Transcripts For CSPAN2 Fmr Secs. Of State Kissinger Shultz

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] our meeting will come to order. The Senate Armed Services Committee Meets this morning to receive testimony on global challenges in the united, in National Security strategies to meet those threats. Its my honor to welcome our distinguished witnesses, former sectors of state Henry Kissinger and george shultz, and the former deputy secretary of state richard on the taj. Your careers of service have been unbelievable, been great. We are so honored to have you folks here. I want to begin by reading a brief welcome from our chairman mccain who regrets that is unable to be here for todays hearing, and encoding him now. He says, with the rising global challenges and increasingly complex and competitive strategic environment, America Needs the leadership, wisdom and experience that only statesmen of this stature can provide. This committee and this nation thank you for your service and we are grateful for your continued voices of reasons during these troubling times. We look to you for the lessons of history as we all seek to secure a h safer, freer and more prosperous world. I guess one of the most enjoyable Committee Hearings that ive experienced before was three years ago when we had, we had a hearing of the same both secretaries kissinger and shultz were here, and a lot of the comments that you made were very pathetic. Here it is three years later, a lot of these things have happened so we are looking forward to this. Speaking on behalf of the entire committee we all affordto to having the children back soon. Im sure he will be. Now more than ever the challenges of todays world requires strategic vision. Each of you is uniquely qualified to help this committee think through not only our present challenges but also the strategy needed to meet them. The insights and wisdom you m offered then were discerning. And have borne out in the years since. The Trump Administration recently released a new National Security strategy and the National Defense strategy which emphasizes the priority of pure competition, the danger appropriations in the enduring threat of terrorism. The National Defense strategy is a frank and realistic view of the global strategic environment. Environment. It offers the blueprint for protecting our National Interests and reestablishing americas position as the undisputed leader of the free world. And it shows a a commitment to restoring our military advantage across all domains and strengthening and expanding key alliances. We just ask each of you to help us think through this strategy, members of the committee are well aware that the key and success of any strategy requires resources. We need to cast aside partisan politics and pass an appropriations bill finally going to fix the defense spending caps that have disseminated our military in terms of readiness and modernization. We thank you for your survey and look forward to your testimony. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and i would like to welcome dr. Kissinger and secretary shultz and sector automatons. This is certainly a distinguished panel and were grateful that you were here today. Each of you have played a verypa Important Role in some of the most monumental foreignpolicy decisions in our nations p history. And onle behalf of all the membs of the committee we look forward to your testimony. This morning syriaia global challenges in u. S. National security follows the release last week of a new nationaleg defense strategy. This strategy would support the president recently released National Security strategy states that the subject facing our nation is the reemergence of longterm strategic competition with russia and china, and that this competition replaces terrorism as a primary concern in the u. S. National security. Without question russia remains determined to reassert its influence around the world. Most recently by using maglite influence an active measures activities to undermine the american peoples faith in our election process as well as other western elections. Likewise china continues to threaten the rulesbased order in the asiapacific region by economic coercion of its smaller more vulnerable neighbors and by undermining the freedom of navigation. Th given the experience of our panel i would welcome their assessment of the strategic threat posed by both russia and china, and what recommendations they have for out the United States can count of these powers both militarily and by utilizing of the critical elements of National Power. Great our power competition mae the current geostrategic reality but we must not neglect other equally complicated challenges. North Koreas Nuclear Ballistic Missile efforts are can be an great National Security threats. Likewise iran continued their aggressive weapons developmentac activities including Ballistic Missile Development Efforts while pursuing other destabilizing activities in the region. The United Statesri must remain focused on countering Security Threat from isis and iraq in syria and its spread be on the middle east region. While building the capabilities of afghan National Security forces and deny any safe haven for extremist. In the coming weeks this committee was a drug from secretary mattis and Senior Leaders at the Defense Department i have National Defense strategy will address the threats facing our nation. As we begin a review of National Defense committee it would benefit this committee to get our witnesses assessment of the new strategy and whether it strikes the appropriate balance between Great Power Competition and ongoing threats posed by rogue regimes, terrorist organizations and other nonstate actors and criminal organizations. The new strategy emphasizes the civil that key fact. The importance of allies and partners. The esteemed panel before us knows betteref than most that Robust International alliances are essential to keep our country safe. The National Defense strategy unveiled last week puts a premium on both alliances while pursuing new partners. As i stated many times i am deeply concerned about statement on the president that of undercut americas leadership position in the world, alienated our longtime allies and dismissed the global order of the United States helped establish following world war ii. These actions isolate the United States and weaker influence in the world. Ultimately leading to uncertainty and the risk of miscalculation. At the same time the administration has proposed dramatic cuts to the state department and Career Foreign Service officers leave the government at an alarming rate. I am concerned we may seek to counter the whole of nation strategy pursued by russia and reinvesting our own converted military advantage at the expense of necessary investments in diplomacy and development as essential tools of National Power grid given our panels extensive experience cultivating alliess and promotig diplomacy i would welcome their assessment on what more can be done to sustain these critical relationships in the pores of nonmilitary elements of National Power to our security. Once again i want to thank the witnesses for being here and for more poorly for the lifetime of service and dedication to the United States of america. Thank you, senator reed. Normally we ask a witness to confine the remarks to a certain time. I would not be so presumptuous. Talk as long as you want to. [laughing] dr. Kissinger, you are recognized thank you so much for being here. It is a great honor to have this opportunity, and i would like to say one word about our chairman who i have known for 50 years, since the return from vietnam. At that time i had been in hanoi, and they had offered to let me take him on my plane back to the United States. And i refused on the ground that nobody should get special treatment. And when i met him here at the white house, he came up to me and said, thank you for saving my honor and senator mccain has preserved the honor of ourof country as a great warrior, but also as someone who whenever the week were threatened, and others persecuted, he made it clear that america was on their side and that he was not simply a warrior, but a defender of our values all over the world. So thank thank you, particularr this location. You have asked me to review the International Situation, and i have taken the liberty of submitting a statement to the committee, and i would use my time here just to make a few general points, and then reply to your questions. I would also like to say how meaningful it is to me to sit next to my friend and mentor, george shultz, from whom ive learned so much, and mr. Amitabh has had great such fashion services. I will deal with you really in three parts, the urgent example five by the north Korean Nuclear challenge, the immediate exemplified by the middle east, especially iran, and the longterm which the chairman referred, exemplified by great power relationships and by the reentry of great power politics as the key elements of international affairs. The International Situation facing the United States is unprecedented. What is occurring is more than a coincidence of individual crisis. Rather, it is a systematic, systemic failure of world order which is causing momentum, and which has led to an erosion of the International System, rather than itsn, consolidation, a rejection of territorial acquisition by force, expansion of mutual trade benefits without collusion, which are the hallmark of the existing system, are all under some kind of strain. Compounding this dynamism is the pace of Technological Development whose extraordinary progress threatens to outstrip our strategic and moral imagination, and makes the strategic equation tenuous, and less major efforts are made to sustain them. The most immediate challenge to interNational Security is posed by the evolution of the north Korean Nuclear program. Paradoxically, it is only after pyongyang has achieved nuclear and intercontinental breakthroughs that measures its virgins, that measures to deal with it have begun to be applied. That is raised the possibility