Conversations] good evening everyone. I would like to welcome all of you to tonights on the record meeting. The Senior Vice President and director of studies here at the council. It is my great honor and pleasure to introduce tonights guest of honor Elliot Abrams now i think its safe to say that elliott is the appended me of the blogger that we love here at the council on foreign relations. Elliotts formal title is senior fellow for middle eastern studies. That only begins to explore his great range and depth on Foreign Policy. With the practical part of it. They have served in a variety of government positions. They are relevant to our discussion tonight. He was assistant secretary of state. As well as assistant secretary of state for Interamerican Affairs both during the reagan administration. And he served as Deputy Deputy assistant to the president and Deputy National security adviser in the George W Bush and menstruation. He is also an expert in human rights. He is worked on this over the course of his career. Will hear more about that tonight i suspect. Elliott has written widely and while i note wide range of topics and he has written in books and articles and blog post. I will not go through his very long list of publications. Elliott is on the most prolific end of the spectrum here. His most recent book is tested by zion in the bush administration. He writes his blog pressure points which you can find here at cfr. Org. I have to say i am obligated to say that im obligated to say that. To down want to go. Tonight we are not your to talk about the last book. Or talk about the blog. To talk about elliotts new book. American Foreign Policy after the error of spring. Please join me in welcoming elliott here tonight. First off congratulations elliott. I know how difficult it is to write a book. It takes a bit of work to conceive it takes a bit of work to market and a whole lot of work in between. And you have done quite well. The book i think reflects tremendous amounts of labor also i think a fair amount of reflection and critical thought. It is certainly a thoughtprovoking book. I want to begin our conversation with our title. The book is titled realism and democracy i went to college and took my courses in Foreign Policy. I was told that realism the two shall not meet. It matters what they do abroad and how they behave at home. Why are you joining these two together i have always been told they should be kept apart. Thank you for the introduction. And thank you for being here. If i say it cfr. Org is that the third time. A couple reasons. First because i think one of the great weaknesses of realism as an Academic Movement which goes back some decades is that it is merely if you will a theory of international politics. And it accepts the system and there are states in black boxes. It is an unrealistic way of thinking about the world. Because states have internal politics which always affect their Foreign Policy. It is partly meant as a kind of criticism of realism. Secondly i want to make the argument in the book is as an argument that to forget about bureaucracy and human rights is an unrealistic way of thinking about the world. End about the promotion of American Interest in the world. To be in different to the internal politics of countries particularly with with we thought of the friends and allies. Its not realistic is not even realistic in terms of american politics. In the need to get public support for our Foreign Policy. They say in writing a book timing is everything. I want to ask you a question about timing. Your making an argument. I dont think of giving anything away. That the United States should make democracy a core part of the Foreign Policy. Its also safe to say that the President Trump doesnt share that point of view. Even if you go back to your speech at the end of august justified his policy on afghanistan he said let me call him. We will no longer use American Military might to construct democracies faraway lands where we try to rebuild other countries in our own image. He was fairly consistent back in the campaign that the United States should not be going abroad in search of democracy to create or to improve. So, i take it you think the president is run. I want to hear why. First of all the book was started a couple of years ago in the waning days of the Obama Administration and then of course as we await the clinton administration. It was not written with trump in mind. I think the president is wrong in a number of ways. First of all in the quote you just read we never have invaded countries to create democracy. Thats not why we are at war with germany and japan. Thats not why we invaded in gap afghanistan which had to do with the taliban and bands supporting and harboring al qaeda. In this and why we went into iraq. The question is once we do have invaded a country. As a separate question. The history is wrong. Secondly in that speech on afghanistan the president said none of that. Then he said of course we demand that the afghans undertake a series of reforms including political reforms and that they govern better some better than we can lead. Thats nationbuilding. I think even in the afghan speech you come across he didnt say. A problem that the internal situation and other countries cant be overlooked finally, i think its just wrong for the United States. It may be okay for some countries to have an immoral farm for no policy. And while its true that that may be popular right now i think because of the iraq and Afghanistan War in the sense that this nationbuilding stuff thats what got it in there in the first place. Knock it off. There had been policies like this before. It may be popular briefly and then i think americans begin to wonder why we are allied with all of