Transcripts For CSPAN3 Daniel 20240706

Good morning. And welcome everyone in the studio as as the audience turning in virtually. Im connor savoy, senior fellow at the csu us project on prosperity and development. Thank you for joining me today to discuss a new book published by my long time colleague and friend dan, who is a Senior Vice President and director of the project on and development and holds the schreier chair here at csis. His work is oriented around us leadership in building a more democratic and prosperous world. Among his many other contributions, he was an architect of the build act, helped contribute to the reauthorization of the Us Export Import Bank in 2018 and was an of prosper for a Us Initiative to deepen the uss commercial and Development Engagement in africa. Hes been a leading voice on the role and future of the World Bank Group and u. S. Leadership in the multilateral. Prior to csis he held leadership roles at the u. S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank Group earlier in his career. He also worked in commercial banking at citibank in argentina and Investment Banking at what is now deutsche bank, danske the american imperative reclaimed and Global Leadership through soft power is the first decade. Its first book in decades to look at americas power through the lens of Great Power Competition. It calls for supporting broad based economic growth, supporting Good Governance and anticorruption, long term training, differentiating our approaches in middle income countries, and fragile and stronger u. S. Leadership in. The multilateral system. Dan, i want to congratulate you on a great book. Its been a its been a long and im very proud to host you today. So welcome and why dont we dive right in . Thanks. Thanks, connor. Thanks for having im really pleased to be doing this this has been a long time coming. Ive been in washington for 20 years. Ive been at ccs for 12. Ive watched the rise of china over the last 12 years. But ive also watched the and the progress in many developing countries. And so its not grandparents developing world and at the same time in a period of Great Power Competition with china and their sidekick russia. And so i think that we have to offer alternative enable an alternative because china in partnership russia can fill voids that we leave they can fill voids in vaccines. We saw this with covid. They close the Digital Divide through huawei, zte. They can build bridges, build ports and airports so to the extent we dont want to do that, will do that to the extent that we dont want to provide and support the development of Reliable Energy such gas. China will do that for them. To the extent that we fill trade, china will fill that as well so. At the same time, russia, which is doesnt have the same kind of heft as china is a is a major global disrupter, put it mildly. Their illegal invasion of ukraine has has global implications. And its in our interest to make sure that ukraine wins the war. But also, ukraine also is financially successful as a stable democracy and full member of the European Union and nato. I want to come back to ukraine in a little bit, but maybe lets start out with, i think of the things that strikes me about the book. Is there this sort of cold war parallel, you a lot about how the Kennedy Administration saw a real challenge to our ability to engage in developing countries in the early 1960s that led to the peace that led to usaid using cold war. You know, how do you of see this as a as a competition right now . Is it analogous . Is it a little different . How do you kind of where do you see the similarities indifference . I sort of dodged this, b, and so i think in the book sort of edged up to the idea of this is potentially a second cold war. I did an inward radio interview last week where somebody said they disagreed with me in the book because i sort of hem haw on this issue of whether its a second cold war or not. And finished, i submitted the manufacture for the book in march of 2010. March, february, march 2020 to the world also since evolved. I think unfortunately in a not great way in the last 12 plus months. So i we need to see this certainly as revisiting our soft power in an age of Great Power Competition and perhaps thats a safer place. I think what i worry about is if i say its second cold war, some folks kind of bristle at that and sort of dont want us to kind of and i think the framing of is perhaps creates a problem but i do think that if you look at in history you look at the emergence of the Marshall Plan that was a result of the coup in czechoslovak hockey in 1948, which was sort of the dawn of the cold war and was a direct response to sort of National Security concerns and Foreign Policy concerns at the time. If you look at the reorganization of aid in that early 1961 or the foreign assistance of 1961, it was a reaction to our perceived shortcomings during sort of the the First Quarter or so of the of the cold war, where this book called the ugly american, which was published in 1958, which i think of a book thats been more influential Foreign Policy in that john kennedy bought a copy for every member of the senate. Kennedy bought 100 copies of the book and gave one to every member of the us senate and. That book caused a revolution in thinking in the United States about how we ought to engage the developing world. It caused it. It brought about the reorganization of the of for our foreign aid it a rejiggering of u. S. A. The initiative called the alliance for progress for the americas. It created the peace corps and created the green berets. So these were all things that were a direct result of the book, the ugly american. I would say weve had several moments since since the 1960s at the end of the cold, there were some rejiggering of our instruments, ation to respond to, the fall of the berlin wall and then would say after 911, there have been some some adjustments as i would argue, that were at moment in this period of Great Power Competition or whatever we want to call it, we want to call it a second cold war. And theres some baggage with that, that the National Imperatives of engaging a resurgent china in a a disrupter in russia require us to go back to the drawing board on our soft power instruments to respond to this new challenge that were finding. So i think, you know, as were as im to you, dan, i mean, one of the things that really comes out is the imperative us using our soft power tools and using them better. I mean, what do