Transcripts For CSPAN Aspen Security Forum Discussion With F

CSPAN Aspen Security Forum Discussion With Former National Security Advisers July 12, 2024

Be part of the National Conversation through washington journal. Cash washington journal. Announcer cspan, brought to you today by your television provider. Next, former National Security advisors Tom Donnellan and steve hadley speak at the aspen security forum. They outlined the main threats to National Security and discuss coronavirus. And, u. S. Policy towards china and russia. This event was held virtually and is about 45 minutes. I will start with a quick introduction. There is tom, hello. Thank you. There is steve. How are you . Introduction, he is currently chairman of Blackrock Investment institute and senior counsel at he served as National Security advisor to barack obama and headed the obamabiden transition. He is a veteran of many democratic campaigns. He of course serves on multiple served as the National Security advisor for george w. Bush from 20052009. Deputy from 20012005. He is now partner at a Great Consulting firm called the chairman of usa ip and involved in just as many bipartisan causes as one can be in washington, d. C. Thank you for all the bipartisan work. To interview both of them, we chiefim shooter, cnns National Security correspondent. We have all seen him on tv. The middle east and the arctic. She has a book next week with his virtual book tour called the madman. It looks fascinating, though not a relaxing beach read. Pick it off. Steve and tom, we have had conversations about the panoply of issues facing our nation. Inmatter who is elected november, by january 2021 when the next president is inaugurated, we will still have the pandemic crisis, economic crisis, as well as all of the issues facing our country. In the forum so far, we have had conversation about china and asia. A lot of conversation about iran. We have talked less about russia, we have talked less what alliances, less about is going on in the developing world. Jim. L open it to if you wanted to touch on those, i am sure your audience would love to hear them. Thank you. Expert thanks. Thanks to stephen and tom. It is an honor to be grouped with you. As nationaltogether security advisors, but years beyond that. And,ng with these issues in my interactions, as im sure many will say, both steve and tom proved themselves to be not only smart and knowledgeable but fair. I certainly always appreciated that. Enjoy hearing your insight on so many things. Stand by] what would you lay out them thate biggest threat famously barack obama communicated to donald trump in 2017, north korea. The most immediate threat. Picture yourselves in that position the day after the inauguration 2021, what would you say to the reelected president or the new president is the biggest or to the country and what would you recommend . How would you layout the world to them in that conversation . Tom, if i could start with you because you happen to be next to me in the window. Thank you. Nice to be with you. You have got to get the book a little more centered in the picture so people can see it. There we go. [laughter] i have a couple of responses to that question. Today, aitting here hope removed through the challenge we have i hope we move through the challenge we have in front of us which is christian to our democracy, to have a competent and vibrant election with an agreedupon outcome and strong support for the next president , whoever that is. That is our challenge. Our leadership in the world really in many ways is dependent on both our being and being seen as a vibrant and confident democracy. Part of thes been a United States placing the world its authority in the world from world war ii until today. Throughy we will get that moment. January 20, steve and i have had these sessions many times with president s. I will have to treat things briefly. One, either it is a National Security briefing, the focus has to be on domestic renewal. Meeting it what is still going to be a believed finance economics, employment, health and social justice. This will be with us for sure. That i think requires an investment agenda for their country. But steve and i have written about this. A sharplyresting that targeted smart investment agenda can address a number of the challenges we have including the economic challenges. China, we will come back to that i am sure. [no audio] investment in climate infrastructure and technology. Second, what i will believe will be the most important challenge. See,r as the eye can develop a coherent comprehensive approach with respect to china. I know we welcome back to that, but i fear we are too reactive right now and not a not using all of the national power. ByNational Security abides the next president , developing all the comprehensive power approach to the china challenge will be critical. I want to mention a couple of others that have not got a lot of attention, but it would be in my mind. Cyber. We dont talk about it a lot. If you look at the director of National Intelligence threat assessments for the last five or six years, it is at the top of the list. I think it is even greater today. I say that for a number of reasons, exemplified by the way which we are having this meeting today. We have a lot of our nations and the worlds gdp online and virtually with all kinds of vulnerabilities. We have increased tensions with states that have a highcaliber cyber capability like iran, china, russia. Of ave an entire new area tax base growing. I think we have not structure the way we should be in the white house. I would be looking at nonproliferation as well. It was touched on during the course of the or, addressed during the session today i think we were on a path right now which could end up with more Nuclear Weapons period. To ncludes moving treaty. We have seen a reuters report on korea, and north