that as in the case of iran, and International Effort intended to prevent a radical regime from developing a Nuclear Capability will culminate at the very point that that regime is perfecting its capacity. For the second time in a decade, an outcome that was widely considered unacceptable is now on the verge of becoming irreversible. My fundamental concern about the Nuclear Program of korea, its not the threat it poses to the territory of the United States, significant as it is. My most immediate concern is the following. If north korea still possesses a capability inar some finite time, the impact on the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons might be fundamental. Because if north korea could maintain its capability in the face of opposition by china and the United States, and the disapproval of the rest of the world, other countries will feel that this is the way for achieving International Prominence and the upper hand in international dispute. So, therefore, i think that denuclearization of north korea must be a fundamental objective, and if it is not reached, we have to prepare ourselves for the proliferation of weapons to other countries, which will create a new pattern of International Politics which will affect our concept of deterrence and our possibility of deterrence, and which will have to be carefully examined, in which this committee will go on to address. In the middle east we face the International System as it existed at the end of the First World War and at the end of the second world war. Every country in the region is either a combatant or a theater of conflict. And to me the overriding concerns at the moment are these. We have successfully defeated isis, but the question now is the success of what happens next. I am concerned that in the occupied territory once occupied by isis, iranian and Russian Forces will become dominant and that we will see a belt emerging that goes from tehran to beirut, and, therefore, undermines the structure of the middle of the region and creates a longterm challenge. And finally i want to refer to what has been identified by the administration as the dominant element now, the relationship, the great powerre relationship tween the United States and china and russia. There is no doubt that the military capacity of china as well as its economic capacity is growing, and there have been challenges from russia which have to be met, especially in ukraine, crimea, and syria. And this raises the fundamental question, what is the strategic relationship between these countries, visavis the prospectpr of peace . Is their strength comparable enough to induce restraint . Are their values compatible enough to encourage and agreed legitimacy . Visavis these are the challene face. The balance of power must be made but it is also necessary to attempt a Strategic Dialogue that prevents the balance of power from having to be tested. This is the key issue in our relationship. Let me conclude by stating that i think that the fundamental situation of the United States is strong, that we have the capacity to meet these challenges. China has to deal with significant domestic adjustments, and its possible that we can balance those against the pressures that they can exert outside. Russia is domestically also inconsiderable difficulty. And my basic point is that we can maintain a favorable balance of power, but we must couple it with a political structure in which the issue of war and peace is diplomatic as well as a military expression, because the evolution of the weapons is so great and the challenges, the technology are multiplying, that both elements of a National Strategy must be stretched, and i am confident that we can achieve these objectives in that spirit. Thank you. Thank you very much, dr. Kissinger. We pause for a moment here. We have a quorum, and so i ask d the committee to consider a list of 1056 pending military nominations. All these nominations have been before the committee and require, and the required length of time because her emotion in favor to support his list of 1056 pending military to the senate . Is there a second . All those in favor say i . The ayes have it. Secretary shultz, thank you so much for being here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First, id like to pay tribute to senator mccain. Like henry, ive known him a great long time. He fought for his country in combat. He endured terrible suffering and starvation as a prisoner of war and he managed to handle himself with dignity and pride. Then he has served here as senator and president ial candidate. I remember those days and theit slogan country first. That was john mccain, is john mccain, country first, always. So senator, sorry you are not here, but i want you to know how much i admire what you have, how you have served our country. Id like to express my appreciation to be testifying friends here,wo Henry Kissinger and richard armitage. I take the occasion to particularly underline what of the things that henry brought out in his testimony. That is the concern we must have about Nuclear Proliferation. As you remember in the reagan era, we worked hard. President reagan thought Nuclear Weapons were immoral. And we worked hard to get them reduced and we had quite a lot of success. And in those days people seem to have an appreciation of what with the the result of a Nuclear Weapon were ever used. I could people have lost that sense of dread. And now we see everything going in the other direction, Nuclear Proliferation. The more countries have Nuclear Weapons, the more likely it is one is going to go off somewhere, and the more fissile materials lying around, anybody who gets fissile material can make a weapon fairly easily. So this is a major problem. It can blow up the world. So i think we had to get at it. The right way to start is what henry said, is somehow to be able to have a different kind of relationship with russia. After all, russia and the Senate Armed Services<\/a> Committee Meets<\/a> this morning to receive testimony on global challenges in the united, in National Security<\/a> strategies to meet those threats. Its my honor to welcome our distinguished witnesses, former sectors of state Henry Kissinger<\/a> and george shultz, and the former deputy secretary of state richard on the taj. Your careers of service have been unbelievable, been great. We are so honored to have you folks here. I want to begin by reading a brief welcome from our chairman mccain who regrets that is unable to be here for todays hearing, and encoding him now. He says, with the rising global challenges and increasingly complex and competitive strategic environment, America Needs<\/a> the leadership, wisdom and experience that only statesmen of this stature can provide. This committee and this nation thank you for your service and we are grateful for your continued voices of reasons during these troubling times. We look to you for the lessons of history as we all seek to secure a h safer, freer and more prosperous world. I guess one of the most enjoyable Committee Hearings<\/a> that ive experienced before was three years ago when we had, we had a hearing of the same both secretaries kissinger and shultz were here, and a lot of the comments that you made were very pathetic. Here it is three years later, a lot of these things have happened so we are looking forward to this. Speaking on behalf of the entire committee we all affordto to having the children back soon. Im sure he will be. Now more than ever the challenges of todays world requires strategic vision. Each of you is uniquely qualified to help this committee think through not only our present challenges but also the strategy needed to meet them. The insights and wisdom you m offered then were discerning. And have borne out in the years since. The Trump Administration<\/a> recently released a new National Security<\/a> strategy and the National Defense<\/a> strategy which emphasizes the priority of pure competition, the danger appropriations in the enduring threat of terrorism. The National Defense<\/a> strategy is a frank and realistic view of the global strategic environment. Environment. It offers the blueprint for protecting our National Interests<\/a> and reestablishing americas position as the undisputed leader of the free world. And it shows a a commitment to restoring our military advantage across all domains and strengthening and expanding key alliances. We just ask each of you to help us think through this strategy, members of the committee are well aware that the key and success of any strategy requires resources. We need to cast aside partisan politics and pass an appropriations bill finally going to fix the defense spending caps that have disseminated our military in terms of readiness and modernization. We thank you for your survey and look forward to your testimony. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and i would like to welcome dr. Kissinger and secretary shultz and sector automatons. This is certainly a distinguished panel and were grateful that you were here today. Each of you have played a verypa Important Role<\/a> in some of the most monumental foreignpolicy decisions in our nations p history. And onle behalf of all the membs of the committee we look forward to your testimony. This morning syriaia global challenges in u. S. National security follows the release last week of a new nationaleg defense strategy. This strategy would support the president recently released National Security<\/a> strategy states that the subject facing our nation is the reemergence of longterm strategic competition with russia and china, and that this competition replaces terrorism as a primary concern in the u. S. National security. Without question russia remains determined to reassert its influence around the world. Most recently by using maglite influence an active measures activities to undermine the american peoples faith in our election process as well as other western elections. Likewise china continues to threaten the rulesbased order in the asiapacific region by economic coercion of its smaller more vulnerable neighbors and by undermining the freedom of navigation. Th given the experience of our panel i would welcome their assessment of the strategic threat posed by both russia and china, and what recommendations they have for out the United States<\/a> can count of these powers both militarily and by utilizing of the critical elements of National Power<\/a>. Great our power competition mae the current geostrategic reality but we must not neglect other equally complicated challenges. North Koreas Nuclear<\/a> Ballistic Missile<\/a> efforts are can be an great National Security<\/a> threats. Likewise iran continued their aggressive weapons developmentac activities including Ballistic Missile<\/a> Development Efforts<\/a> while pursuing other destabilizing activities in the region. The United States<\/a>ri must remain focused on countering Security Threat<\/a> from isis and iraq in syria and its spread be on the middle east region. While building the capabilities of afghan National Security<\/a> forces and deny any safe haven for extremist. In the coming weeks this committee was a drug from secretary mattis and Senior Leaders<\/a> at the Defense Department<\/a> i have National Defense<\/a> strategy will address the threats facing our nation. As we begin a review of National Defense<\/a> committee it would benefit this committee to get our witnesses assessment of the new strategy and whether it strikes the appropriate balance between Great Power Competition<\/a> and ongoing threats posed by rogue regimes, terrorist organizations and other nonstate actors and criminal organizations. The new strategy emphasizes the civil that key fact. The importance of allies and partners. The esteemed panel before us knows betteref than most that Robust International<\/a> alliances are essential to keep our country safe. The National Defense<\/a> strategy unveiled last week puts a premium on both alliances while pursuing new partners. As i stated many times i am deeply concerned about statement on the president that of undercut americas leadership position in the world, alienated our longtime allies and dismissed the global order of the United States<\/a> helped establish following world war ii. These actions isolate the United States<\/a> and weaker influence in the world. Ultimately leading to uncertainty and the risk of miscalculation. At the same time the administration has proposed dramatic cuts to the state department and Career Foreign Service<\/a> officers leave the government at an alarming rate. I am concerned we may seek to counter the whole of nation strategy pursued by russia and reinvesting our own converted military advantage at the expense of necessary investments in diplomacy and development as essential tools of National Power<\/a> grid given our panels extensive experience cultivating alliess and promotig diplomacy i would welcome their assessment on what more can be done to sustain these critical relationships in the pores of nonmilitary elements of National Power<\/a> to our security. Once again i want to thank the witnesses for being here and for more poorly for the lifetime of service and dedication to the United States<\/a> of america. Thank you, senator reed. Normally we ask a witness to confine the remarks to a certain time. I would not be so presumptuous. Talk as long as you want to. [laughing] dr. Kissinger, you are recognized thank you so much for being here. It is a great honor to have this opportunity, and i would like to say one word about our chairman who i have known for 50 years, since the return from vietnam. At that time i had been in hanoi, and they had offered to let me take him on my plane back to the United States<\/a>. And i refused on the ground that nobody should get special treatment. And when i met him here at the white house, he came up to me and said, thank you for saving my honor and senator mccain has preserved the honor of ourof country as a great warrior, but also as someone who whenever the week were threatened, and others persecuted, he made it clear that america was on their side and that he was not simply a warrior, but a defender of our values all over the world. So thank thank you, particularr this location. You have asked me to review the International Situation<\/a>, and i have taken the liberty of submitting a statement to the committee, and i would use my time here just to make a few general points, and then reply to your questions. I would also like to say how meaningful it is to me to sit next to my friend and mentor, george shultz, from whom ive learned so much, and mr. Amitabh has had great such fashion services. I will deal with you really in three parts, the urgent example five by the north Korean Nuclear<\/a> challenge, the immediate exemplified by the middle east, especially iran, and the longterm which the chairman referred, exemplified by great power relationships and by the reentry of great power politics as the key elements of international affairs. The International Situation<\/a> facing the United States<\/a> is unprecedented. What is occurring is more than a coincidence of individual crisis. Rather, it is a systematic, systemic failure of world order which is causing momentum, and which has led to an erosion of the International System<\/a>, rather than itsn, consolidation, a rejection of territorial acquisition by force, expansion of mutual trade benefits without collusion, which are the hallmark of the existing system, are all under some kind of strain. Compounding this dynamism is the pace of Technological Development<\/a> whose extraordinary progress threatens to outstrip our strategic and moral imagination, and makes the strategic equation tenuous, and less major efforts are made to sustain them. The most immediate challenge to interNational Security<\/a> is posed by the evolution of the north Korean Nuclear<\/a> program. Paradoxically, it is only after pyongyang has achieved nuclear and intercontinental breakthroughs that measures its virgins, that measures to deal with it have begun to be applied. That is raised the possibility that as in the case of iran, and International Effort<\/a> intended to prevent a radical regime from developing a Nuclear Capability<\/a> will culminate at the very point that that regime is perfecting its capacity. For the second time in a decade, an outcome that was widely considered unacceptable is now on the verge of becoming irreversible. My fundamental concern about the Nuclear Program<\/a> of korea, its not the threat it poses to the territory of the United States<\/a>, significant as it is. My most immediate concern is the following. If north korea still possesses a capability inar some finite time, the impact on the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> might be fundamental. Because if north korea could maintain its capability in the face of opposition by china and the United States<\/a>, and the disapproval of the rest of the world, other countries will feel that this is the way for achieving International Prominence<\/a> and the upper hand in international dispute. So, therefore, i think that denuclearization of north korea must be a fundamental objective, and if it is not reached, we have to prepare ourselves for the proliferation of weapons to other countries, which will create a new pattern of International Politics<\/a> which will affect our concept of deterrence and our possibility of deterrence, and which will have to be carefully examined, in which this committee will go on to address. In the middle east we face the International System<\/a> as it existed at the end of the First World War<\/a> and at the end of the second world war. Every country in the region is either a combatant or a theater of conflict. And to me the overriding concerns at the moment are these. We have successfully defeated isis, but the question now is the success of what happens next. I am concerned that in the occupied territory once occupied by isis, iranian and Russian Forces<\/a> will become dominant and that we will see a belt emerging that goes from tehran to beirut, and, therefore, undermines the structure of the middle of the region and creates a longterm challenge. And finally i want to refer to what has been identified by the administration as the dominant element now, the relationship, the great powerre relationship tween the United States<\/a> and china and russia. There is no doubt that the military capacity of china as well as its economic capacity is growing, and there have been challenges from russia which have to be met, especially in ukraine, crimea, and syria. And this raises the fundamental question, what is the strategic relationship between these countries, visavis the prospectpr of peace . Is their strength comparable enough to induce restraint . Are their values compatible enough to encourage and agreed legitimacy . Visavis these are the challene face. The balance of power must be made but it is also necessary to attempt a Strategic Dialogue<\/a> that prevents the balance of power from having to be tested. This is the key issue in our relationship. Let me conclude by stating that i think that the fundamental situation of the United States<\/a> is strong, that we have the capacity to meet these challenges. China has to deal with significant domestic adjustments, and its possible that we can balance those against the pressures that they can exert outside. Russia is domestically also inconsiderable difficulty. And my basic point is that we can maintain a favorable balance of power, but we must couple it with a political structure in which the issue of war and peace is diplomatic as well as a military expression, because the evolution of the weapons is so great and the challenges, the technology are multiplying, that both elements of a National Strategy<\/a> must be stretched, and i am confident that we can achieve these objectives in that spirit. Thank you. Thank you very much, dr. Kissinger. We pause for a moment here. We have a quorum, and so i ask d the committee to consider a list of 1056 pending military nominations. All these nominations have been before the committee and require, and the required length of time because her emotion