you see as the importance now for soft power and why do you think development and by diplomacy are overlooked when the us looking at how it engages in the world . So if you believe that were in an age of Great Power Competition, then most of our Great Power Competition is not going to play out in beijing or moscow. Its going to play out in tanzania, its going to play out in guatemala. Its going to play out in the Pacific Island states. Its going to play out in central asia. Its going to play out in ukraine. These are developing with a series of hopes and aspirations and interests. And to the extent we dont meet the hopes and aspirations these countries. Theyll take their business to china or theyll take their business russia in some instances. And to the extent we dont engage in a number of different fields that are not in the non militaries fear, they have the ability today because of their economic, because of chinas economic heft to be able to fill voids that we leave. So im all for through strength im all for a strong u. S. Military and a strong intelligence capacity. But i believe most of this competition is not a military competition. Its a non military competition. One of the things that i know has come up since put out the book, since it was published last youve and youve done a lot of these discussions, this idea of, you know, implicit in the this discussion uschina in the developing and other regions is the idea that youre that you could be suggesting that they need to pick a side how do you address that how do you think about this interplay between the us and china and what how do we have to think about that . How do we have to frame it when were engaging in developing countries . So in my heart, id like them to pick a side, but i think in reality, in most instances thats going to be very, very difficult today and that in that late nineties, Something Like hundred and 20 out of 200 countries, the number one trading partner was United States and about 60, the largest trading was china. Today, out of 200 or so developing countries about 120 countries. Their largest trading partner is china. And were the number one trading partner for about 60. So its going to be very difficult to say to some country where theyre one trading partner is Mainland China. You have to pick a side and stop with Mainland China. So i think its not its not serious. So i think we need to be realistic about at the same time, there are things cant just say to countries, dont take sinovac vaccines if were not going to offer an alternative vaccine, dont take chinese made ventilators if were not going to offer a ventilator, dont take chinese infrastructure or, energy, infrastructure. If not going to enable long term, we dont have to meet china dollar for dollar, but its just not serious for us to say to countries that have developed beyond a certain Level Development have their own agency, have their own choices today and can have lot more freedom of action for to say dont take the vaccines, dont take the infrastructure and dont close Digital Divide with our way. We have enable an alternative. So let me go that so infrastructure is one of the ways that weve seen china really ramp up its presence in developing countries through the belt and Road Initiative what do we need to do to offer a credible alternative to chinese infrastructure . My view is that to the extent that there building farm to market roads in the middle of nowhere if they want to go knock themselves out and do that. Thats then theres some areas where we ought to be competing with china on infrastructure, whether its us through the Asian Development bank or japan or the australians or turkey or brazil. Thats fine. Then theres a subset of what might be described as commanding heights where we just dont want them to build it, where they a dual use say an airport or a port or its kinds of Technology Like 5g and controlling 5g do we should not one Mainland China to control the digital rails of the future in developing countries in the unholy trinity, huawei, zte and alipay. So thinking about digital in particular you know weve talked a lot over the years about how a aid and Development Institutions did a lot enable cell phone telephony in developing countries and most countries leapfrogged they people never had a landline they only have a cell phone. So when youre thinking about closing Digital Divide, what what do we need to do what do you see as the opportunity on that so the u. S. And the west helped create kind of version 1. 0 of the internet in, many developing countries and was also an enabler through the series of obscure but important institutions called Development Finance institutions like the International Finance corporation, what was then called the overseas private corporation, the series of European Development financiers and institutions to enable that the cell phone revolution thats happened over the last 20 years. And theres most people in the developing world, whether its afghanistan or africa and countries in, africa or southeast asia, they all have to to cell phone, telephony and. Thats changed the world for the better. What youre seeing now is this next generation of high Speed Internet net, which has been accelerated because of covid. Everybody was in their basement for a year, whether they were in rural maryland. They were in moldova, malaysia or mali. And there was a realization that all needed high Speed Internet that high Speed Internet is the new electricity. And so this is this is going to happen and so were either going there, either people are going to close this new Digital Divide of high internet, either through Mainland China or through weiwei, zte and alipay or some coalition or somebody else. I would strongly prefer that some coalition, somebody else that requires us general, a little bit more together, it means us working with allies like south korea, finland and sweden. It means having sort of a strategy, how were going to use development, finance institutions. It probably means having being a little bit more thoughtful, tangible how we use our aid agencies to kind of prime the pump for some of this stuff. Some of this is about making sure that various stakeholders show up and on for certain kinds of infrastructure and my hope is, is to the extent countries pick weiwei is in zte for socalled 5g technology, which is sort of the latest technology thats being used that we can fight to the extent we lose in some instances. We need to get ready six g or the next