korea making progress on its program during negotiations of the administration. Iran is closer to a Nuclear Weapon than it was two or three years ago. Focused onink we are climate would be an important focus, or think should be. The United States has been out paste the game for the three and a half years. That is not for the world is. Live in the economic world, europeans and more so asia, climber is front of the agenda. Increasingly, ceos around the world see investment risk and we should see the risk here. Say, onetwo things i of the great firestorms coming out of covids in the emerging world. Withviously have to dear our issues here, but Going Forward these fears in the middle of a perfect storm on covid. I think we are going to have a death crisis for a lot of cash for long time. We are going to have a death crisis for a long time. I look at reinvigorating congress. That would be the briefing i would give if ever there january 20. At whatever time in the morning the president comes in. I have allegiance to george w. Bush, he came in early in the morning. [laughter] stephen, your briefing . Agree with everything tom set, but i think before i got to those i would have a conversation. Mr. President , what is going on in the world right now. Why so much chaos . Stepping through with what we all know, the International Order and system we have had for the last 70 years is under attack. It is under attack for the things we all know, the emergent stick, the reemergence of an ideological struggle between authoritarian state capitalists at the heart of russia and china versus democrats. New Technology Challenges that are increasingly revolutionizing our world beyond our ability to cope and adapt. Pandemicsllenges like and climate that we do not seem to be in a position to manage. All of these things are going on. Fundamentally, we have a problem here at home. We have a democracy that does not seem to be delivering what democracies deliver. Of life the best way that is consistent with the highest aspirations of the human spirit, but democracy used to deliver economic growth. Administrated competence. We do not seem to be doing that so well right now. There is a certain cry and there is a crisis of confidence among our people, institutions. Our brand does not look so good. In addition, the American People have gotten tired of american leadership. If you put all those things together, we are at one of these inflection points where the system we live with is really breaking down. You have choices. In some sense, the choice we have before us is, is this going to be 1919 or 1945 . Are we going to pull back from the world, focus internally, look to our own problems and let the world deal with its own . Or, is it going to be 1945 where we are going to help with our friends and allies, found a revised and adapted International Order . I would hope we make the second choice. If we are going to do that, we need to fix our institutions at home. We need to reconnect with allies. We need to start deleting and engaging in the world. We need to start revising and adapting International Institutions and we need to start, in some sense, refreshing our brand in the world and our values. Mr. President , you have a huge task before you. You have got to address all of the things tom talked about, but we have to somehow explain to the American People what is this moment and what the most fundamental choices. Then you have to make a case of the American People that fixing at home, engaging a and leading the world is still in americas interests. Thinks about the view. Thoughtprovoking. As you are speaking, i recalled a conversation at aspen i believe three years ago with jim klapper, he raised a concern fidelityhen about the about the fragility of u. S. Institutions. I asked him to apply your intelligence brain you often apply to other countries to look at the u. S. And what concerns you. That was his concern. Think it has borne out in the last several years. To that point, aspen is a continuing conversation so i felt that there. There is a lot to cover and we will get to participant questions. On the question of russians, tommy and stephen, there is a discussion now often led by the president , another reset, finding a way forward. I have had conversations with fiona hill about it. The root of a lot of President Trump path outreaches through his convictions that he can somehow get this relationship right. Hearst, and then stephen. , theere the groundwork now potential for somehow improving that relationship . Up againstat match russias increasing aggression . 10 seconds on your point on jim klapper, if you do an oldfashioned net assessment of the United Statess position in the world, you would bet on the United States for sure. There are challenges and we cant take them for granted. We have system issues. We have investment tissues. Any quality issues. We have big policy choices on things like immigration to ensure our demographic Going Forward. Those are all choices. Butere from a strong base, it cannot be taken for granted. Russia,kamai on number one is that russia is actively hostile to the United States across the board. We have had this latest ,eporting on the bounty issue but it is well beyond that. Acrosstheboard we can talk about the individual instances. That is not the first instance in afghanistan. Talk about this publicly, with respect to supplying arms to the taliban. Hospital ively they are actively hostile. Public at least two presentations from our intelligence communities seem to be in animists, that we can expect additional tax interference and try to upset the election in 2020. Should the United States address pressure from a better position of strength. [indiscernible] i heard a press report, the bolton conversation of this form today speculating about whether or not a second term of President Trump would have him pull back further from