in favor to support his list of 1056 pending military to the senate . Is there a second . All those in favor say i . The ayes have it. Secretary shultz, thank you so much for being here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First, id like to pay tribute to senator mccain. Like henry, ive known him a great long time. He fought for his country in combat. He endured terrible suffering and starvation as a prisoner of war and he managed to handle himself with dignity and pride. Then he has served here as senator and president ial candidate. I remember those days and theit slogan country first. That was john mccain, is john mccain, country first, always. So senator, sorry you are not here, but i want you to know how much i admire what you have, how you have served our country. Id like to express my appreciation to be testifying friends here,wo Henry Kissinger<\/a> and richard armitage. I take the occasion to particularly underline what of the things that henry brought out in his testimony. That is the concern we must have about Nuclear Proliferation<\/a>. As you remember in the reagan era, we worked hard. President reagan thought Nuclear Weapons<\/a> were immoral. And we worked hard to get them reduced and we had quite a lot of success. And in those days people seem to have an appreciation of what with the the result of a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> were ever used. I could people have lost that sense of dread. And now we see everything going in the other direction, Nuclear Proliferation<\/a>. The more countries have Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, the more likely it is one is going to go off somewhere, and the more fissile materials lying around, anybody who gets fissile material can make a weapon fairly easily. So this is a major problem. It can blow up the world. So i think we had to get at it. The right way to start is what henry said, is somehow to be able to have a different kind of relationship with russia. After all, russia and the United States<\/a> have the bulk of all the weapons, and then start something. T ive have some comments to make about russia in ain minute. I distributed to things. Number one is a little demographic outline, and i want to speak about that. And also distributed a prepublication book and the going to talk particularly about two of the articles in the book. One is by a retired marine corps colonel who is at the National Defense<\/a> university, the other is by lucy shapiro and her husband. Lucy is a biologist. Her husband is a physicist at stanford. Lucy isnt the smartest person in any event she is in, and shes also fun. So sometime if you were looking for something really good to get lucy to comeer and testify, you will have a ball but you also learn something. Im going to draw on these two papers so you have that book. But i think my main point is there are four major portions acting in the world that are going to disrupt it greatly and rapidly. And anything we do has to be aware of these disruptions. The first is tomography. This little chart is one of the things, show you briefly what is happening pic you can see the blue lines are 20152035, and then 35 on out. The golden lines. You can see how things are shrinking rapidly. Birth rates are falling, longevity is rising, and a sense we should think of populations as being a lot of young people and some, a few older people. Now it is totally reversed with huge implications. I think its worth also noting the big decline is coming in the population of china and russia. I might say on russia, russias economy is not as big as italys air it has twice the number of people. It shows you how poorly they are running their economy. Their population is shrinking. And i think in the sense we have russia playing a we cant aggressively. We need a moment to put a stop sign on that and get on to talking. Notice is the World Population<\/a> is changing, it is getting older for the most part, the places in the world that are seeing a big increase in populations are mostly in africa and some parts of asia. These are places where there are big explosions of population, these are also places where the economies are not good, and where probably adverse conditions are most like are mostly likely to arise. I think its almost certain that theyll be a big effort of people to migrate away from those places and how the world is going to handle this large migration, you better start thinking about it. You cant ignore it. So thats point one. Point two has to do with governance. We are surrounded by information communication and some is put out for purpose and some is neutral. Its hard to sort it out and diversity is everywhere. People can look at this information, they cant communicate, they can organize and they do should we get a lot of government by protests of one kind or another. So we have to learn all over again how to govern over diversity and if the government is having a hard time, things like Nuclear Proliferation<\/a> that can only be dealt with by governmental cooperation. Thisor is very important thing o address and try to think through. The third and fourth big changes have to do with technology. The first is Artificial Intelligence<\/a> and the second is whats called free printing and manufacturing but its a big deal really coming hard. So im going to focus on what is happening with this. First let me talk about the economy. What is happening as a result of the forces is degloballization. This is already happening. This is not something for the future. The reason is that its becoming more and more possible to produce the things you want close to where you are so the advantages of lowlabor costs are disappearing. And the more you produce things where you are, the less you need shipping and has big impact on energy and has huge impact on the countrys that are providing lowcost labor and places like ourselves where we will wind up being able to produce these things near where we are. Its a revolution and a revolution in the economy has all sorts of security implications that need to be thought about. But this is a very big deal. This is just an example in terms of information. Over 700 billion of developing economist greatly exceeding the 145 billion out loads during the great depression. In contrast, investment is growing rapidly. Stin 2016 flows into the United States<\/a> reached 391 billion, more than doubled the 171 billion in 2014. In 2016, only 299 billion. The United States<\/a> saw inflow investment of 192 billion. In 2015, the latest statistics available from the department of commerce, nearly 70 of fdi was investment in manufacturing sector. This is by way of putting it on the point that i was making. Robotics, 3printing and Artificial Intelligence<\/a> are driving manufacturers to reconsider not only how and what they make but where they make it. The world is in front of big shift from labor to automation. Robot sales expected to reach 4 million in 2018 and does not account for new collaborative robots. Assist human workers and increase human productivity. There are other things about all this that i wont go into it. But the new technologies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States<\/a>. The United States<\/a> has lost manufacturing jobs every year from 1988 to 2009, total of 8 million jobs. In the last six years it regained about a million of them with the cost of labor in longer a significant advantage it makes little sense to manufacture in Southeast Asia<\/a> and assemble them in china and ship them to the rest of the world where the same can be manufactured where it will be used. So this is a huge revolution taking place and also also underlines the enhance to protect the intellectual property. So thats the economic side. Now, before the industrial revolution, im reading from text, will drive massive changes in the economic political and social spheres and will inevitable change warfare too, so you want to look at the dramatic improvements in nano energetics, drones, 3d printing, a revolution of smart and cheap weapon that is will redefine the battlefield. Openou source literature says tt thano nano aluminum created ultra high burn rates which gives explosives four to 10 times power of tnt. They will carry very destructive power. Then you can put these small platforms on drones and drones can be manufactured easily and youu can have great many of them inexpensively. So then you can have a swarm with lethal equipment. Is an airfield where air force is very vulnerable. A ship is vulnerable target. Think about that this terms of how you deploy. And in terms of the drones, while such a system cannot be jammed, it would only serve to get a drone target by getting a drone to the area where it started. At that point, the Optical Systems<\/a> are guided by Artificial Intelligence<\/a> could use unboard multispecial imaging to find the target and guide the weapons, exactly autonomy that makes the convergence a threat today because they will require no external input other than the signature of the designed target, they will be vulnerable, not vulnerable to jamming, not requiring human intervention, the autonomous platform will be in large numbers. So thats a revolution in the way warfare will be conducted. You have all sorts of ways of enhancing the impact of the weapon by explosively formed penetrators and by what they call bringing the detonator thats learning how to hit something that has a lot of explosives and blowing them up. Now, the chinese are very much onto this. Chinese with fire large drones with twoperson crew, similar size truck which can carry a hundred trucks and single battery of ten trucks could launch thousands of autonomous active fighters over a battlefield. So the chinese know how they can we have bases in japan, airfields, they can take them out. You have to learn how to diverse and change the way you deploy. So this makes domain denial much easier than domain usage. Theres a great lesson of what we do in nato to contain russiar because you can deploy these boxes so you dont know what they are, on trucks and train people how to unload quickly and fire so its