Transcripts For CSPAN2 To Make And Keep Peace Among Ourselves And With All Nations 20141004

In principle, you cant get it done and you have to be creative and think about the future of those grandkids out there and what kind of future can they live under and how do you bring them together to he who they are, each other . They have to live under this and i would make one other point. Their legacy, if you look at them who signed a peace agreement, killed by his own people. And he was almost killed by these people. You look at people who made a tremendous offer at camp david and those that reach out for peace are willing to take the risk in this part of the world and the legacy isnt there either. They are certainly not appreciated immediately after and that is something that we have to change and its going to take a lot of courage on either side to take the risk and may be to compromise as well. There cant be a solution where one side is a winner and another is a loser. Sir . We know that the country is dysfunctional. The question is beside the middle east, do we know how things are. And dont you think also that foreignpolicy establishments are also dysfunctional . The foreignpolicy of the major powers and we are still struggling to understand it and we still have a leadership role in the world. We can see the russians have stepped back into the cold war era in their decisionmaking. The chinese are causing problems in their own region and the superpowers are not acting like adult. Not just our Foreign Policy, but certainly others. Okay, i can take one more question. You make a really good point about these different entities getting into the macs and coming up with a viable solution is going to make a difference. Meanwhile, you have political leaders who are not willing to step out of the way, it seems, for this to occur. And so the idea sounds great, but how do you get people to relinquish their powers and sampling to give it up to the intellectuals and to the people that have the best experience and can do this kind of thing to make it work. I would say that in democracies around the world, you are seeing this. Look at qadhafi, look at where assad is now. And people in the streets are now beginning to either vote in the ballot box or vote in this square in some way. Im thinking about iraq and you said that they have to have a purpose. But they are so dysfunctional they are just waiting to survive, that is what their purpose is today. We just saw the iraqis get rid of him. We see the elections, whoever is in offices the people who choose. But that system has so Many Political parties with the need to form Political Parties, its a dysfunctional democratic system. But the more Political Parties they are, look at how bad it is with us. You have a situation where its even worse than the palestinians bifurcated and so changing leadership sometimes isnt always the best either. It has to be the right leadership with right motivation to be able to take risks and understand where you are going. Finishing just on this point, a couple of this on both sides, israel and palestine, they took this plan and they sort of revamped a little bit. And they have an idea that instead of the leadership arguing about this, take the plan, flush it out, put it for a referendum on both sides and send it out to the people. Can you live with this remark both sides rejected that and the Political Leadership rejected that. The voice may be in the decision going to the people. That is why i was arguing with it. Dont tell me what the borders are unless you show me exactly how this is going to work with the security. My suggestion my suggestion is that you need these working parties that do the planning, israelis, palestinians, americans, anyone else, because theres some issues like water distributions and others but nobody has ever drill down to that level. As they produce a detailed plan, not just an agreement in principle but very vague. Thank you. [applause] thank you all for being with us. We have copies of this wonderful book and we invite you to have your book signed. Thank you all and good evening. On the next washington journal, the latest on the Ebola Outbreak and the response domestic and abroad. And then a look at some of the governors races this election cycle with james homan. Bloomberg News Reporter discusses Highway Safety and how the federal government and u. S. Trucking industry is addressing the issue. We will take your phone calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. It begins live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. This weekend on the cspan network, the founder and former chair of microsoft, bill gates, on the Ebola Outbreak in west africa. Sunday evening at 8 00 oclock, the director of the Smithsonian National museum of african art. Saturday night at 10 00 oclock on after words. Heather Cox Richardson and life sunday at noon, Legal Affairs editor at reuters and Supreme Court biographer. Saturday at 5 00 p. M. Eastern, former fbi agent on catching the unit bomber suspect, ted kaczynski. And 100th anniversary of the panama canal. Finer Television Schedule at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs at 202, 66, 3400. Email us or you can send a tweet at cspan comments. Join us on facebook and follow us on twitter. Angelo codevilla is the author of to make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations. He makes the argument that the Founding Fathers made the pursuit of peace the highest objective of americas craft. This is one hour. [applause] well, thank you, john. Open to the heritage foundation. Peace has ever been mankinds desire and yet throughout history, the war has been a common practice. Consider the major conflicts of the 20th century in which america has fought, including world war i and world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war, the iraqi war and the afghan war and the cold war. In the wake of each one came the question, how can we make and how can we keep the peace with other nations. Or are we doomed as in that 1984 novel to a state of perpetual war . One way is a basic principle of the Reagan Administration and the principal reason why the cold war ended on the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. Another path to peace is to rely on statecraft, grounded in liberty and equality and articulated in the declaration of independence. Sometimes the americans early