these and that we dont support these people. You had been at this a while. I recall when i was much younger and have a full head of hair when i my favorite tv shows was called you are there. And i thought of it as i reread your opening chapters. You actually take people back and begin with a surviving place for many people. You begin not with whats happening in the middle east right now. A thoughtful recollection of how the democracy promotion policies have evolved in the american political context in the political debate going back to the late 1970s. Can you walk us through a little bit of that. I came to washington in 1975 i was an infant at the time and i came to work for Scoop Jackson who was engaged in a big debate with the Nixon Administration into the Ford Administration and the Carter Administration. Over these questions. The argument with Nixon Kissinger was in his view. They have essentially a moral Foreign Policy. When i talk to talked to students they are amazed at this. He gets out of the soviet union and comes to washington and president ford wont see him. That is what jackson was against. Very supportive of for example of the soviet movement. I then go to the next stage of the Carter Administration but jackson and mollohan are very critical of carter policy on human rights grounds not because there was no attention to human rights but by the way president carter thought that today there is no attention to human rights. They have a feeling that carter and the human rights policy sought as a gift in Foreign Aid Program and we give it were in this way gave it to this country and others. We tended to be up countries that were aligned with us. But carter did not had much to say about castro in cuba. Reagan then defeated carter and in the beginning and i go through this there was no reagans human rights policy. The beginning was like the beginning of the george w. Bush administration there was a feeling like this was a democratic stuff. This was a soft thinking. By the end and certainly by the end of the year and a half when secretary schultz came on reagan and developed the human rights policy conservative policy that ultimately led to the second term to an extremely active democracy promotion policy. And one of the things i think its very important here is the criticism we made of carter was in part he have a human rights policy he did not have a democracy policy. Its good to get people out of jail. But they can lock them up faster than we can get them out. The solution to this kind of problem in the soviet union or anywhere else cant be endless american and for intervention. That was what we started to do in the reagan administration. It cant treat less on the individual case and more on the question of democratic systems in this reagan was creating the National Endowment for democracy. To promote the expansion of the democratic system. I tried to take it through after reagan through clinton and the first bush and then we end up in the Obama Administration. I was very critical of. I think one criticism is there was not much attention to it. As you think of china secretary of state clinton made it clear from the first day that she just wasnt interested in human rights in china and it would be subordinated to a lot of other real American Interest there egypt, we have no human rights policy. Into the budgets reflect that. It steadily came down. In the obama years. I would argue and i head in the blog that you see in the case of cuba and iran what i would call highly ideological Foreign Policy the american crimes of the past and largely ignoring the current Human Rights Violations of those regimes. Thus president obama has a weak reaction to the great revolution in iran. Lets talk about democracy promotion. I honestly critical of the Obama Administration. Particularly in the case of context of cuba iran and the like. Its one thing to say they should promote democracy its another thing to say we know how to do so effectively. Help us think through. In the context that promoting democracy may be a priority it is not the only priority and when you occupy a decisionmaking position yet to deal with tradeoffs. He cant wish them a way the way you can when youre on a podium like this or on the campaign trail. Was the track record of doing effectively there. None of the things i say in the book and we always had to remember a government is not an ngo. If you work for amnesty and human rights. You are for human rights and democracy. But no government can do that. And thats one of the pap problems and human rights policy. Reagan did it successfully as you think about the number of countries that were democratized in that year. Here are a few things to say about it. First, i have this wonderful quotation from Justice Holmes in his book the commonlaw even a dog, can distinguish between being kicked and being stumbled over. So can a king so can a dictator in other words, were not saying to people youre no damn good get out. Thats a very persuasive argument. What we are saying to people ideally is we are concerned about longterm stability here. If it is a king or sultanate. What he want most of all. You want your son to follow you and then you want his son to follow him. That requires stability. Longterm stability. And we are worried about that. Is a nice opener for a conversation of course sometimes it doesnt work. There are ways of talking to numb non Democratic Leaders that can work. When reagan said the general who was running south korea we are very concerned about longterm stability and we think it benefits if we begin now the transition to democratic rule. He have a credibility because he obviously did care about longterm stability itself. South korea. There are some things that we can do theres a list