a huge deterrent capability thats available and inexpensive enough so that t we can expect our alls to pitch in and get them for themselves. I might say on cyber, there was mention on that earlier. Theres a big problem but its important to remember that all networks have networks in the real world and some of them are quite exposed and we combined that fact of the possibility of autonomous drones and maybe you do something about those loads drones. The creative use of autonomous drones to augment forces to strongly reinforce nato as i say deterrent. De if nato assist front line states and fills inexpensive autonomous drones, prepacked in 20foot containers if the weapons are prepackaged and storage the Natural Forces<\/a> can deploy the weapons to delay a russian advance. So whats happening is you have small, cheap and highly lethal replacing large expensive platforms. And this change is coming about with great rapidity and massively important to take it into account and anything that you are thinking about doing. Now, let me turn to a completely different aspect of the change going on. Excuse me for rattling around my papers. I had it marked. Now, i turn to lucys paper. She says breakthrough advances in the sequencing and decoding are occurring at the same time asge disruptive changes in the worlds ecosystem. We are in the midst of the sixth grade extinction which is predict today culminate in the elimination of 30 of all ocean corals, thats going on now. Sharks and rays, 30 of all fresh water, 25 of all mammals and 15 of all birds currently alive. A gigantic change taking place and tropical diseases are everywhere and we are not getting up to scale on our diagnostics of them and our treatment capabilities. We also as lucy brings out know thousand manipulate genes in the way we have never had before and why arent we getting some of the mosquitoes to do so much damage to fixing them so they dont do that much damage . That can be done. This iss all, of course, happening as a result of the warming climate. As lucy says, Climate Change<\/a> is a cause of global redistribution of infectious diseases. Its already happening. So she gives an example here. She refers to the worst animal disease pen demic in u. S. history, back in 1914 when 50 million domestic poultry, 21 states were slaughtered, how did this happen . Migratory birth paths leading south to north asianpacific flyway to the bering states. They are warming faster than any regions on earth and they become meeting spot for flocks that rarely meet. Dna sequencing, identification of specific asian flu strains that were switching a ride in flocks out of sites of origin. We get big trouble. Well, so my point and i will keep le babing these points but i think its quite apparent that what we are seeing is result of technological change and increased knowledge in biological area is a new world, a very different world, at the same time there are weaponry, weapons available that will change the battlefield landscape. We are on top of these things, so are the chinese, i think, the russians are probably a little bit less able but never nevertheless going back to nuclear, we need to get our arms on Nuclear Proliferation<\/a> and the way to do it is put stop sign in front of russia and have them come to their senses and start working with Nuclear Matters<\/a> as well as other things and from there we can try to create a kind of joint enterprise to work on this issue because it threatens mankind, thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary schultz. Secretary, nice to have you back. Ranking member, now i get it, i know what my job is here today. Im a little like that fellow who followed to talk about my experience of recent rain shower and i do realize that your patience is inverse proportion to the length of my statement. I have been here before. If you allow me to make only three points. The first to join my distinguished colleagues to send all best wishes and prayers to john mccain. I miss him and i miss his vote, voice, its important that he knows that. Second, much to my amazement. The National Security<\/a> strategy and the National Defense<\/a> strategy actually comport with each other to a very high degree and this is no small chore, no small feet having participated in those historically, they dont often comport, but this does, i want to call the National Defense<\/a> strategy because its a cleareyed wellwritteno succinct document that accomplishes things. First of all, a direction for the political appointees in the pentagon, they know what the president and the secretary of defense want. They get it. Second, its a clear guide post to our uniform military and our bureaucrats, i mean, that term in a positive sense who populate our pentagon and beyond. They know what the president s prioritiespr are and also is vey clear to you as authorizers what the president s priorities are, set curbs, if you will, barriers along the street to show you whats important and whats not as far as the president and the pentagon are concerned. Finally, equally important is what that document does not sayo it does not say that we face an existential threat today. It talks about peer competitors, im all for competition and if we do our job as a military peer competitors would become adversaries and then enemies. To be an existential threat it seems to me you have to have the capability to anhialate the Uniteded States<\/a> and desire. China has the capability but not the desire. Russia has the capability but does not have the desire, prefer to use other methods to undermine United States<\/a>, eastern europe, et cetera, north korea, iran, they dont yet have the capability and their intention at least to me is still unknown. Isis, terrorist groups, theyve got the intention to destroy us but they dont have the capability. So weve got to keep our eye on the ball and the ball is to keep our peer competitors from becoming enemies and adversaries, thank you. Thank you, mr. Secretary. We have a full house so i am going to be very brief, one of the things that came across very clear from all of you comparing problems today with the problems of the past, we have threats that we havent had before. All of you have served with director clapper, the former director of national intelligence, quote, that he has given us and im sure youre aware of that looking back at more than half century of intelligence, i have not experienced a time where we have beset byhe more crisis and thres around. We see that we are losingy quantitative and qualitative advantage. I want to ask s each one of you and secretary armitage, you were very specific on the plan that the National Defense<\/a> strategy that came out from the president in that the specifically the twothree strategy. Would anybody would like to e elaborate on the strategy that just came out . Like rich, im very impressed with what they layed out but i think it doesnt adequately address the fact of the huge change thats taking place in deglobalization and the new kind of weaponry and those things need to get factored in and im sure they will. Jim mattis, we had the privilege to have mattis at Stanford Institution<\/a> for years and his office is by mine and i go sit down and start talking. [laughter] he is wonderful. Hes smartwh and hes into everything. He knows whats going on. If you ask him his opinion he tells youou what it is. I think we both knew that. Hes a jewel and im sure hes into all of this. Any other comments on the two, three yes. Yes, sir, two comments. First in qualitative and quantitative edge that we areat losing, is it no wonder, we are marching and countermarching in europe, afghanistan, iraq for a long time. We really run the folks ragged in my view, africa now, so its no question that we are losing our training edge, our qualitative edge, the equipment is being run into the ground. So i think the military leadership of the United States<\/a>, the secretary of defense and you all ought to think through this problem and make sure that we are deploying people that we really need to deploy and keeping people at home that we need to keep at home. Second, ii i want to dispute toa tinny degree that this is the messiest disorderly world we have ever seen. I think with 40 million refugees after world war 2, and a million dead, someone might say, it was pretty bad. Theres a man that participated in the pacific in the conflict and he can tell you personally. So its messy and its disorderly but is it the worse its ever been, im not sure. Maybe it seems worst because theres questions about the International Community<\/a> of whether the United States<\/a> is going towo take traditional lead as we have for the past 70 years. Thank you. You had the floor, once brief answer to this on the nucleary, strategy, weve had a hearing recently and obvious to everyone and you both, all three remember this that china and russia have been modern siding their Nuclear Arsenals<\/a> while we have been sitting around not doing anything and on ours and now we if we look at our nuclear triad, our three legs are aging. Any comments, your recommendation as to what we should be doing right now, any one of you . Im a great believer in the tremendous importance of getting rid of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. But i dont i think the way to do that is as long as there are Nuclear Weapons<\/a> the United States<\/a> must have a robust, secure and safe arsenal to use for deterrence and for a basis from which to negotiate down. We really havent been doing any modernization since you guys were at the helm, so thats the only point i wanted to make that. Were well, i read what i guess was an early version somehow that was sent to me of the National Security<\/a> strategy and i like the beginning of it because it talked about our commitment to getting rid of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, but as you read on, it almost sounded a little bit as though there might be allocation where we would use Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and the notion of using them that is spreading around is deeply disturbing to me because of the