation to other nations to engage in that behavior, which ultimately is a risk to us. I also make a argument to saudi arabia, that if you want to look at this question of non human rights, non democracy connections, that forms the Building Blocks of sunni extremism, that as an argument to treat a more like an adversary rather than a friend. On saudi, i think i can argue both with a certain Strict National security case and the human rights case. Im not trying to make the case, but my understanding is that actually, he has been giving us more satisfaction on stopping the flow to terrorist organizations and less on other issues, so that in some ways hes an improvement from that, even if in others he is a disappointment and quite rash. The jury is out, theres much less complaints about funding moving directly from the Royal Treasury into political organizations that we would disagree with. I dont think that weve had the kind of progress that he claims when it comes to money that is indirectly rooted through philanthropic organizations and clerics to conservative connected mosques and preachers overseas. I just know as a student that have gone there every year there are many people every year that are being paid to practice a version of islam that they did not used to practice, and that is coming from somewhere. If the saudis were to be more corrupt if, you think that would change the balance in their mind . Thats my point, i think it would. If you view them altogether, if you view your concerns about human rights and democracy promotion together with your concerns about other conventional security, they should not adopt a framework that you will never be a partner with the United States. I think you have a higher bar for the behaviors and other contacts if you are not needing our asks on those other issues. In asia, i think we are going to see more of this because, if i think of how you balance chinese power, its without the cooperation of countries like vietnam, myanmar and thailand, its hard to do. That none of those would be a stellar example of democracy. Thats exactly right. And i think that you have to find ways to challenge them to step up to the place on other u. S. Security interests. One of my critics is that we have been to reflectively and hypothetical trade agreements. I dont think you can get in the game in asia unless you have a trade framework by which you can sit across from countries that have bad records on human rights and ask some of them economically. We dont have a framework, so i would argue for the next democratic president , and it will give you the platform where you can make those and see. The trade point to make are very interesting. I dont know how you square the circle of a trade agreement that they will like, that american exporters will like. As we go about looking for it, because i agree its important. My belief is that we should try to find that sweet spot that you may not be able to get an agreement, that all democratic constituencies would sign on to but, im not sure how you protect your interests in that part of the world if you are not willing to try. I think our criticism has been that the starting point has been to smooth out to figure out ways to get the labor unions on board. I think if you are approaching these agreements and get as much as you can, you can get to something that a lot of congress on both sides of the aisle would support. You have to see revival of the trade agenda . I would and that would not be super popular but there is a way to do better on perhaps of this. I want to ask you about the climate diplomacy because you certainly list Climate Change as one of the big new issues, although its interesting that you included a long list. Some democrats would put it at the top of a very shorter list, so thats an interesting agreement. Ivan and the standpoint would be a first step, so how do you think american Climate Policy should look like . That issue worry that, there are a lot of people who will cheerleader will be signed back up and not realize that its a non binding commitment. How many are . Its a very small number. Its a much bigger discussion. I think president obama had it right that he was elevating these issues in all of our bilateral conversations, and i think a democratic president its going to put this at the top of the list. I think its very hard for us to win any of those arguments if we are not going to pass a piece of legislation domestically. I dont know if you have a really successful and diplomacy, so much as we perceive us. Whether its a carbon tax or renewed carbon cap, unless we engage in some legislation that shows that we are able to lead by example. One of the most fundamental questions is that we have and atlantic Foreign Policy, where the europeans are our primary theater of operations. In our case is ideological solidarity. Theyre pretty much it is the lined in many ways, and if we look at and in the pacific Foreign Policy, which we are forced, that ideology is less attractive. I talked to people in india and their goal is not too westernized india, but actually to promote vandalism. Other countries in asia what recoil from an American Foreign policy, scene is trying to impose western and colonial values. How do we in some ways, that seems like a harder transition for the Democratic Party to make and for the Republican Party to make, even though i think both parties face real challenges in this. How do you think we manage this, or is the problem as bad as i think it is . I think you have stall worth, and both parties, so i dont think this is a conversation exclusive to one party or the other. I think we dont have the tools with which to make these arguments abroad, we dont have the dollars to spend on democracy promotion, or part of the complaint i have with our inability to meet propaganda is that they exist in a vacuum, to make in russias periphery, so i would stand up additional capabilities that we dont have today. I dont agree that its unrealistic for us to think that we will replace ethos is that replaced with ours, so our ability to put forward a different narrative helps more than it hurts. There are two words that he did not mention. One was the word israel that appeared,. You may be looking at a post Netanyahu Israel or not, one cannot tell. Where do you see u. S. Israel relations going . My piece is not intended to be a that was not a criticism. Not intended to be a comprehensive narrative about what they should be talking about with respect to Foreign Policy, but i think as a