generation so that we can supplant Mainland China because it is just not in our interest because of either values and most importantly, sort of the vacuuming, vacuuming up of data, information thats going directly to beijing thats being used for all sorts bad purposes. So let me let me take this. You mentioned allies in your last answer. You know your book is entitled the american imperative. And, you know, i think some some not me may look at this and say, oh, this is little bit of an America First argument that youre trying to make here. And i think its a its know how how do you kind of what do you say to that where do allies where how do you kind of think about the role from that perspective in the world . Nothing significant the United States has ever done have been able to do by ourselves so have needed friends and partners to accomplish anything of any significance. The cold war confronting big challenges like hiv response to covid thats required sort of leading a coalition. And to the extent that weve been able to do sometimes were not a great sometimes were a little bit of a flaky ally and friend. We need to a better job of that. I would say that one of our greatest strengths is the that weve got a big network of friends and allies and so i think we need to make sure that were being a good friend and a reliable friend. Stuff you learned in kindergarten. But we also so we we anything we want to accomplish in sort of this responding to, closing the Digital Divide, making sure. That the next pandemic were not all in our basements for a year making sure that mainland doesnt control the imf or the secretary general shape of the u. N. Or so the commanding heights of the multilateral system. We need to work with our friends. And so this is not an America First book. This a book that says we to this is an internationalist book that says we need to work with our friends that we have a big challenge. I think think theres a consensus in washington that we have a big problem with russia and we have a big with china. I dont believe theres a consensus yet in washington about what the heck to do it. And so i wrote the book as a contribution to. Say, heres some thoughts about some things we could do if we could respond, to china and russia and. If you believe that most of our competition, not about night vision goggles and Battleship Ships and missiles, those are all really important things. As i said, i believe in peace through strength. Then we need to come up with look at a variety of spheres. Think about what were going to do and how were going to burden share. And in some ways, development is about helping countries become wealthy enough and hopefully free that they join the community of market. You know, free, free nations that are market democracies that are willing to burden share on big challenges is and also to join you know this is a big set of words but the liberal international the and i dont mean liberal of progressive sort of that the or the set of rules and arrangements that were set up after World War Two. We want countries develop and then become burden sharers in the system that was set up after war two. The system has set up after World War Two is a great thing. And so i see development. If you say what my agenda is and i think what many people in washington would say is help countries to have freedom of action be, have own, have their own agendas in, the world, but also to decide their own that its in their interest ultimately participate in the existing liberal international order, not go off with china and try and set up some new new arrangement that were not going to like. One of the things you said in the beginning was this isnt your grandparents world. Can you unpack that a little bit . What has changed in the last 20 years, where do you sort of see the opportunity in regions or in countries . What does that look like for United States and how do we have to think differently about it . Well, they all have cell phones. Theres been an incredible amount Economic Development in the last 30 years. There has been a net net. Its largely a freer world in, say, years ago. Theres been a of progress in democracy then theres been a little bit whats been called a democratic recession. But if you go back from, say, 40 years ago, its still freer than it was 40 years ago. If you go back 40 years ago, its still wealthier than it was 40 years ago. Theres an Amazing Health progress. Theres been amazing metrics in progress and in education in terms of of literacy. Theres been major progress in terms of the status of women in the world, in terms of their levels of education and participation, the economy, their participation in the political spheres. These all great things. So at the same time, theres also become as countries develop, have an ability to as described earlier potentially burden share big problems. And thats thats a good thing. They also a lot of countries as they develop they buy a lot more goods and services. We want them buying our goods and services as opposed to somebody goods and services. We also, you know, you have as countries develop, theres a greater demand for Higher Education and and training and different kinds of higher and training. And so 50 or 60 years ago, we didnt exactly have a lock on sort of the global Higher Education. We had sort of kind of a lock on global Higher Education. Now theres a lot more access to universities, schooling in developing countries. Thats for the good. But what were also finding that for certain kinds of specialized training in education, were not the only in town. Some of the some of that can be provided by our allies and partners. Thats great some of that can be provided by Mainland China there now a major Higher Education player we want the global elites of developing countries to study in the west preferably the United States because when they become finance minister or Central Bank President or Health Minister or ceo of a company. We want boston on their speed dial, not beijing on their sony down. So you mentioned in the beginning that you submitted the manuscript for this february, march of 2022. So obviously, the russia invaded on february 24th, 2022. Were coming up on the Year Anniversary over the last several months, you and i have spent a lot of time thinking about economic reconstruction in ukraine, you know, and in the the us has appropriated over 100 billion and counting to support. How are you thinking about this this crisis where does russia fit into this era of Great