consequences. I remember you remember the cernobyl Nuclear Power<\/a> plant . I remember the first meeting that i had with gorbachev with that. Whatser the distinction between what happened at chernobyl and what would have happened if a nuclear would have dropped there, a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> much more devastated. You can get to the gut of destructiveness of these things. Secretary reed. Senator reed. Im not being promoted. All have reflected the importance of diplomacy and also the multifaceted challenges, there are environmental issues,c theres demographic issues and secretary schultz made it clear, our whole government approach of the problems, is it adequate at the moment . Well, its been a quarter century since ive been here. I come occasionally to testify or something but whats going on, i know having run four departments that if youre not there you really dont have a good idea whats going on. But i thinkre the challenge is really to coordinate efforts and they need to be coordinated and my impression is, its an impression that sense the Defense Department<\/a> people can actually go and do something theres a tendency to rely on them probably more than that we should and have other people do more of their share, thats just an impression. Thank you. Do you have any comments about whole government approach, in terms of how well we are doing . The challenge we face at this moment is that its to determine what our National Objectives<\/a> are and how to reach them in a strategic manner. The Defense Department<\/a> statement about our objectives seems to me very adequate and expresses the necessity, but we i would like to point out as a student of history that if when it relies entirely on abstract military planning, without having thought through the political consequences, one may find oneself in an irreversible position. None of the leaders who startede if they had known what the end result would be, so when weapons are being procured which in principle i favor strongly, one should also relate them to a military strategy that one is prepared to implement and a diplomacy that looks for the creation of a system of world order which by which you can determine the nature of the challenges and the extent to which they can be opposed, on the diplomatic side, i think, we need a more systematic approach to what we are attempting to do. On the military side, i support what the Defense Department<\/a> is trying to do and i agree with the objectives that have been stated with respect to north korea and with the middle east but they have been up to now conducted in a fragmentary rather than t a coherent manner. Thank you, secretary armitag, please. The whole of government sounds great but in order to have whole of government you have to have all the leadership and you have to have inventory of what your arrows are to put in your quiver, i dont think weve got that. Second you haveou to have resources and doesnt seem you can have a whole government approach if the state department in an insufficient. If it werent for congress we would be down 30 . And finally, the whole of government approach has to embrace friends and allies for us to do everything alone is wrong in my view. So it has sob seen that a whole of governmentrn is also diploma, also getting coalitions together of likeminded people, et cetera. Thank you very much. Just very important point that rich made. Its not only us but our ally that is we have to work with. Thank you all very much and just a point i may you all signaled the proliferation issue is absolutely critical and korea request it continues on its projection, that may be a way in which we can get the chinese and the russians and us to Work Together<\/a> because my sense is they too fear a proliferation problem but i will leave that to the next roundve if theres a nt round. Thank you. Senator wicker. Thank you, gentlemen, this has really been wonderful, very valuable to members like me. Dr. Kissinger, let me ask you about nato in a statement that youve made and after you follow up i will ask our other two witnesses to comment. You say nato needs to be clear about its strategic purposes, what outcomes other than violations of territorial integrity does nato seek to prevent . What do you suggest should be the answer to that question among nato members . The challenge that nato faces now seems to me to be this, for 300 years europe was the designer of the International System<\/a> and and provided the leadership and the structure of the world. The United States<\/a> in those periods standing apart. At the end of world war ii, europe was devastated and the United States<\/a> took the leadership of bringing together these various nations and guarantying their territorial integrity. The challenge was primarily conceived to be from the soviet union as a military attack on europe. Europe under the marshal plan recovered economically its capacity to act as a civil society, but it has not regained its leadership and International Politics<\/a> and therefore we have and at the same time, the challenges have altered from the attack from the soviet union to a seriesat of crisis around the world that have potential dangerous but not immediately overwhelming dangers, so it requires a higher degree of of assessment. So i think and so nato has constantly been faced with a series of what are called out of the area problems which are central in many ways to the overall equation but not central how they conceive it domestically. So its important and i support strongly the administration in that effort that europe play a more active role in some of the issues that i outlined and that my colleagues. Is ukraine one of those out of the area or in the area problems . Whats the definition of thats exactly the the issue. For russia historically, ukraine has been part of their territory at least for 400 years. On the other hand, its tied in many respects to europe so i personally, which is a majority of you, i have thought it was unwise to try to include ukraine in nato but its also impossible toal let it exist as satellite f the soviet of russia, so the way i express the issue, if the security border of europe is the eastern border of ukraine, that its been 300 miles of moscow and will create tensions with russia, if it is on the western border of the ukraine it is at the border of poland, hungary, romania, its unacceptable for europe and unacceptable for us. So it possible to have a ukraine solutione to that ukraine is fe in the political and economic field to relate itself to its preferences, Something Like<\/a> finland without the nato participation . In any event, russia has to adhere to the minsk agreement because it cannot claim ukrainian territory but ukraine is at the border line of this of this conception and should be politically and economically where it wants to be. The question is can one thing of military arrangement there that is not that directly confrontational. The chair has told me that i can ask one of you to follow up, mrs. Armitage, would you care to follow up on that . My point of view, senator, the most important thing that we can do for nato, first of all, is make sure they have a full understanding of the ironclad nature of article 5, article 5 and we have to be credible and in return, this seems to me nato has to do something, its not just 2 of gdp, im told, i read recently that british have no warships right now that are outside of their ports, they are in port. I think im correct to say that the german submarine is either unoperable or nearly, so this is not acceptable. So in exchange for article 5 commitment by the United States<\/a> we have to get a a commitment tt theyll stand up their capabilities. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you all very much for being here and for your years of service to the country. Dr. Schultz, i couldnt agree more with the discussion about the impact of technology and Artificial Intelligence<\/a> and whats happening with and how that will affect warfare. The concern that ive got as we look at what the potential for change in that area, how do we engage withef the Defense Industrial<\/a> base, which has been, i think, sometimes reluctant to acknowledge the need to move and when weve got weapon systems that are very expensive and weve started down the road to development, how do we make that switch in a way that allows us to keep up with this evolving technology . Well, i suppose we have to start taking action and creating banks of 3d printers and start using them and the obvious fact that small, cheap and many is better than a few very expensive and vulnerable, just that logich has to pervade and we have to change. And one of the things that i share the concern about the about Nuclear Proliferation<\/a> and where we are now and what appears to be moving closer to a nuclear war in some way not just in how we respond to whats happening in north korea but as we look at modernization of our Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, the move to smaller nukes and this whole russian idea thats been put forward that we can escalate to deescalate by the use of small Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. How should we think about responding to that, because that does seem to be gaining some credibility in in military circles . Well, a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> iss a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. You use a small one, then you go to a bigger one. I think Nuclear Weapons<\/a> are Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and we need to draw the. Line there. And one of the alarming things to me is this notion that we can have something called a small Nuclear Weapon<\/a> which i understand the russians are doing and somehow thats usable and your mind goes to the idea that, yes, Nuclear Weapons<\/a> become usable and then we are really in trouble because a big Nuclear Exchange<\/a> can wipe out the world. I have a great friend in San Francisco<\/a> named bill, the retired bishop of california and he started something really terrific called united religion initiative. He