Can you hear me . Thank you so much, nadia and thank you to the Hudson Institute for having me here today. I think this is one of the most important topics confronting our nation today. I wanted to spend some time today talking about about the economic threat from china in general and to the nation, and what that threat means to the American Military and intelligence. Then i have a fairly specific proposal i would like to talk about to begin improving our economic defenses. Some are referring to this as a new cold war. Its as much economic as military. The economic nature of this cold more is new for america. We havent faced a competitor with near the economic power they have since we faced the british. Nor have we ever faced a competitor that has the economic agility we pride ourselves on. This economic competition is going to require that we have fundamentally new ways of thinking about defense and National Security. Chinas gdp is on track to surpass americas. As measured by purchasing power parity, its already there. It simply has more money with which to buy, develop and implement defense systems. More importantly in my view is that china is able to orchestrate economic interests for geopolitical purposes because they hardly recognize the divide between public and private. Chinese government Exerts Authority to direct investment where it is needed for National Security purposes. This allows china to perceive National Security competition in areas such as Artificial Intelligence and to direct actors in that industry. It also means china can have concentrated geopolitical power plays like the belt and rode initiative road initiative. China is much more willing than western democracy to use security apparatuses for includingrowth illegal theft of foreign intellectual property. This creates a circle in which the government can help businesses expand and dominate industries and then use those businesses to expand geopolitical power. The spectrum of economic competition is already a real threat. China intends to be a leader in Artificial Intelligence. That translates directly to military intelligence capabilities. An limitation by wall way and partner systems huawei andtion by wal partner systems. Havedy, start up companies been taken off the table for use by military communities. Can minority investment still for some agencies create an impact. Oad initiative defective control over roads imports provides china strategic advantages. Chinaore strategic level, threatens to change the Global Alliance landscape. Military secrets from contractors threaten u. S. Capabilities. Threatsthese are real and something for us to be concerned about. Competenot adequately with china without better understanding and being able to act upon the economic dimension of power. We may have arms races over Artificial Intelligence instead of Missile Systems like we did in the last cold war. But its still going to involve the same jockeying for geopolitical advantages as we had with the soviet union. Economic warfare will be a much larger part of this cold war. I would take it a step further. In my view, the Global Economy has, in effect, become a new war fighting domain. Space, cyber, the economic domain is the landscape upon which conflicts will be executed. Understanding it as such allows us to provide the usual concept of war fighting, commandandcontrol, offense, defense. Importantly, it provides the ability to jointly integrate across other demands. China is already thinking this way. In a recently released white paper, chinas National Defense and a new era, noted that supporting the Sustainable Development of the country is one of its chief National Defense aims. This kind of thinking has already sunk in. , oure economic domain National Security system is at a distinct disadvantage because we so far, we have considered this a civilian domain. We dont have the people, expertise, or organization in the National Security community when it comes to economic threats. The National Security communities knowledge of and ability to analyze the Global Economic system is simply not sufficient. That based on my experience in the intelligence. Ommunity we arent even in the same league as some relatively tiny hedge funds. That should concern all of us. Most Economic Analysis efforts are directed toward Terror Financing. This is largely irrelevant when it comes to strategic threats to the economy. The Little Information the u. S. Government does have is not used for adequately countering this threat generally due to concerns about authority and the role of government. So, the state of affairs kind of secretary of when state Henry Stimson said gentlemen dont read each others mail and then went and shut down the bureau. America does not do economic espionage or Economic Warfare. Whether it is a gentlemanly thing or due to legitimate philosophical differences, the fact is, it presents us with a real disadvantage. When new threats have arisen in the past, america has made changes to the National Security structure to counter those threats. Theamericans securities act set up a new form of competition with the soviet union. Organizations were necessary to combat a new enemy wherefore example, where, for new elements would be key to success. After 9 11, we created a department of Homeland Security and eventually the National Antiterrorism Center to pursue the war on terror. Startng agencies are a but not sufficient. National Economic Council is not well set up for National Security threats. While the cia and other intelligence agents these may be able to perform Economic Analysis, they dont have the necessary publicprivate partnerships he would need to adequately address economic threats. The office of Terror Financing and financial crimes and similar offices throughout the government are too narrowly focused. Its not sufficient for strategic threats. Torequire new capabilities fight in the economic domain and defend against economic threats. I would propose a first step. Counter economic threats and begin the process of treating the Global Economy as a war fighting domain, america requires a National Economic defense under which would provide a place for the government to coordinate and threats andnses to analysis. Potentially bring together multiple agencies, each with its own subject matter expertise, their own missions, and their own authorities. In effect, the Economic Defense Center would be the equivalent of a realtime Operation Center for the Global Economy, monitoring and sharing information about economic threats from china and other competitors, and directing responses to those threats. Compile, compare, and analyze information, connecting dots that are not connected right now. Defendrent authority to against economic threats are spread throughout the government. Law enforcement versus intelligence, civilian versus military. As with the counterterrorism fight, the ability to combine multiple authorities by having different agencies all at the table and in the same room, in the same way, and Economic Defense Center must combine different authorities and bring all the players into the same room and that of the same table. Instead of the same table. And sit at the same table. The Economic Defense Center would provide the president with a single responsible party when it comes to developing policies to respond to economic threats. The Economic Defense Center would also accelerate our economic Analytical Capabilities through increasing training tools and private industry experience. As i mentioned before, we simply dont have that kind of expertise in the government at the level we need it. We need a place where people can learn how to do that. We need to build up that capability. It means having government authorities who can understand how to use a bloomberg terminal, who have studied economic history and Business Strategy as much as current economic analyst have studied military history or arabic language. We need a place for expert to go and be trained and where they can, importantly, communicate seamlessly across boundaries and develop themselves into worldclass