Power Competition and how can we continue to use aid and other Development Instruments to support ukraine not just during the war but looking ahead to to reconstruction me first start with the fact that china is financing the russian war machine. So when they buy oil and gas from, the russians theyre financing the the russian war machine. So i think we have to start with that. The chinese have been horrible on ukraine theyve had theyve abstained. And when they should have voted the right way, ukraine they voted the wrong way, fiddled with language and important communiques that things like the g20 to help to favor russia china not been ukraines friend china has picked a side theyre basically tacitly or explicit li an ally of the russians. This fight against ukraine and everyone just needs understand that the second thing is that Vladimir Putin is not going to stop at if he gets a couple of pieces of ukraine he wants to re redraw the map and whole bunch of places hed like the baltics back. Hed like a piece of poland back, hed like a piece of kazakhstan. He probably belarus is sort of a fake country and hed that too. So if anyone thinks, well, this is whats just get him, you know hell hell be satiated hell satisfied with with bits and pieces of ukraine were fooling ourselves its in our interest for russia to be strategically defeated in ukraine they break their back on ukraine and they say for 100 years they feel the way they feel about finland. So they invaded finland. It was a really bad experience for the russians. And the russians have said, oh my gosh, for the next hundred years, i dont want to i dont want to think about invading ever again. What we want is for the russians say, oh my gosh, that was the worst experience ever. Im never the im not invading ukraine for another 100 years. I dont want do it. And im my my expansive grand ambitions for for a resurge sort of neo soviet union. Yeah were going to put that aside basically we want them to we want them have such a horrible military experience that that that is what happens. The other thing is china is watching what happens in ukraine. So the extent that russia is able to, quote unquote, get away with invading and the costs are acceptable that is going to give russia, china the temptation to think they can get away with invading taiwan. So if anyone thinks whats going to happen in ukraine stays, in ukraine, their mistake in this is as has global implications. It absolutely has impacts on asian security. And if youre taiwan should be doing everything you can to help ukraine win because a weaker russia, a weaker china and a weaker china means that theyre less likely to try and invade taiwan. In addition to all that, what we want 15 years from now, we want to see ukraine fully win the war and be seen as winning the war. But from in to that, what we want is we want a ukraine wealthy. Its one fourth. Its the same size as poland and should be rich as poland. And its one fourth as rich as poland. But theyre going to have to do a whole bunch of things to kind of fix that. Some of them have to do with Economic Reforms and reforms. We want them to have agricultural potential of canada could totally do that. They ought to have the tech of estonia. They ought have the kind of great infrastructure has. They ought to have the military industrial of israel. What we want is at the end of this, a really strong free and rich ukraine. Thats a on card carrying member of the European Union and a full on card carrying of nato and a full on card carrying member of the oecd, which is the club of market democracies. So i think a lot of us didnt necessarily think wed be back looking europe the way we are now, but in that said we still have a lot of problems. The regions that you know, our traditional focus for Global Development can you think about how are you when you when you look at your book where do fragile and failing states in and what do we need to kind of do to ensure that theyre not do better in those areas, to ensure that theyre not going to be problems of the future . We have hard time with fragile states. We dont have enough folks who speak very obscure but important languages in some of these places. We dont have enough people whove lived in these countries and understand the the really complicated what might be as political economy issues sort of that some of its tribalism and thats political some of about whos, you know, whos you theres douglas north whos an important economist, talks open access borders, limited access orders and that most the world are limited orders, which are basically sort of, you know autocratic, poorly governed places that and its hard for limited access to become open access orders which are basically of them as market prices for making leap. And so we need people who can speak speak what might be described as im going to call them non strategic important languages that are not spanish or, french or portuguese, not kind of romance languages and folks who make long term commitments to some of these places. General petraeus talked about seven year commitments and ought to maybe even have a special track, the Foreign Service for folks are willing to make a 14 year commitment to have some sort of an accelerated process by which, if you do, 14 years, two, seven year tours of duty and different, really difficult places, you can get early retirement. I think a lot of people in washington brains will explode if i say that, because i think including i think, you know, i but i just think that after 20 years of sort of having a series of sort of one year tours of duty in afghanistan, it seems to that we need to have deeper expertise to make it. Were unfortunately for good or for a lot of developments going to happen in this in whats described as the bottom billion. Its a tough poor and so just going to need folks who have regional expertise and make significant commitments and i my belief that in a country of 330 Million People and, a country of immigrants, we should be able to attract some folks from the diaspora, some who just understand the importance this to say were going to make theyre going to make this part of their career and that this is a this is an attractive for folks. And so it be folks we may also be want to think about drawing upon people who are former, who are you know, whove lived in some, you know, ambiguous security places to. You know, to draw upon that as as a as a talent pool for Something Like this. Yeah. So one one thing that i really like about the book