made a statement about a year ago. I tried to get him to publish it but he wouldnt do it, but he said, when you put your hand on the bible and swear to be president of the United States<\/a>, thats the least of it. Ou when you put your hand on the Nuclear Button<\/a> and you can start something that might kill a million people, youre not president anymore, youre god. And who are we to say we are god in these weapons are immoral as president reagan said many times and weid need to get rid of the. Personally, i think the way to get rid of them is on the one hand maintain strength of arsenal, but then we need to somehow get rearranged with russia. Personally, im very interested in henrys comments on the ukraine but russia signed an agreement when ukraine got rid of its Nuclear Weapons<\/a> that it was respecting ukraines borders, they signed that, they totally ignored it. They dont even refer to it. We shouldnt accept that. And it seems to me with this new kind of weaponry, we can change the situation in ukraine and maybe thats the place where we could have a persian moment, a persian moment for me is in the cold war the soviets had weapon that is could hit europe, japan and china but not us. The diplomatic ploy was we will use intercontinental missiles risking they would use intercontinental missiles on us. If we couldnt agree we would deploy weapons in europe. We knew we were negotiating justs as much with europeans and soviets because putting Nuclear Weapon<\/a> in your territory is not comfortable. President reagan did a good job on it. We came to the end and we deployed cruise missiles in britain with margarets help and italy but then a big deal, Ballistic Missile<\/a>s were called persians in germany. Here is where the alliance came in. Everybody supported the germans, it was very con controversial. The persians got deployed. That was a turning point in the cold war and it showed the russians something special. Thank you. There was a little side story if i could just take a minute. Nancy reagan was my pal. She fixed me up with a Hollywood Star<\/a> at white house dinner so i got to dance with Ginger Rogers<\/a> and stuff like that, but anyway, after the deployment of the persian, things softened and we had, i could go to the president and say, mr. President , four different capitals in europe, the soviet diplomat has come up to one of ours and said the same thing which we think boils down and was invite today washington when he comes to the General Assembly<\/a> in september he will accept, in orders, the sovietsnk would. Think thisant to over because jimmy carter canceled these when we went to afghanistan and they are still there. It was a huge event. I went to nancy and i said, nancy, whats going to happen is we will have a meeting probably a fairly long one and we will all walk down to the mansion, thats your home, some standparented standaround time. She agreed. As soon as he sees nancy, your husband want peace and nancy says, of course, my husband wants peace. She whispered in his ears peace. She said, i will whisper in your ear, peace. I said, nancy, you just won the cold war. That was a persian moment and i think we need another persian moment to get the soviets to see theres a stop sign and theres another path, after American Economy<\/a> is having tough troubles and different arrangements will benefit greatly and we can start down the road about talking about Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and have a joint enterprise and really get after this subject. Thank you. Thank you for your service to the country. Dr. Kissinger, i want to return raised in that you your Opening Statement<\/a> as well as written testimony, i will just repeat it. You pointed out a paradox, a possibility that a north korea as an iran, an International Effort<\/a> intend today prevent a radical regime from developing a destabilizing capability will coincide diplomatically with the regime perfecting the very capacity for the second time in a decade an outcome that was widely considered unacceptable is now on the verge of becoming irreversible. Can you elaborate on why ewe think thats the case and what we can learn from the situation . With respect to north korea, itsth the idea that we should that there might be a negotiation based on a freeze for freeze. My concern i had with the iranian agreement was that in a way it legitimized the emergence of iran as a Nuclear Power<\/a>, it only delayed it by 7 years. Iran yet did not have a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> but if one negotiates a freeze of the existing situation and if its established, other countries in the region confronting their own Security Problems<\/a> are likely to come to the conclusion that it is safe to proceed with their Nuclear Program<\/a> and that then we would face aal totally new situation d accumulation of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and once the line is crossed, as george pointed out, you are then in a world in which we have no experience about escalation, where its difficult to establish principles and this would start a sequence of events in which some countries would resist and some countries would insist on it, so therefore i think thathi the denuclearizatin of north korea which is not a direct, overwhelming threat to us is important for the evolution of the interNational Strategy<\/a> with respect to nonproliferation and, therefore, we need to make a distinction between measures that might relieve the immediate tension but make an ultimate crisis of the more severe and measures that need to be taken or could be taken to face the issue of denuclearization of korea. All the more so, its the problem of iran, its just down the road under even under the existing deals that is my basic point. Thank you. Dr. Schultz, in your conversation about four disruptive forces, the first one you mentioned migration, imminent historian that testified before, published oped, even though its been a controversy in the United States<\/a> in which we focus as americans, we had a threeday Government Shutdown<\/a> about immigration, the a very contentious one about in the campaign and contentious in europe and the elections in germany last year had lowest performance since world war ii. Alternative for germany won seats and its in the rise of similar parties and politicians and sweden and austria, poland, hungary and so forth. F what would our western leaders be doing to better manage the challenges posed by demographic change and migration patterns . I should think the first effort to do everything to see that the places they are coming from are made more habitable so that they wont leave. We have a lot to do to accomplish that, but then we have to reflect in our own case how beneficial immigration has been for this country. I want to a session in San Francisco<\/a> the other night where we were celebrating and it was Alexander Hamiltons<\/a> birthday and we were talking about how Alexander Hamilton<\/a> was as first secretary of treasury, he was an immigrant. Henry kissinger is immigrant, einstein is an immigrant so we benefited greatly, everybody is immigrant or descendant from one, so we need to be looking carefully at our borders and having a sensible immigration policy and people in these places, there maybe people that are perfectly okay for us but i think the first thing is to do Everything Possible<\/a> to help them have places where they want to stay. Thank you, all gentlemen. Thank you, chairman. Secretary schultz, you mentioned the coming changes from Artificial Intelligence<\/a> fromen Additive Manufacturing<\/a> and a another rapidly changing partner for the world as you know is the energy field and youve been a strong voice for American Leadership<\/a> for a conservative voice for addressing climate and energy, but at the moment we find ourself in a position where the white house has obviously pulled backhe from paris accord, they arent implementing protectionist policy with regard to Clean Energy Deployment<\/a> in the country and im curious onn your thoughts on what you believe americas posture on mate change in the world and what implementation of clean energy should look like . Well, just as we have a threat throughout the world from Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, we have a threat thats global from the warming climate. The pierp by the paper by lucy shapiro has many others. Number one, a lot of people object to all these regulations, government tellingct you to do this and dont do that and so forth. Lets get rid of all of that. Lets put in place a revenueneutral carbon tax, put a price out there and let the market decide. So in the program that i have been working with congressman that was here, we would start with the 40dollar a ton tax and make it revenue neutral. So youd pass the money back to lets say everybody that has a Social Security<\/a> number. So make it a progressive tax and it wouldnt have any fiscal drag and it would sort of have people get incentive they need to go for things that are low in carbon. The other thing that i think is very important is to maintain a respectful Government Program<\/a> supporting energy r d and it doesnt have to be huge because i know i am the chairman of mits Energy Advisory<\/a> board. They have a big program at mit and i have more or less the same role at stanford and i listened to what the guys are doing and the r d is dramatic. As a result ofhe r d our solar costs are way down, fracking result of r d and this can be very productive so we want to keep that going and we have been working at these two universities. A while ago we had an exchange, we brought a bunch of 12mit to stanford and same number we had about what we call Game Changers<\/a> at mit and we did the same thing and we came to washington and john boehner who was then speaker set us up with republicans on the house energy committee, these are supposed to be the bad guys, well, it turned out that selling them energy r d was a piece of cake. Somebody said, lets have the government go into business and exploit it, you lost everybody, including me. Soyb lets have the government stay