economic analysts. It wont be easy to do this. As i have personally seen from trying to bring data scientists and similar technologists into the government. Demand forlot of certain skill sets. I cannot say it is the same for economic skills. In the government, the Human Resources system does not make it easy to bring people and who have these six variances. How will we convince someone who is making over a 1 million a year in connecticut or new yorks eddie working in nance to move to Northern Virginia and government salary, especially if it means they have to divest from significant investment . I have no doubt we will be able to convince people to come purely out of patriotism and dedication to mission, but we do need to be more flexible in figuring out ways to bring them in. Finally, the center would remove the stigma of economic intelligence. It would help people realize that economic intelligence is a legitimate area of intelligence cannot intelligence collection and analysis and it needs to be treated like any other threat in the war fighting domain. The natural home i think for jointlyenter would be between the office of the director of National Intelligence in the department of the treasury, although i can imagine other scenarios. No matter what representatives of the intelligence community, military and Law Enforcement agencies would need to play a major role in such a center. Given the wide range of our economy, departments and agencies ranging from usda to faa to ncc would all need to have representation. Only, the Defense Center would require a true publicprivate partnership, bringing in people with expertise in commercial industries to Work Together with government. It would encompass information and threat sharing as well as an ability to actively defend u. S. Industry. You could even potentially imagine points of active or preemptive defense for some of these companies. Its only a matter of time before an American Commercial Company realizes that their biggest competitor is not merely a company, its a company backed by a nationstate. Thats not the same as competing with other companies because such a company has the potential for nationstate level financial and legal and security resources. They are able to cheat, in essence. To forgo profit for geoeconomic gain. I think thats something weve already seen when it comes to state owned companies in even not state owned companies. This is something that u. S. Companies simply cannot do. Such companies will come to realize they have to have a closer relationship with government just as they have already for issues like cybersecurity. This would involve companies, banks, investors, and other commercial institutions as well as think tanks. This is a whole of government challenge. Economic defense requires a whole coordination approach. Finally, the Global Nature of economic domain requires cooperation with foreign allies. Five ice would immediately be invited to the center. Eyes would immediately be invited to the center. We would be better place to respond to many of the economic threats presented by china and other countries. This includes contributing information and analysis this, providing integrated plans to strategically direct foreign aid, supporting Law Enforcement and prosecution of ip theft or supportingmes, or proxies for u. S. Economic counters to foreign nation strategicch as investments, telecommunications, and other infrastructure projects. To meet threats requires consensus. A center to bes able to defend against them. Just as we have already created an Artificial Intelligence center being ordered to address Economic Defense Center is another organization we could create to strengthen our Economic Security analysis and to provide a whole nation approach to our defense. Thank you. [applause] thanks, anthony. That was really interesting. I hope you found it as interesting as i did. A couple things i really like about anthonys talk and his ideas is first reemphasizing the importance of National Security and Economic Security and the intertwined nature of the two, something i think this administration has done well over the last two years. Anthony pointed out that both communities need to understand that about each other, especially on the economic side of things, and the National Security side as well. He touched on one of the most fundamental issues we all need to think about. How do we create the best economic models to compete in the world we find ourselves in . How does a market economy compete with a state driven economy like chinas and other countries . What new models are needed . What new capabilities are needed . Anthonys specific idea is a really good starting point for discussion. A lot of times in washington, we describe the nature of the problem, describe the landscape, but lack specific policy recommendation. While his specific idea may be open to criticism, especially with relation to sharing information between the private sector and the government, i like the specificity of it because its a great starting point for debate and discussion. First, the broader point about whether we are really in a cold war. Anthony used that point early in his talk. I think its debatable. I think there are probably two sides to that. I might ask anthony to comment on that. Its a good question. I have been of two minds about it for a while now. The closest term in common usage for what the conflict is today in the sense that it is more than just a normal competition between two and achievement of absolute gains. There is an attempt at relative between two countries that can be zerosum and can involve more than just saynormal, and i would legal means of competition. Once you go outside the legal use espionaget to and strategic means, you start to enter the world of the cold war. Will this move into physical conflict . That would certainly start to look much more like the cold war. Think cold war is essentially the best term we have. Thank you. I am sure a few in the audience have different ideas on that. Feel free to comment if you like. For yearsthink that now, as we have talked about public and private sector cooperation to deal with Cyber Threats, how difficult it has been getting both sides to share the kind of information necessary to really improve our defenses in certain areas. Given the problems we have had in that domain, how do you see that necessary information sharing on holding . Unfolding . Two issues. A war fighting domain is really an appropriate way to refer to it. The reason i went so far as to say that is because i think domain captures the extent to and conflicttion takes place. At the tactical level, there are Economic Issues that would confront even small units of soldiers, for example. You can imagine in a place like. Fghanistan Economic Issues are not something that come into play in peoples thinking, but are actually very relevant. As that conflict goes and we begin to pull out of that country, there is the possibility of china or other states coming in and using economic means to gain support and allies at a local level and eventually at a National Level and then to use that geopolitical purposes. All of a sudden, what is happening in a small village and whether you leave behind a defended ledge with a hastioning economy or not potentially strategic level effects. You can go up through tactical, operational, strategic levels all the way to the president who has to think about things like things like economic agreements, not just from the our usuale of economic thinking, but also from a National Security perspective. Its a connection from tactical true strategic in the grand strategy that makes me think its a domain tactical to strategic in the grand strategy that makes me think its a domain. It reminds me most of how we treat cyber and how we treat some of the other domains and thats why thats the way im referring to it. In terms of publicprivate partnerships and how to cooperate with industry, this is probably the hardest part of thinking about economic defense and economic threats, war fighting in an economic domain end of the day