dan is you, you, you do great job of using examples of countries you know where that are either transitioning toward you know upper middle income status you know you really do a good job of highlighting their strategic importance and how we can do engage better. One country you talk quite a bit about is you know bangladesh has gone from what was seen as kind of a basket case, which i think, you know, during the nixon administration. And there was something that was a term that was the term, i believe, by a senior state under secretary of state. Im trying remember his name right now. It you was it you . Yes, it was. It was alexis. So you, alexis exact it was urals. Urals. Yeah, exactly. Thats good. So its but its come a long way and lot of that has been because of the growth of the textile industry thats lifted a lot of people out of poverty, including a lot of women. Theres still a lot of issues within that. But talk to me a little. Tell me more about bangladesh. How does this how does that serve . As an example of these countries and how we can kind of help them move further their Development Journey . Im pretty high on bangladesh. Yes. Why now take it as example. I think that if most people of a certain age im im im in my early fifties. So if youre in your if youre a baby boomer, you remember the concert for bangladesh by George Harrison in 1971, right. And so youre the last you probably thought about bangladesh, the concert for bangladesh in 1971, right . Theres a story in my family that one of my family members, instead of giving Christmas Presents one year, said they had made ten or 20 donations at the benefit of have for bangladesh. Some of my family took that well some of my families didnt take that well, but that is how they when they think about bangladesh, they about right there the Christmas Present didnt get and so anyways i think the if you look at the gnp per capita of bangladesh is a higher gnp capita of any country in south asia. Its higher than india. Its than pakistan. Its higher than sri lanka. Its certainly higher than afghanistan. And i think one of the reasons is, is invested so much in women now, some of it is women and, girls. And so theyve said, okay, were going to make sure that women, girls get access to basic theyve had a series of the recent leap in the last 30 years theyve had two female leaders whove led the country. Now theres some people who criticize the governments and there necessarily say that the two female leaders have a great relationship. But theyve had, you know, a Muslim Country thats invested a lot in women and girls that have made sure that women, girls have access, education. Theyve also been open minded in terms of bringing. So south korea brought the garment in the early eighties. Now 5 million women are employed in bangladesh. So women leave the village, come to work in a factory chain. That has also changed the society. You have women working and, joining the labor force, having having and then the studies that, you know, if women control of money their the the i dont want to you know generalize generalize but its generally its a very positive thing that studies that women are have are more careful with money than men. They are i have a to invest it in in things like education for their children. And and so as a result, you have this virtue a circle in bangladesh of employment and savings education. So theres been investment in people theres been and theres been an openness to bringing Foreign Direct Investment thats changed society. And now they have the aspiration to become an upper middle income country. Thats a lot of words. But basically theyre not theyre not a grindingly poor country anymore. Theyre not a basket case anymore. Theyre a middle income country. There are a country that cars theyve got aspiration asians. They would like to join the oecd, which i described earlier, sort of the of market democracy. And so thats not a crazy goal. And so 20 years from now, todays, you know, 2023, theres no reason that bangladesh couldnt be a member of the oecd 20 years from today. And they fought a war more than 50 years ago with pakistan. Theyre wealthier than pakistan in, terms on a on a per capita basis, and theyre in a much better place than if they were still with pakistan. And and so i think you have to ask yourself, okay, well, why is it that if this a country thats a you know, that, you know, is an example for others to emulate people to say, okay, well, if you invest women and girls, this is you can have this kind of amazing outcome. And if you are open to having certain kinds of Foreign Direct Investment and be friendly to Foreign Direct Investment, there are certain kinds of benefits for your society. So i think these are all to the good. Theres of things that not bangladesh isnt perfect. There are a number of criticisms leveled. Pakistan excuse me, bangladesh, including a variety of different, whether its in their political realm or its in the labor and sort of labor, i understand that. But in the big picture, bangladesh is an enormous success story, Enormous Development success story. One thing thats come up a lot today, as weve been talking about the is is education. And i think this is another area you really highlight in the book in particular, really highlight the value education can play advancing development. You also go further and really think that suggests that the us really needs to fundamentally rethink how its approaching support of education as. One of the ways in which were engaging across the world, you know, what do you what do you see . What do we need to do differently . What the what are the what are the benefits us from an education perspective . Theres both theres the Higher Education world. Theres sort of the vocational Technical Training world, and theres the basic world. And so in the case of basic education, theres been an amazing global progress, basic education the last four years, 40 years. But since. So i think thats the technical term. Levels of attendance are much higher. There is some discussion will quality of education. But if you look at levels of literacy, you look at levels of numeracy, youve seen major improvements. The world there are some unfortunately, some exceptions and oftentimes its around like holding back for a variety of reasons. So we need to kind of keep pushing on that. But youre also seeing that what youre also seeing as people as people get more education in and as economies evolve, theres greater demand for skilling and Higher