statements approved military intervention overseas. And they took the lead from the adage that if you want peace, prepare for war. But how far have we strayed from these principles a map have we become the policeman of the world . With our laudable desire to extend freedom, has it adopted a policy of nationbuilding regardless of the nations wishes to rebuild. In his newest book, to making key piece, Angelo Codevilla argues that are 20th century and 21st century leaders have confused peace and war, as well as americas interest and the worlds wishes. They have forgotten that they ever knew the lessons of the past and affected the wisdom of the founders. The doctor offers no easy answers and insist that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the occasional war abroad. Our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many conventions of peace. Professor of americas innovations at boston university, the warmer Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior staff member of the u. S. Senate select committee on intelligence and exforeign Service Officer and nabel on officer, the author of 14 books and reading publications here and abroad, professor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in giving a warm welcome to the author of to make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations, doctor Angelo Codevilla. [applause] thank you. I hope to keep you awake. I will move to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the Wounded Warrior project and the commercial was a accompanied by a song that asked us to say a prayer for peace. And that got me a bit angry. Suppose, i said, to myself the you have been paying plumbers to fix your houses priced in the pipes still leak and someone said to you, say a prayer for your pipes. And he would say that god has nothing to do with my pipes. And i didnt hire got to fix my pipes. And they didnt do the job and there something wrong with the plumbers. What is wrong with the plumbers . And we hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and more for the purpose of providing us with peace and instead they have given us or without and, which they have no intention of ending, war in which they have seen to continue superintending. So what is wrong with that . Why we have peace . Well, that is the reason. They do not have the intention of creating this. But why dont they . Well, because if you look at any of the u. S. Governments academic venues, you will see that they preach what one might call the cliffs note portion of this, that warranties are not religious tangible and that International Affairs is a seamless genuine with ordinary business and mutual destruction and that is not what the dictionary says. Dictionaries are clear about what war is and what peace is a not so in fact much of this today. Hence, it is not surprising that our National Discourse on the subject of war and peace is a still confrontation between the conservatives, as president george bush articulated in his 2052nd inaugural, a process by which try to secure the World Freedom believing that we will not enjoy freedom ourselves. And many, of course, will never be great. And theres a libertarian illusion that we can somehow avoid the rest of the world. But the commonsense of common sense of the agency is quite against that. Most recently wall street journal and the New York Times poll showed that a Strong Majority of the American People believe that the u. S. Government should be less active in the world come of it at the same time that the majority of the American People wanted u. S. Governments be much more assertive against americas enemies in the world. So the Mainstream Media but it is a contradiction in the american mind. But of course there is no such thing. The opinions of the American People reflect the wisdom of the ages, namely they went off to seek peace and stay out of trouble but they went to her and that he is by being terribly assertive against her enemies and we had failed to do that. My book is an attempt to rekindle tension to the basic fact that the basic objectives and the natural objectives of this is the provision of peace. Just as plowing fields is not an end to itself but an end to the crop that one wishes to produce. And we lead the life here at home that we wish to lead and the purpose of security and peace abroad to secure peace among ourselves at home. And it just so happens that the failure to secure peace among foreign nations, it really does talk about the lungs contract loss of peace amongst ourselves. And so it is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight with the purpose of somehow bringing that fight to an end. In nature tells us that the purpose of women is to come to some sort of rest. Some sort of natural purpose of this activity is a product of that activity and so indeed of the most active part of International Affairs, which is of course war and rest in peace. And so my book begins with a clarification but the nature of peace, namely that there is no such thing of this but only instances of it from time to time as any nation is capable of earning for itself. So all institutions of these are some of these pieces against somebody elses version of peace. And they are maintained only insofar as those that established it and there is nothing permanent about this. And the understanding that its not natural to mankind. And this includes contradicting the animal kingdoms tendency to regard other members of the species is troubled or natural prey. Until only a few civilizations have understood and everyone has understood that the west is preferable to Constant Movement and that understanding comes from an understanding that mankind is one and that the differences between, it was considerably smaller than any human being in any other species. But that understanding has christian and classical greek intellectual roots. Embodying that understanding, of wars, was and continues to be a struggle. The clear leverage and of the composition is a christian one and you see it, of course, most clearly in the regard of his kingdom. His kingdom is not of this world and gods kingdom is not of this world. Saint augustine collaborated to that point. Christians, he said, should be indifferent to the fate of the roman empire because the fate of individual souls is far more important than what happens to any group of people tends the primacy in thought of