region gets messier and messier we need to be as hyper concerned as ever about israels security. My worry is that an issue that was not seen as political or available to people, today is so i dont think that democrats or republicans care more than one another about israels security. What i do know is that historically when we have been able to make a step forward, on progress for peace in and around israel it has been the United States who has acted as a broker. Between the israelis and the palestinians. In order to be a broker you have to be perceived as delivering tough messages to both sides. That is not a position where in today. The Trump Administration is effectively a political arm of the netanyahu government, that means we have no ability and theres no one else i can fill that role, except for the United States. My great worry is that netanyahu has taken steps that have made a two state solution almost impossible. And having been there recently has been incredible. Theyre moving beyond that conversation, just trying to manage an apartheid state that will exist for the next years, and i think that the question that will greet the president is whether it is too late, whether there are things that you can do, perhaps in conjunction with an Israeli Government that is more willing that make that future possible. I was unaware trying to criticize senator from not including him, as someone who writes short pieces, the most irritating criticism is, what i read about acts . Someone else will be saying, why would you read about why . I dont mean this in any way as a criticism, im just trying to elucidate some ideas. The other word that surprised me, and not a criticism, whats japan. When i think of democratic countries in asia that are great powers and who are going to be vitally important and americas future, japan, australia, a few others lead to mind. How do you see the u. S. And what should be doing . Concerned about this one of the reasons have been so concerned about this policy towards north korea is that the only means by which you are able to, a, either mountain effort to convince north korea or, the created a system of protection and deterrents to be unsuccessful is to have a policy by which the United States and japan and south korea are aligned when it comes to Foreign Policy priorities. We are not aligned with japan, and leaders may have our inability to bring japan to the trade negotiations that we are having with japan making those harder and our unwillingness to gordie with anybody has left japan often surprised and often, in the long run, makes containments which may end up as our policy. It will likely be our policy, of containment has been made harder if we dart some of everyday. Something this has done to get this bilateral deal with very little help from other partners. This makes a segue to the other question which, is about the north korean talks and they are talking about what is the prospect for u. S. North and denuclearization talks to resume and what kind of progress to think its possible . I think kim has gotten a lot from this relationship thus far. An almost complete pass on the treatment of his own people and the protections of cyber warfare on the u. S. Shores by its focus on photo up after a photo op. It has gotten us last testing activity over the course of the next two and a half years, but there are other evidence to suggest they continue to move forward with the development of its program there hyper focused on this trade deal with china as that china off of the hook. Everybody has known that they will do anything differently is to get china to deliver a new message and certainly are not being pressed in a meaningful form to do it today, given the relationship with china. And this administration, there is no hope for any meaningful nuclear deal with north korea and it would cause i think, in the obama presidency, obama has elevated Climate Change in a primary conversation with china, which made a harder for him to bring to the table on north korea. If youre not going to make this with china, and given this, then again you may be in a world in which you have to, looking towards containment its not your official policy. The question that flows from that is, when south korea and japan are not aligned, when general south korea is doing a diverse approach, how would that Democratic Administration work with that . I dont know if theres any to that, other than creating a framework, where nations that are having these talks with has them out. Its easy for them because they have basically had the accident of standing aside on north korea diplomacy, while we take care of it ourselves. We set of structures by which, you have to smooth out those agreements. We have another question on china, noting that the senate will be voting soon on the hong kong human rights and democracy act, but also wondering where we have american companies, whether its the nba, with its approach to china or Hollywood Movie Companies downplaying messages that china may not like, how do we deal with that . . And the current contacts, its very hard for the American Government to be telling private companies that they should stand up more strongly for human rights in hong kong or in china when reportedly, the president told the Chinese Government that he would shut up about what was going on in hong kong, pending the trade negotiations combination. I think its as much distaste i have for the decision that Companies Like the nba have made, i think until heat we decided to make it more of a domestic priority for our own government its hard to tell private companies how to act towards china. How would you handle that violence . The u. S. Is engaged in trading associations china that are important, politically important and at, the same time, something that the hong kong situation arose. How do you balance that . I know president clinton said we needed to prioritize human rights over trade and then gave up on that. I think it depends on the consequences of the negotiation. What im arguing for is not a construct in which these two are mutually exclusive. Its a walk away from non human rights and issues, if youre unsatisfied. If you ask someone how they found someone, they probably can explain it to you. They just do it. If you are elevating human rights, it would depend on the offering of the other end. China is not willing to give us anything significant and with that give them a harder time then we are today with respect to whats happening in hong kong. They are criticizing before