Education. Some that has been met by the creation of universal and Training Institutes in developing so 50 or 60 years ago, a lot of of the world had to come. The United States or the developed world to get Higher Education. Thats so the Higher Education landscape has changed. At the same time. And we were a big finance sphere 50 or 60 years ago, as many as 20,000 students came to the United States every year on the federal governments dime to study in the United States. Its something around different depending on what all the buckets of funding. Its maybe a little 2000, Something Like that. Now again, covids thrown all this off. There was sort of a two year period where you know we werent doing that or it was, you know. It got it got disrupted. But but my point is, is that today china is funding enormous amounts of scholarships the Chinese Government is financing tens of thousands and is even more than that scholarships in developing countries of future leaders are going to go back and become Central Bank President Prime Minister ceo of companies in developing countries. We they are going to have beijing on their speed dial not boston their speed dial. And thats not going to be in our interest. So we need to think about Higher Education. Theres some problems in the us, Higher Education system. You could argue, and were not going to have we dont have to provide education and training to every developing country leader in the world. And like i said earlier, i think its a win if if somebody in a developing goes and studies in the uk or australia or canada or germany i think thats great. Freemark you know, market democracies, if they get to market democracies, i think thats great for japan, for that matter. But if theyre studying in russia or china, i think thats and we should worry about that. So i we should make we should be strategic and about how we use our federal dollars to attract people, developing countries to come to the United States. In certain sectors, it could be public health, could be economics could be urban planning. Im not saying finance mbas and law degrees. I think thats right. Unless in that but the economy has certain kinds of train the technocrats of the future train the technocrats future. We should we should be strategic about that. I also think we have a the largest number of foreign students right now in the United States are Mainland China. Im not against. So some folks would say we ought to just turn off the spigots on that. Im for a large number of mainland Chinese Students, the United States. I do we have to police several things. If ganging up on other mainland Chinese Students because theyve now gotten the taste of freedom and there there is sort of expressing their views and. So then some other Chinese Students beat them up, bully them or narc on them. I think thats the young people. What the young peoples kids say these days is nark on them. We allow that this confucius stuff, this these institutes funded by china thats pushing a certain kind of line either out they are a straighten up or way to close them this soft and hard intel stuff. Were like, were sending, you know, people to get phds in theoretical physics and then stealing our intel or doing medical studies and then taking medical specimens back. You know, theres been way the heck to bad examples of that and so id much rather have them study comparative literature, comparative religion or english lit and go study quantum computing. So i think a lot want to do the the quantum computing stuff and so pays better. I think i think it pays better. But i think the point i actually think in the long run we want have as many people from Mainland China exposed the west as possible like i actually think the argument that we engage china for 40 years and we failed im not sure thats totally fair and so i have a slightly different view than many people in the sense that i think that we dont know yet think the jury is still out. Like if look at how many members of the politburo have lived abroad or studied abroad, i think the number is about one. Yeah, my hope is, is that 15 years from now, you may have as many as 12 or 15 who lived or studied abroad. So i think you also see the elites in china, they they have money overseas, they send their kids overseas study thats thats a revealing preference that says something how theyre thinking about themselves and how they think about us. So we should want to the extent of not stealing our stuff, bullying others, pushing some propaganda up, we ought to have im open to us having, a lot of them. The whole idea of saying were going to cut off completely, i think is an error. Yeah, weve a lot about market democracies here and i know from our Long Association that your preference is on democracy. But let me talk about the markets for a sec. I mean, one thing thats come through in your book is, the the importance of the private and we dont always think about that from a development perspective, how how have and youve done a lot partnerships over year over the years. How do you think about the role of the private Sector Development . Its a big question, but where does it fit within your thesis. So a lot of the theory of change kind of use a term of the last. So think tank, its a think tank term or its a think tank. And so the theory of change has been while it seems to kind of forget that nine out of ten jobs in the developing world are in the private sector, that most of the financing, most financing of basic human needs of health and education isnt from foreign. Its from the taxes collected in developing countries. Theres been a toppling of taxes collected in africa in the last 20 years. What that says is that even some of the except for a hand, maybe 20 or so developing countries, the poorest of the poor, most of the rest have an ability to finance a lot of their own development. They have they have the ability to finance a lot of their infrastructure, finance a lot of, their own education and a lot of their own health and a lot of their own security. So i think we have a little bit of of a simplistic notion that were the largest wallet in room or whatever were allocating from the world bank or usaid giving or the aid community, which, you know, about 130, 150 billion a year that. Thats the biggest chunk of money financing, development. Its not true, and it hasnt been true for at least 30 or 40 years. But we have started this old cassette tape to date myself. We have an old cassette tape in our head about how the development, gets