peace, which is the condition that most is conducive to men pursuing the highest potentiality and the highest purpose of which they are capable, mainly contemplation of service of the guard. In the same way, the thought disposes us to follow a we understand to be mans most peculiar purpose, namely intellectual, that is also to be pursued most conveniently and naturally in a state of peace. So embodying that inside to practice structures and structures in practice has been the work of ages. And there has always been a contrary tendency even within our own civilization. Beginning in the 15th century with the rise of europes kingdoms that tended to equate this with the success of monarchs who place their own primacy ahead and they conceived themselves as a natural state of war against one another. The modern political thought beginning with them, imagining nothing but the natural state of conflict and we did not see any goodness and the pursuit of anything other than primacy. Whereas, of course, the natural objectives of statecraft on to be the pursuit of peace. Why is that . Because peace is what allows human beings to concentrate on that which makes us most peculiar human. And this does not mean that the laws of nature and natures god involved or include the fact that human freedom and human freedom, of course, implies the fact that some humans will be rapacious towards others and it makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. And so what it does do, to highlight what the christian thought is and the dog does is to focus on the natural purpose of this. The American Revolution was, in fact, a revolution against oath of the absolute powers of government and against the violent priorities of most government. They simply to that declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was to secure the americans rights which are common to all men in all places, including their right to to selfgovernment regardless of nature of that government. The americans were also clear that they considered themselves, especially in the thought of john adams, they consider themselves peculiar blessed in having the kind of moral habits was made possible that way of life. They did not expect that those would spread quickly, if at all. In fact, they noticed that even in business efforts to spread that for of government foundered on the fact that the rest of the world was really not attuned to american to the kinds of habits that the American People have enjoyed and that these habits existed precariously among americans. In the american focus on peace went wrong with a thoroughly conventional and, lets say, proper understanding that statecraft requires like Everything Else in human life requires a clear to a destination of independent means, that what must make sure that thought that one has asked that means to secure what every claims one makes and that one ought to make no claims other than the claims that one is able to support. This, of course, is no different from the notion that one ought to half in the end the money necessary to pay for was purchases, to presume to have certain goods without the right to pay for them to his at the very least quixotic. So both of these insights, the necessary co assassination, and the priority of peace really was behind the paradigm of International Relations of the founding generation most clearly by John Quincy Adams. In the Monroe Doctrine and in the explanation. The Monroe Doctrine, contrary to contemporary misunderstandings thereof had nothing to do with asserting any kind of sovereignty over the americas, but rather it was a statement of priorities on the part of the americans. A statement of priorities that came not from John Quincy Adams but which John Quincy Adams summed up on behalf of the founding generation of which she was the last member. That consisted of the realization that what happened on the other side of the oceans would concern the United States relative result relatively little. Of course John Quincy Adams was perfectly aware that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only over europe but england as well and had been able to dominate the russians as well as the european continent it would impose a tremendous danger to america, and had europe as a whole, had the whole alliance been able to control all of latin america, that would impose a tremendous danger to the United States. But he believed that there was no danger of that happening and, in fact, that the Monroe Doctrine was promised premised on his confidence that this could not happen and that there were enough contending interests within europe to keep that from happening. Had it been otherwise, the Monroe Doctrine would have been different, but it was not. It was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and therefore threaten the United States. Abraham lincoln, who was who follows John Quincy Adams, would have been a follower of John Quincy Adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and his secretary of state William Seward literally worshiped John Quincy Adams knew in his bones that the as he stated in 1838, of the powers of the of europe disposing of the worlds treasures could not by force make a track on the blue ridge are taking a drink from the ohio in a trial of a thousand years. The problem, as lincoln side, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations but rather they growing enmity among americans, a tendency of americans to regard each other as enemies. The issue of slavery, of course, being the greatest of the causes, the pretexts for that. But realizing that to my has had George Washington, that there are many, many causes for strife among our own people. Of course, George Washington had pointed out he had experienced that americans divisions over Foreign Affairs were a major cause of this loss, this fatal loss, is potentially fatal loss of among the American People. And so Abraham Lincoln policy, domestic and Foreign Policy regarding peace and war always was aimed primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this among the American People. Of course, he faced a problem in the worst of circumstances when, in fact, doing so required defeating for one part the american policy which had taken arms against the other. And the it and yet we see from especially from his second inaugural that Abraham Lincoln aimed above all at the unity of the country, and restoring their