leaving something out and our conversation. Theyre asking about the western hemisphere and what its saying from ecuador and chile to venezuela, i think we at mexico. Were actually seeing a crisis unfolding in our own hemisphere. How should this be addressed . We can spend some money. If i think about how to allocate, there are some products in the northern triangle. They were running with fairly meager resources that with Additional Resources could get you some Real Security gains. If migration continues to be something that both parties will care deeply about at should, we should be sharing some real money to help them it much lets families feel the need to run. In venezuela, im really worried about venezuela just becoming the next cuba in which we apply sanctions that get us nowhere, because we dont understand the domestic arguments that are being but i understand political lineman in which people are getting too much to turn a cheek. And i think, specifically, the president just mismanaged the crisis by playing off his cards and held back recognition of guaido because they want to do it alongside countries that would do the to talk to the russians, then i think we would be in a different room than we are today. Today, we are recognizing the government that is not really the government, and is not likely to be the government anytime soon. But you support withdrawing recognition or what should we do . Its so hard to withdraw that recognition. I havent propose that but i have pointed out so as to think about how to learn lessons for future crises like this that we dont need to recognize on day one, you want to lose as leverage to manage the situation and our inability would not, help had we not spent the last two and a half years continuing to try to work out a new diplomatic arrangement with cuba. Maybe. Maybe. I would not want to be one of those diplomats have to keep, up with those that went with those brain injuries. But maybe i take these things to personally. Even with two and a half more years of diplomatic spying, documents would have lots of reasons to continue their investment and maduro but we dont know the answer to that, because instead of trying to get to a point when we can work with you on things like venezuela, we once again got back to the business of shutting them out. Uld like to another member of the audience would like to know what you think of the state of our relationships with some key u. S. Allies, specifically canada, the uk, and the eu. Where are we in those relationships, and what should we be doing . I dont think that we should have tear that britain out of the European Union. I think the European Union and nato are these key world war ii contracts that have occurred to the great benefit of the United States. More trading partners that better and im very sad that we have a president who has helped weaken a already weak European Union and the long run. They will be worse off, but i think the United States will be as well and i am equally sick about our decision to view canada as an economic irritant. We have legitimate issues but then that often force asked to take some tough actions but they still are our most important trading partner, the most important partner, than they are today. We managed to get a relationship wrong. Yes, you are kind of a bloc and hand and know the area pretty well, what do you think are the implications of the french decision to block the talks for North Macedonia and albania, and is there a role for the u. S. In this . Whether the eu has been officially closer it has been closed for the last half a decade as theyve been managing through existential crisis for its that comes degree caused instability, that remember parachuting into delegate the very made that it around parachuted into a football match between ovia and syria with map of greater albania on it and you cant imagine anything worse and to get under the skin of a then administer, a map of greater Prime Minister and the constituents tvs creams so the historic meeting gets on canceled then very quickly gets put back together because they all say that they need to keep their european aspirations on track and they cant let these petty historical grievances get in the way of their focus on joining europe and so a situation that could have gotten really, really messy instead got patched back together largely because of their belief that europe was in their future an as a European Future getting further away, those historic grievances and those rivalries that still exist, still sit as a tinderbox, could actually explode. That is my deep worry about our inability to see the importance of a stable and growing eu to u. S. National security interest because if hostilities did break out again in the balkans, we now have nato countries that are there. We have a treaty obligation to defend those countries. And so their ability to see the future in europe is dependent on our ability to stay out of balkan conflicts in the future. And germanys role in europe. Is there a way, i think many people feel that germany has a kind of almost strategic paralysis. Not able to pony up for nato. Not able to really make a clear understanding of its Energy Policy or a vision for europe. Am i wrong about that . To display the decision the movements in political, about a quarter of a vote and integration. To help you twice national parties, our ambassador to berlin, amongst his first initial initiatives, the display of his enthusiasm for right Wing Movement and political parties, it should worry us all that the alternative for germany just scored a bad quarter of the vote admittedly in a series of eastern provinces that are going to be less friendly to european integration, but that is a big number for a party that harkens back to the natale era, and again they are modeling behavior in the United States, we should be fighting those political movements rather than having an administration who is wanting fuel to the fire, well us and thank, you the senator has been very generous with his, time so please stay seated while he makes his way out to get on to his next appointment but i would also like us to show our appreciation for a really interesting interview, thank you. Thank you. He applause conversations] washi. Host we would like to welcome frank bowman and the book is called high crimes and misdemeanors a history of impeachment for the age of trump. Good sunday morning, thank you for being with us. Guest thank you for having me. Host lets do it with the Washington Post on this sunday,