funded. And so ambassador jim michael, whos a Senior Advisor here, has done some thoughtful on this. He used to run the Major League Baseball commission of foreign aid. Its called the dac the Development Assistance committee, which brings all aid agencies together. And he wrote a paper looking at this and dont believe dan, you know, believe somebody like ambassador jim michael whos, you know, much more sort of been part the International Development conversation for years and is said that the the the kind of financing for development and even the United Nations system talks about it through its the Financing Development track is called foreign to be a catalyst so its think of it like yeast its not the main its not the big show but we think of it as as the big show. And so if the private sector is where all the jobs are. And if the private sector is where all the taxes are, theyre are going to finance development, then you probably have to have a certain kind of a relationship with the private sector. You got to make sure that theyre following environmental and labor rules. And weve got to make sure theres not corruption. But the kind of and we need to make sure people are paying their fair share of taxes. And i think thats a thats a decision for each society to come up with. But i think that we need to see them as a really central partner in and the other thing is our foreign aid is were a supporting actor in someone elses right. Were were not the star of the movie. Were a supporting actor in someone elses drama. So and i think its like, how do we work with them, how do we think about enabling, making it easy for them to operate in a country these are all things that that are relevant and appropriate for for the uses of foreign aid and diplomacy. Let me shift gears a little bit. So where it comes in the book is the opportunity, the need and the y for for for for for american soft power. But when you look at our bureaucracy, when you look at usaid, for example, what do we need to do differently from an organizational perspective . And i know youre famous in washington for saying you dont like to do org chart discussions, dan, but when you think of what do we need to do differently . Because i think as were talking and as and when you read book, it comes through that. We may not be our system may not fit for purpose for what were trying to achieve. So what would you you know, what are quick wins . What are some harder things we have to do . So i havent met anybody in washington has said theyre happy and satisfied with the current arrangement is sort of like the state department in aid and there are 20 agencies so that have some that touch some of kinds of things ive talked about in the book now when John F Kennedy reorganized the foreign aid architecture. If you use that term in, 1961, there were four agencies and he said that was too many theres 21. So no ones really wanted to kind take this on because whatever cube permutation come up with, not going to be satisfied. So youre going to you create various people will will go and its its an important topic, but its still enough that its sort of at the whim of kind of Interest Group politics, if i can describe it, that. And so the only time weve ever had shifts is because theres some goes. Thing that overrides of these Interest Group politics and thats i would say the reason wrote the book is i think that were at a jewish strategic moment where we need to kind of make some decisions about how we allocate things. I would like to have id have a lot of this leadership agency. I would i would put a lot of stuff usaid, id say theres too many things and other places. I theres some things that we need to do in terms of allocating people time and money to some things that we could, we could revisit how where were putting our people time id like us to close. We dont have to dollar for dollar to close the Digital Divide. I think were probably going have to put some money into Digital Space in a way that we havent. I dont want to spend year in my basement again because of another covid. Were going to have other pandemic, and i dont think were fully prepared the next one either. Early warning or we need to have swing capacity in the developing world to vaccines because. If we have that, if someday im going to have to wait for get in line and wait six months, because the factory in baltimore is got to take care of pittsburgh over paraguay, the political leaders are always going to pick pittsburgh over paraguay. So we need to have additional swing capacity of vaccine. And so we need to figure out a way to deal with that. I want them building dual use airports and in developing. And so we need to probably ride herd the multilateral system and dfi to do a better job of being a financier of choice and a partner of choice and know as countries develop. As i said, this is a different developing world. We need to meet folks where theyre at. And so kind of our offer needs to be updated if were still offering bags of rice and they can grow their own food, then perhaps need to kind of look at that and say maybe maybe thats not what we should be doing or if they can finance their own basic education, maybe we need to look at that. If they can pay for own basic health, maybe we need to look at that. So i just say know theres lots of places where we still need to do that. But i think that we i think need to have a take a hard at all this. I also think we need to think about how we do this in partnership with others. I was talking earlier this is not an america alone conversation and this is about about burden sharing. So ive got two final questions for you. First, and i think everyone, anyone who knows you knows youre a republican. Yeah. Not outing you. Yeah. Dont help me. Im outing you. How do you make the argument to other republicans that this an important issue to invest in there are and i, i dont love to do both sides. But you know, there are always voices on the left, too, who see who think that we to invest in domestic priorities over perhaps international priorities. But how do you make the argument to your other republican folks . Yeah, that american internationalism, which was a bipartisan thing, arose at the end of World War Two. How do you make the argument to your folks that this is an investment . So i have yet to meet somebody in washington that says, i am really excited about turning over the reins of Global Leadership to the Chinese Communist party. So whether in the infrastructure space or