nato. This is dividing the united has been europe for a long time. Pushing back and not addressing that i think is quite important. This will depend might think Going Forward, on russian conduct. I think we should move forward to build we need strength, but russian conduct will matter a lot in the course of the selection. I think we do, and the cooperation category, we have an opportunity to get back to the table and renew the new agreement which provides for it were in all period of five years. Not the life of me, i do know why we would not do that. We have discussion going about whether or not we should have chinese global that is not on the table. Is to not the table have a scheduled place in the first time in half a century. I think those would be the elements of the of an approach i would prefer. Disagree with much of that. I thicken need to be put into a framework. If youre talking to a president , the other question is what can we expect of a relationship with russia . What should be be shooting for . I think they are hostile. There are a spoiler across the board. What is the kind of relationship we can hope for with a country that really has become an adversary . I think the american approach to that has been a longstanding administration effort. It is not complicated. Cooperatecally to with potential adversaries where we can. We cooperated with arms control and the worst days of the cold war with the soviet union, we should have a strategic stability conversation with pressure to develop all of these issues. Cooperate where we can. Oppose them and stand up for our principles. Where it is in our interest to do so. Manage those differences so that they do not result into permanent confrontational permanent confrontational or. Ilitary can we get russia back on that page . They have got to not interfere with the selection. If they interfere with the selection if they interfere with this election that as they did 2016, we are going to be in deep freeze again. Begin to solve ukraine. I think there is a possibility there. There is a ceasefire in place, shaky though it is. Begin things like strategic stability dialogue. At the same time, we have to deter russia from their intervention and interference with their neighbors. That means a strong relationship with nato. That means being more aggressive ourselves in checking aggression behavior. It is not that hard. Putin has been brilliant taking Tactical Advantage of situations and enhancing russian interests with modest investment. We can capture that. We can counter that. It is trying to engage russia in a sense, but deterring and taking away the free ride russia has had in some areas for their interference. This is something we can do. Interesting listening to the overlap between both of your analyses. What is notable of course is that we have a president who disagrees on many of those fundamental points. The importance and sanctity of alliances that extends to nato. We are still in it. Just ais concerned, but general question for the president about britains article three defending nato partners. But, not just nato. We had a weakening of the south korean alliance, there is a dispute there over money. Will the u. S. Withdraw troops . As a means of applying pressure . You again, raising questions about the nuclear for japan. You have a Current Administration that questions it. Alliances,ility of but also the importance. I am wondering if i could ask both of you, what is the lasting damage to those alliances from those questions being raised . Lost ande is easily difficult to regain. Stephen, i will start with you. Is there longterm damage . Mr. Hadley i think it can be turned around, no matter who is president. Tom and i will probably disagree on this. About aam less worried reelected President Trump pulling out of these alliances. I think there are a lot of people who, in his administration, who understand that particularly in a competition with china, the big advantage we have is our treaty allies, but also friends and folks with whom we have security and other relationships. This is a huge and important u. S. Resource. If you are worried about competition with china, the last thing you want to do is throw it away. What the president has tried to do is get the allies to do more. That has been an objective of democratic and administrative and republican administrations for years. The president is more threatening about it. We can discuss about whether that was the right tactic or not. In some respects, he has gotten some results out of nato, in terms of them increasing defense expenditures. Look, this is a president who was elected to be a disruptor. In so many ways he has been. I would hope both a Biden Administration and a trump two administration, the president would be become a bit of a builder. Relationships, then use our allies to address these challenges. It is the only way we are going to address them successfully. I think people around the president understand that and i bidenoth Vice President and President Trump understand that in their bones. Mr. Sciutto do you agree . Mr. Donilon now with everything. I agree on the fundamental analysis. One point is that at the end of typically getents the people and policies they want. We have seen that during the course of the Trump Administration as we move from, well, he wont pursue a lot of the things he said he will pursue because he will have advisors who may mitigate that differentback perspectives. That hasnt been the case. Ultimately i think a president will drive toward what his goals are. The president has a different view of alliances. I think that is a fair assessment. If you were in the room with us, i think you would say that. In fact, it is a more transactional approach. It doesnt have the same sense of history and the same sense of importance to the united dates, in terms of the Global Benefits to the

© 2025 Vimarsana