french. Unfortunately for america, the people who govern america after lincolns death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as americas First Venture in nation building, remaking the defeated south. First of all, considering the defeated south as a defeated nation, which lincoln was absolutely blows to do. And then reshaping it according to some thought, some ideal or at least better way of life. That, of course, turned into an occasion for continuing violence , continuing ill feeling among americans, held feeling which lasted a hundred years and which some in our time are attempting to revive for their own purpose, the very same reason why the radical republicans of the 1860s and 70s in belgium for their own political advantage and for their own selfimage. Nevertheless, the priority of domestic peace returned to america, albeit slowly man until there was put in jeopardy in our own century, the 20thcentury by Woodrow Wilsons adoption of the notion that as he said in his address the february 1917 that the American Republic existed for no other purpose, it had no other reason than to somehow improve the rest of mankind, not only to improve americans, lesser americans, but the rest of our kind. Now, this, of course, this notion violated a whole bunch of principles. First of all, there must be a correspondence between ends and means, what possible means could affect the improvement of mankind . How in heavens name, by what power on earth can any one improve mankind . Is it, indeed, possible to change human nature . Is it, indeed impossible to change anyones culture but ones own or much less anyone else is . Common sense says no. American statecraft in the 20thcentury says yes. We can and we should try. We must be if we are not we are not an exceptional nation. One might add we are not an exceptionally stupid nation. But, in fact, so much of american statecraft had 20thcentury was premised on that. Examples of the opposite of Theodore Roosevelts commonsense maxim, they are very much a story of the 20thcentury. Perhaps among many examples to my book explains what secretary of state Charles Evans hughes did in 21, the famous washington treaties in 1921. The famous nine power treaty reaffirmed and Brought International agreement on the perennial american objective of guaranteeing chinas independence and territorial integrity. At the same time the Washington Naval treaty committed the United States not only to a thorough reducing of its naval power as to give to their make clear superiority in the western pacific but above all it committed the United States to refraining from fortifying gorman the philippines. This, of course, guaranteed that japan not only would have more ships in the area but that those ships could take out american bases very easily. Well, what do you think japan did . Do you think that japan refrained from any attack on the independence and territorial integrity . No, of course. Quite the contrary. What did the government do . Well, nothing. Rather actually something far worse. Secretary Franklin Roosevelt secretary of state for ten years abraded japan, and sell to japan for what it had done in china. Building up the u. S. Fleet or from fortifying manila and kuala and so as lincoln would put it, the war came. We have known very little from that in our time. In fact, what we have been doing ever since much of the cold war has been to redouble our commitments while reducing our forces. You may have noticed that there was some trouble in ukraine to nine. Well, that follows from the fact of ukraine has disarmed. Why has ukraine disarmed . The United States government under both democratic and republican ministrations prevailed upon ukraine to give up the worlds Third Largest stock of nuclear weapons. How . Well, buy a guaranteed from the United States. Well, it was not exactly well worded but it was interpreted by everyone as a guarantee of ukraines independence and territorial integrity by the United States of america. Now, of course, the United States of america watches as ukraine is being gently torn apart by the russian president. And i emphasize gently because he is not actually invading it openly but rather is grabbing enough power within it to manipulate the west and to take over all of ukraine. This is confirming the worlds ever growing opinion of it as foolish, week, toothless, and able to be taken. What are we doing with regard to the fact that china is increasingly extending its power over the western pacific . Well, queer sending a few trips to the philippines, not nearly enough to protect them, of course, not nearly enough to protect anything, while making loud noises about renewing our commitment to our allies in the area. Precisely the same mistakes as in 1921. Which mistakes can be expected to have the same results . Starting in the 1980s and 1990s, the United States has been suffering from a tax on various terrorists. Several times and most summers led by george w. Bush declared a some kind of talking war against these terrorists. Not the u. S. Government has failed to identify who is causing the war, preferring to pretend that this war is being waged by a few roads whose identity we really dont know except for ben alarm and a 200 or so people who were with him in this thing called al qaeda, most of own are not quite dead. End neglecting, preferring not to understand that a whole civilization is being marshalled against us. By who . That does not require intelligence. It does require intelligence. And who might that be . Well, we know that the Palestinian Authority school books and that the United States and, of course, the jews naturally for all sorts of terrible things which in a good muslim ought to protest violently. We know that the sect of islam does the same thing and does so with the money of saudi arabia, the emirates. The money and the support of the leading personages of these places. Common sense might suggest that these authorities withdrew within have some say about these activities. Common sense might suggest that were these activities to be curtailed we would stand a far better chance and that curtailing those a activities might be more worthwhile than shooting individual trigger polers. No. The u. S. Government prefers to pretend that it really is a matter of the few roads. And so of war has continued. Year after year, and now we are in the second decade of the war. That, of course, has brought the