Digital Space, the vaccine space or even multilateralism, what ive posited the question were either going to do something this or the Chinese Communist party is going to fill this void very no. Yet ive challenged i would welcome someone to make the argument to me, oh, that is awesome. Thats great. Im ready to hand over the reins to to red china to put it to use. Im being slightly correct its right that i think i havent heard anybody say that so and im not trying to be tricky or clever by framing it that way. Im just saying that its that serious that there they are, wealthy and capable enough and have that ability to look at the vaccine conversation, look at the infrastructure conversation, look at the way theyre able to deal with Hydrogen Nation or the multilateral system in issue in issue across. And this is not in the military world theyre able to fill voids that we leave behind look at trade and and so i think we have to decide are we going to cede the space to or not because over time, in the sum total of that, that means theyre going to have the ability time to rewrite the rules of the road. Were not our kids and our grandkids are not are going to be angry with us and will will suffer if we have a world thats led by the Chinese Communist party, its going to be a world where corruption is a lot more common. Its going to be a world where pollution is a lot more common. Its going to be a world where people, the governments get into your business on like your most intimate decisions. These are folks these are the one child policy people. These are people that arent super open to religious freedom. So if you care about that, theyre not super to kind of freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. So if you like all those things, youre not going to like a world led by by the Chinese Communist party and. So what im saying is, is if we let this go and we dont provide a response and push back and im not and i across a number of nonmilitary spheres that, the sum total of that is going to mean that theyre going ultimately supersede and theyre going to get to rewrite rules of the road. And were not going to like it now. I think we id rather be us them that i think if we get our act together we have a strategy and we work with our partners, we can we can push back against this. The other thing is because of their horrible one child policy and their sex abortion of girls, theres Something Like 40 Million Girls have been aborted in china, something that people dont like talking about is kind of taboo topic. They are inheriting the whirlwind. Theyre going to have the demographic caste and and energy of portugal, which i dont wish them well. I actually think what if so if we dont get in a shooting war them theyve got a rickety political system, theyve got a rickety economy system that, if you ask me, is built on a house of cards. Theyve got horrible. Id rather be us than them. So if we just wait them out, theyre going to, you know, theyre going to run out of demographic gas and theyll, you know, theyll still be part of the global furniture. But in many ways, theyre going to go away. And so we need to but we need to have a strategy for the next 30 to 40 years. And if we dont get a shooting war and i want to get to a shooting war with and i dont necessarily want to call it a full on cold war. And to the extent we can work with them in some stuff. Yes, but i think we need to go into this with our eyes really wide open. Last question for you, youre generally an optimistic guy, very hopeful. I know that. What gives you hope and optimism for the future. So i think that i do believe that science and technology will help us solve a lot of problems. I think a lot of original research and, science and technology happens in the United States. So im hopeful about that. I think to the extent that people want to legally migrate to the United States, a good thing. I dont see a lot of people trying to cross some border from myanmar to enter illegally into Mainland China. So how many people, you know, banging on there . Are there lines out the door of the Chinese Embassy saying, i want to migrate to beijing . There are very people, like capable people from other societies that want move to china. There are very few people i know are like, oh my gosh, i want to i want to cross i want to illegally enter russia. So desperate to get to russia because its so awesome. So to the extent that people want legally come to the United States and we have i dont know, a million or so people come to the United States legally every year. Thats a market signal that were still an ongoing, attractive. So i think were still on attractive place. Weve got problems. Sure. But i think i still am optimistic about the science and you know, to the extent that we remain a leader in science, technology and weve got to keep an eye on that, and then id say to the extent that we have, you know, some level of entrepreneurship in the strength of our kind of our of our capitalist system, and people are able to start theres lots of problems of stratification in our society and other things, but theres still a lot of entrepreneurship here. And you can still you can make a go of things. And so i think that im optimistic about about the United States. Like i said, id rather be us than them. And yeah, i think we just need to be a better friend. We need to get our act a little bit more. We need to understand like said, i think theres a consensus in washington. We have a problem with the Chinese Communist party and and the russians under putin. But i think the reason i wrote this book is to say we need to have a strategy and a plan for pushing back against. And i dont think theres been a full consensus that because as i said and the reason i wrote the american imperative to say that most of this Great Power Competition isnt going to happen in the military sphere, its going to happen in all these nonmilitary places. And and in developing countries and nonmilitary ways. So we need to have a strategy in the nonmilitary sphere to push back against it. Thanks, stan. Thats great. So you everyone, for coming today and joining us online. Dans new book is the imperative reclaiming leadership through soft power. I encourage everyone to buy it on amazon it at your local bookstore. Dan, its been wonderful. Thanits my pleasure to welcomeo tonights program entitled. Historically speaking, i am debra lee attorney leigh the former chairman and chief executive executive officer of bet has said on numerous and and