The fifth time that the Chicago Council are here to release their survey of American Public opinion. Its a Great Partnership that we have with the Chicago Council and in the parlance of this report and prior reports, its an enduring alliance. Its also reassuring, certainly to me, to learn the good news in this report. That americans by huge, bipartisan, huge, bipartisan margins continue to support an active u. S. Role in Foreign Policy and world affairs. Much of the vision for that role, a little brag here, started with Woodrow Wilson, our 28th president , for whom this center is named, who served as president a century ago. Downstairs in the Memorial Hall which you all passed through, wilsons words are on the wall. Part of the quotes say this. It is a fearful thing to lead this great, peaceful people into war but the right is more process than is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government. For a universal dominion of rights by such a concert of free people as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. That was wilsons vision a century ago. He tried hard he died try, literally. But 100 years later, were still struggling with the challenges that he raised. And at times like this, as the audience in this auditorium and online knows, this center and and others ouncil are needed more than ever to connect deep scholarship and thought leadership to the global challenges. So welcome to our panel today, especially to our dear friend and repeat presenter, ambassador ivo donner. I think i told you i was there and stayed with our current ambassador, kay bailey hutchison, a former senator from xas, we have had a series of great ambassadors, including her. No one should forget two days before 9 11, that on 9 11 without being asked nato invoked article 5 and was ready to come to our common defense. Also here are richard fontaine, ive been hinting about him. Richard is the fairly newly minted head of cnes and also executive director for north americas triTrilateral Commission, im on its executive committee, its back and trying to play a more active role in international affairs. And finally we have the woman who knows everything, Chicago Council senior fellow deana smelts who will amplify parts of the report. The program is that i sit down, which im going to do right now and ask them questions to elicit some of their views and then, guess what . We want the smartest audience in the world that would be you, to ask some questions. Not make speeches but identify yourself and ask questions. I see in the audience a wilson councilmember, michael waller, a great consumer of our stuff, as i hope all of you are. Welcome to this panel. Lets get going. Ivo, as this is our fifth rodeo, i think, theres some dispute about the fourth or fifth but we decided its the fifth rodeo, i am recalling that all your reports, all your good reports, all said basically the same thing. Not identical things but the same thing that americans by overwhelming majorities want a robust and assertive u. S. Foreign policy. In the five years, or four years, since we started doing this, weve had a change in government and a change in many of our government policies. Yet by and large Public Opinion has stayed pretty constant. Hy do you think this is . I think the public has a basic view about how the United States needs to engage. And it hasnt changed even from the cold war period, the postcold ward period into whatever period were living in now, i dont know if i want to characterize it in any way other than to say it is different. That is they have fundamentally bought into the postwar rulesbased International Order and an american role within it. As the lead over that order, not only as a country that has created but continues to shape and maintain an International Order based on three fundamental principles and this poll once again reaffirms americas commitment to those principles. Number one, that we engage the world in Security Affairs through allies and alliances. And we have u. S. Public opinion supporting alliances now at greater levels than at any time in the 45 years that we have been following including that organization we just talked about, nato. U. S. Support, public support for nato in order to maintain or increase u. S. Commitment to nato is now at its highest level in 45 years. U. S. Support for nato as an essential to American Security is the highest since we first asked the question in 2002. U. S. Support for appliances in alliances in asia and the middle east remains extremely high as does the question of whether the u. S. Should use troops to defend its allies. In all of those ways, Public Opinion remains robustly supportive of alliances. The second way in which we have tied to maintain this order is through an open Economic System based on the concept of trade. Again, the u. S. Public is more supportive of trade now than it has been in any time we have asked questions about trade. Including belief that trade is good for the American Economy. 87 of americans, thats a large number, 87 of americans think that trade is good for the u. S. Economy and its good for American Companies. Then finally, one of the new things we did in this report, weve been asking the question, which actually comes from gallup, so it goes back to 1946, should the United States play an active role in world afires stay away . And this year as last year, we have reached near record highs. 