American Government to tear the disrepute around the world, but it has done something worse, far worse. It has brought upon this country the Homeland Security department and the modernization of police in america. This behemoths lives by the proposition that it is impossible to know who the enemy is and therefore it could be anyone. You, i must be assisted until someone decides, we dont know who, the you and i perhaps are not terrorists. Now, we already know that human beings tend to focus their energies and hatreds upon people they like the least. We know that the u. S. Government , like any set of human beings, has in fact already taken measures against and treated as terrorists were threatened to people whom it dislikes politically, socially. Lenos that it is difficult for u. S. Beans resist. And we know that they are that has the governments power to enforce its dictates gross those will be ever more difficult to resist. And so we conclude by realizing that the failure terror current peace has, in fact, brought war home amongst ourselves. And we ask ourselves how can we stop this . We can stop this by realizing what we have been doing and by returning to common sense. I wrote this book so that the people could trace our civilizations primary primacy and peace, how our government was set up, in fact, on the basis of pursuit of the primacy, how focus on that primacy was lost and how it may be regained and i commend it to your attention. Thank you. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, questions please from the audience. We have some microphones, if you will please identify yourself and direct a question at speaker. Everybody and reflect. I want to ask you, since you have made peace the theme of your book, many people believe that peace should be pursued through a project called Global Governance and through the creation of a supranational institutions in which nations would surrender sovereignty to this larger though often unaccountable institutions or creations. Would you comment on that . Well, is easy enough to do that. You simply enlarge their jurisdiction and then their quarrels within that jurisdiction are no longer called international wars. Theyre just all civil wars. That does not affect the reality it simply changes the name of what is happening. Unless, of course, one establishes a really powerful, supernatural supranational authority in which case you call that Violence Police action. Again, you call things by different names. In the latter case the violence will simply be worse. Could you Say Something about how to the nature and substance of education in the United States has enabled a change of mindset . Excellent question. My previous book the title of which was advice to of president s has a chapter entitled you as the dictionary. The problem with American Education is that it teaches people that it is not necessary to use a dictionary, to use words in their proper meetings. Dictionaries teach you that words should reflect reality. American education has disabled generations now from contact, from understanding language in a way that allows you to contact reality and as disabled it for reasoning. The dumbing down of American Education makes all sorts of good things impossible or at least very difficult. I dont know how many people could have followed the argument i just made. Why . Because it takes an Attention Span laundry than a few seconds. The American Educational system destroys Attention Spans, among other things, as well as historical knowledge. My name is mary. I am an independent observer and researcher. We are talking about peace, but i am getting the impression that you are actually promoting are justified war. And i think you have you are making an error in making the assumption that the natural state of species is to stay in the natural state of conflict, provincial conflict. As a matter of fact there are studies. I dont remember the name of the psychologist, but it was presented to president lincoln. Mike harris said to my dont remember the name, but aid to state specifically that the natural state in a rational society, especially an educated society like america and i think we are and a higher state of education around the world now, that the natural state of the species is actually to protect got to love your offspring into protected. I guess maybe that is an impulse that is more common to women and that the natural state and you are promoting or justifying his based in the fact that there just have not been enough women in positions of power specifically because they were very ignorant. There were raising their children. They were poor, under the control of man who do have a more natural, i guess, propensity, one might say, to fight and to control, to endorse in their pleasures. And my take on why we are still in this horrible state all over the world and you brought of ukraine where i lived, almost uncanny that this should all,. The reason why there is so much conflict right now is probably linked to quebec and to canadian currency and production. You know, i think Monetary Policy is one of the biggest issues that nobody talks about. And, of course, this linguistic debate with russian and ukraine. The same language, the same people. Well, i am not making a question i am making a comment. I dont agree with the premise. Man. Is an addiction. I dont think you heard me correctly. I did not say hobbes and machiavelli were correct. I simply stated that that is one of the premises of modern thought. And that the american founders disagreed with that, disagreed with the notion that mankind is naturally a war. The point is that mankind is neither add or norad peace inherently and that such peace as exists and such is the product of specific decisions and specific orientations. It is true that some kind of governments tend to be more warlike and others. And that is not necessarily meaning that dictatorships are inherently more violent than democracy. That simply is not true. It has never been true. As far as women are concerned, there is a reason why the greek tragedians made the furies female rather than male. As far as ukraine is concerned the reasons for the enmity between russians and ukrainians has something to do with the fact that the russians killed ukrainians by the tens of millions and that there is not a household in ukraine that does not have memories, bitter memories of the russians. Thank you