of 11 of them. For example. Number one it all starts at the top. Its not really a matter of where you spend 3 million or 4 million of programming in country a. Its whether the president and the Vice President and secretary of state and other type type little level leaders say we care about this. Its also important that we try to help people who are engaged in politics. And by that i mean i think we have a bit too much concentration in the last ten years on ngos and civil societies. There are countries where there is no politics. None, zero not permitted so there you do whatever you can. There are other countries nondemocratic countries where there is politics. I think its more important to strengthen them mg is too often had their roots basically in washington and london and new york. Its where their money comes from. Rather than have the ritz roots in the society. One kind does have those roots. Its not coincidental that when the new fragile government in tunisia rakes them. Its the trade Union Movement think its the parties together and says guys, we can work this out. So i think that concentration on politics in fact, i like this in adult so let me tell it. We have a senior fellow here. Princeton is a wonderful man. Was a secretary of state for africa. He tells a story of a group of Nigerian Civil Society people under the military dictatorship they go to see president mandela of south africa to get his support in the hope that it would bring down the regime. Surprisingly they said to them. Look. It was a political movement. And if the military regime fell tomorrow youre not ready. You cannot even take advantage of that. Basically go home and do homework. Thats a very interesting and thoughtful died the goal is to govern. There is a number of other suggestions. What people need to know is the United States is really concerned about this. It may not be the top priority. When george salt met the cement and human rights. They get the point. But he did care. So he communicated the fact that he and the president really cared. At this point i want to bring the rest of the room into the conversation. If you have a question raise your hand. Ask people to wait until we bring you a microphone. Will ask you to stand and state your name and affiliation. And then ask a question again. I want to get all of the questions out. So please make it relatively brief. This is fascinating. Im sure we have both thought about it. But i cant remember that we have ever discussed the issue. Of the middle east. In the gulf countries especially. The essence of this is that the fetal systems of the gulf countries appear to work far better than iraq and what is a solution of this. Is there a third way. Not only in terms of u. S. Alliances but also oil et cetera et cetera. It is an annual survey of what people think of their government. And for a long time now china, and singapore had rated high. Nate thought of them as effective. They get a lot of legitimacy for being thought to be governing while by the people who live in those countries. And its a critical point to make here. We believe in legitimacy coming from democracy. But it can also come from Effective Governance and or it can come from monarchy. No monarchy has fallen. The rain is a special occasion. In the others, they have enough legitimacy to have with said the arab spring. What we do about that government. To some degree it is a special case because they dont really had very many citizens. And its like 200,000. The tiny number. As a sizable and very young population. I think the conversation we should be having as not you need to go into exile in london and turn this into a republic tomorrow. We are interested in stability. And we think that longterm stability requires building a relationship between more of a relationship between the royal family and the population. Particularly in saudi arabia now. It is conducted a kind of white revolution. We are beginning to try. Is a relationship going to be. Juergen asked the people to make significant sacrifices over several years. My should they do that. I would argue that one of the ways to make that happen is some participation in that endeavor mints of the country. And they might say youre out of your mind. There is a parliament and georgia. They have elements of representatives with the system. They have the beginnings in jordan and morocco of what may develop into a constitutional monarchy. I think you could have this conversation with them about the rights of non sunni arabs. It would also mean christians for example. I think there is a way to talk about this. With monarchs and royal families where we are actually talking about longterm stability which is obviously in their interest. Were talking about the common interest we have. Thank you. That is a Company Called a symmetrical. But they move into different regions. I come from an area like that. Critical of the government. There you have a democracy that has become something else. And claims that any attempt to change it is undermining democracy. That is a harder case according to your paradigm. There is a common problem it is certainly not the first. Think of them in haiti. Clearly elected freely. It was really clearly elected. Its a common problem. I think one of the things we need to do. Start criticizing the minute they go off the track. It was elected with nonsense. It does not mean that he or she cannot turn into a tyrant in the case of venezuela. I think the United States was slow to criticize chavez we are trying more generally latin american democracy. I wish we have started a lot sooner. We are trying harder. Joe on young. My question is when government engage in totally inappropriate almost terroristic behavior against u. S. Citizens and businesses. Some exa