69 of americans think we should play an active role. We then asked, what do you mean by an ktive role . What sit actually, when we say when you say an active role, does it include or exclude the following . And it includes things like appliance alliances, military superiority, International Trade agreements and its the third most important is promoting democracy and human rights. Still the fundamental belief that the United States has to be the beacon for freedom, beacon for democracy and human rights. Not necessarily to do so through the use of military force but as an idea that is central to americas role in the world, democracy and human rights, along with trade and alliance the three sort of fundamental pillars of americas foreign policies are as supported as they have ever been in the time ive been asking these questions. Jane am i watching a different movie . In the last several years, i have seen statements from senior government officials, whoever they may be, that cast some doubt on whether were truly committed to nato and if they dont pay their full share maybe were not and if were now moving money away from military construction to pay for a wall, we expect nato allies to make up the difference to the extent that some of the projects were in their country. In spite of all that, the American Economic stays constant and they are not are they not buying into that . Or theyre tuning that out . Why is this happening . Theyre not only not buying in, theyre rejecting in a fundamental way. The idea that our engagement is a transactional engagement with the world as opposed to based on the concept of leadership is reject. Two very important findings. When you ask, as we have, do you think alliances in europe or asia or the middle east benefit mostly the allies, mostly ourselves, or are mutually beneficial . A large majority says either they are mutual by fen benn official or benefit the United States. So european alliances get supported 60 are either mutual or benefital or 65 , the United States. Only 20 of americans think what the president thinks which is that theyre beneficial only for the allies. The same is true on trade. When we asked the question, do you think trade is useful for those we are trading with, us, or both, overwhelmingly the answer is both. So this idea of a transactional alliance, the transactional relationship, where we do stuff in return for payment, whether it is nato payment or something else, as opposed to we do stuff because its in the mutual interest of both of us, winwin, rather than winlose, is fundamental to the american conception of our role. It has been for 75 years. The president is trying to move away from that and as far as we can tell hes not succeeding with the American Public when it comes to Foreign Policy. Jane did you want to add to that . Exactly what he said but weve been tracking it over the past three years since trump has been in august and you might expect some of the America First type of policies to get more traction. But instead we have seen the opposite. We have even higher numbers of americans say, alliances are mutual by mutually beneficial. We have supermajorities that say trade benefits u. S. Economies, and relations with the United States and other countries. Its even underscoring what theyve always said over the last 40 years, 45 years. Jane the trump base is about constant at 39 ish. If you do the support some of these policies have, if the trump base supports trump and trumps policy and thats 39 how do 82 support some of the other stuff you were talking about . Ina the loudest part of the elites on trumps side and and the activists believe the same thing. Theyre louder and take up more space in the media and in the ublic discourse. So they still capture that portion of the trump vote. They care more perhaps about some of these issues than the arch american who doesnt always have the time and attention to pay to things about alliances. But thats where the issues like immigration and jane well get to those. Dina there are some issues that are divisive that are single issues which might attract some voters or actually that might be what they are most engaged about. Jane as we head to 9 11, the 18th anniversary, an issue like nato is on my mind because of what nato was prepared to do. Its the only time nay invoked article 5. Nick burns, who was our ambassador to nato, weve had a slew of excellent ambassadors, nick burns who is a professor at harvard and runs the group for the Aspen Institute on which i serb, he said he didnt ask, he wes just he was just told, were invoking article 5, so hats pretty darn amazing. We havent talked to about congress. You worked there for a lifetime with someone i admire,on mccain. Talk about john mccain and what he taught us about Foreign Policy for anyone in this movie, john mccain was the leader of congressional delegations on international trips. I went on at least 10 codels to conferences in munich, germany, and then i have attended another decade since. But john mccain, among other things, was the pidepimpe Foreign Policy for congress and he taught a all of us how to think about a world and its challenges. Richard it, it would be helpful because i think it fills out some of what were learning here, to tell us about that and tell us about what, you know, youre doing at cnes and the Trilateral Commission and how a person outside this report thinks about what they just acheed. Richard sure. I think some of the findings in on report would come down what john mccain felt about Foreign Policy. There have been three animating principles of Foreign Policy. To keep the peace wed have strong policies underwritten think mesh troops. To increase prosperity wed have an open trade system undergirded by frea trade. And wed have a bias in favor of democratic systems as opposed to autocratic. And the debate between republicans an democrats, conservatives and liberals, and anyone else is more about how you do those things. When do you embrace the prendly friendly autocrat versus the democracy movement. Not whether we do those things. Weve got ton a time when talk about t of whether these are the right values. Is it good to promote democracy and poke our nose in places where its not welcome . And the find thoffings seem to support the traditional view. Of course then you get into the argument about how to do it all and everything else. But its not a reputation. Its not the fundamental questioning of those principles you might get from our policies and our political discourse right now. The fact that there does seem to be, though, the public feeling one way and our policymakers, not just the president but a lot of Democratic Candidates and others, who seem to be in a different place, suggests to me that its not just the sheer numbers but also the intensity of the feeling among minorities. Jane like dina says on both nds of the spectrum. Richard yes. Diffuse benefits and concentrate costs. Raise your hands if you feel the cost of alum numb tariffs. Jane lets try that. Does anyone feel those costs . Richard i think there was like one hand. If you work in the alum numb industry and youre going to lose your job even though the costs to the American Economy of keeping that job is 700,000 and thats not your salary, you feel a lot more stongly. Youre more likely to vote on that issue. Oure more likely to lobby the government on this issue. Thats a relevant factor as we think through all this jane if john mccain were still in the senate i wish he were what would he be say right now . Richard hed probably be on a plane to afghanistan right now. I think he would be i think hed be wondering a couple of things. One, as he did, frankly, until his passing a year ago, one is, adopt a policy of retrenchment, retreat, december ingeanment, whatever you want to call it, what comes next . Is it true that if the United States steps back, whether its militarily, diplomatically, the sort of friendly locals step up in a spirit of burden sharing to fill the gap and do things in our interests that we would otherwise prefer not to do . I think the answer is no. I think his answer would be no. Sit the case that we can just sort of get out of afghanistan, for example and ask the taliban for assurances that theyll behave and that theyll treat women and girls appropriately and wont overthrow the government, wont form a sanctuary for isis and al qaeda and we can have it all . We dont have to be there and we can have what we want out of that . I think again the answer is no. That put asset of requirements on the United States for engagement but that gets back to the more Traditional InternationalForeign Policy so many of our political leaders say they dont see support for. Jane let me stay on that for one minute. No one has missed the news in the last 24 hours about the canceled talks with the taliban at camp david. I want everyone congress except for one person voted to authorize the use of militaries for against those who attacked us based in afghanistan. I voted for it. Barbara lee was the only no vote of 535 votes. And she did that as a matter of principal and i respecter if courage in doing that. At any rate we prosecuted our case. I would say looking back, especially when you add in iraq, that we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for either of the wars and were still in them, especially in the one in afghanistan. But my question is, if we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for the war, do we have any day after strategy for getting out of the wars . Richard no. The answer is no. Looks like i suppose the United States will be staying in some essentially ria, pursue pursuant to a deal that senator Lindsay Graham brokered to cobble together remaining american presence and european presence but the day after strategy seems to be turn it over to the locals an hope things go well. In afghanistan it appears to be, lets get the best deal we can get, making it perfectly clear we can get out regardless of what precisely that deal looks like. Anyone who has done any of these things knows if you want to see certain conditions after you withdraw from a place, you have to be willing to go back. In there has to be reverseability. Does it feel like theres any reverseability to a United States withdrawal from afghanistan . I dont think so. So the idea seems to be, to hope for the best. Jane and ivo, it seems like its harder to go back in once you get out. What do you think about that . Ivo theres no doubt that the public has soured on both of these wars and see afghanistan and iraq and failures of american Foreign Policy. I think generally speaking thats probably not a bad analytical judgment on their analytical judgment on their part. And i do think that there are lessons to be learned. We are now in the Third Administration when it comes to afghanistan, 18 years in, almost, in this war, and not one of those administrations has ever had a serious strategy. For any for afghanistan in particular. Let me focus on afghanistan. We forgot about afghanistan within a few months of getting into it after 9 11 and focused on iraq. And really didnt resource our strategy as well as we should. Just completed reading jim mattis book, where general mattis talks about the failure of getting Osama Bin Laden in tora bora and the decisions not to put the marines which he was leading in kandahar into the mountains in order to deal with that issue. And everything thats come after that. I served in the obama administration, its been four years trying to get our allies to do more in afghanistan and they did and one