out of the business and support the energy r d and i think that has brought support and there are things that are on the cusp right now that are very important, ofsp course, the whoy grail electricity. Not only have impact on solar and wind but you also have some security because our grid is so vulnerable to attack if we have some storage, to rely on that would be good. But anyway, the r d is very important. Pair r d with tax i think youll have a program that will work. Thank you for your thoughts on that. My next question is for any of you to rdz, im just really concerned of the statistic that is we are seeing out of state department on being able to attractof talent and losing fols from that pool at rates we just havent seen before, you know, opjust attracting people for entrylevel positions we are at about a quarter of what we were a couple of years ago. There are problems with the season pool as well. What should we be doing to address that . I will give it a go, senator. The a100 class of entry classes that we have at the state department and, yes, they are down. People read the papers and they hear the news. They think theyre not particularly welcome. But the real impact of this, of whats going on now will really be felt in about 15 years, as deputy secretary i had a chair on the committee, makes decisions on who we are going to put forward as ambassadors, the different posts and i was having trouble towards the end of my tenure as deputy secretary because of a previous slowdown in the state department. We didnt have sufficient head and shoulders diplomats that i felt comfortable putting in leadership positions. So weve got to turn around the attitude and i think that attitude needs to start with our president and stop talking about deep state and taking ownership of everything, any one who served inrv the military, senatr reed will tell you, we learned everything we ever needed to know in the first general order, which cautions young to take charge this is all government property. Thats all you need to know. Thats the position that our president hasse to take and secretary of state have to take. I would like to say a word not only on behalf of Foreign Service<\/a> but the career people generally. In 1969i became secretary of labor and i was told that it was an impossible job for a republican because the Labor Department<\/a> staff was a whollyowned subsidiary of the aflcio. We brought in a real topnotch bunch of people and the bureaucracy would knock themselves out for us. We made friends with george, but still, they were there to serve. I found the same thing when i was director of omb, same thing in the treasury, same thing in the state department. The Foreign Service<\/a> people are able, they are trained, they are experienced, they have been worked with particularly by the director of Foreign Service<\/a> to move them around and get the right kind of experience and they are invaluable and i agree particularly with richards point. It takes time to bring them in, to taken them and give them experiences. You cant learn from just reading something. You have to have experience. About the equality and also what my other colleagues said about the impact of currentd decisions ten years down the road. But i do think the Foreign State Department<\/a> needs a combination of the organization and rethinking in one respect in the military are used to dealing with this strategy because they have to have an ultimate objective and the pentagon is organized to make decisions in a conceptual framework. The state department is more organized to have conversation and the various officials according to the office and their experience abroad. Much of the time they have to deal with immediate, current problems and so they have a tendency to look for the immediate solution and not so much for the strategic outcome. Of course, there are great exceptions and i would think the organization of the state department that leads more systematically to Strategic Thinking<\/a> and less preoccupation with the very immediate problem would be highly desirable and its no reflection on the people that are there now and it has to do with the nature of Foreign Policy<\/a> as it has evolved. What would that mean, henry, to do everything we can to improve the stature of the policy planning staff they are supposed to be thinking strategic strategically with the secretary and over the years there have been some outstanding kinds of that and not some good but the ingredient. I say problem is mixed and by making sure that every action also went to the policy planning staff at the department understood but i think also in the training is important and in the issues which they have to address there is some more systematic opportunity to deal with grand strategies. In addition to what they already do well which is the daytoday management. Im afraid, mr. Chair, we could use lessons in shortterm versus longterm strategy as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your very distinguished service to our country. I am curious and i like to begin with secretary scholz and if either of you gentlemen have a thought on it i would appreciate it. With regard to Nuclear Deterrence<\/a> and the approach we have taken specifically with regard to russia there appears to be a thought within the Russian Military<\/a> that there is an interest in being able to escalate in order to deescalate and the use of low yield Nuclear Weapons<\/a> in some cases particularly in their region and my question is in your analysis which is the greater deterrent for us that should be brought to bear. Should we have the overwhelming force of a highyield capability only or should we have both the highyield capability as well as the ability to respond in like kind and with the russians take the threat of an immediate retaliation to be greater if we had both options available to us . As i said earlier it seems to me the idea of a low yield Nuclear Weapon<\/a> is a mirage. Its a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. It has all kinds of aspects to it and even at low yield we would have huge damage immediately and radiation and so on and invites escalation. My own opinion is i think to see people start peering out how they can use Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and that is what it amounts to because they their use is so potentially devastating. You get an escalation going on a Nuclear Stage<\/a> going and it can be ruinous to the world. Easily. Would you disagree with an analysis that concludes that russia would actually use a low yield Nuclear Weapon<\/a> as a response to a conventionali conflict . What the russians will do, i dont know. I read that they are developing what they call a low yield weapon and i think its a mirage but if they wind up using one it will lead to an escalation and maybe the best deterrent is for them to know that. I think the better way to go about it with russia is to put a stop sign to the kind of thing theyve been doing and say no, lets gete back to where we can talk together in a sensible way and we were able to do that before. We had very fruitful exchanges with the soviets, not just with grove chopped but across the board and we got a lot accomplished as a result. If we were able to get back to that kind of thing then this time we can reach out to others and try to move the ball ahead on getting rid of these weapons. Thank you. As a historical tidbit here we actually had man portable Nuclear Weapons<\/a> at one time in our inventory but we came to the conclusion that a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> is a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> and we also had rate deal of success as secretary scholz in the inf discussions in 1983 when germans wanted inf what weapons that wanted technical nukes to plant soviets thrust through the gap. This has been upanddown the bible several different times. I think the russians and the americans come to the same conclusion that you uttered. Nuclear weapon is a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. You cant control it. Thank you. Im curious that today we talked about a number of different occasionlocations that are in h, europe, some pacific with china, middle east and get during this entire discussion there has been no discussion about the continent of africa and the continent of south america and im curious if in regard to our diplomatic efforts and so forth and the opportunities that are there i think about it because i know that senator and half has been one of those individuals has been very active in africa have beenms made 156 different country visits to africa that im aware ofan in the emphasis that is there it seems to me we are wide open for the opportunity for not only goodwill but for the creation of cooperative partnerships in both south america and in africa and i like your thoughts in terms of the importance of those two continents and why it is that in the middle of a strategic discussion we havent mentioned either one of them soer far. Your microphone and please. I think your point is right on as i said earlier. I think in countries the explosion of population is likely to come from and i think for various reasons that is where the migration is likely to come from. If you have constructive relationships they are maybe we can help create conditions where people are less anxious to be and that is, i think, the best way of dealing with the migration issue. I agree with you. As far as south america and Central America<\/a> and mexico are concerned i remember when i took Office President<\/a> reagan said Foreign Policy<\/a> starts in our neighborhood. If you buy house and you look at the house but you also say whats the neighborhood and its a good neighborhood you buy the house and if it isnt, youif wont. So we worked very hard to bring mexico into north america and finally with nafta mexico became part of north america. That worked wonderfully. Not only in economic terms but it gave you the basis for talking about many, many other things, terrorism problems, environment problems and all kinds of issues that come along and you develop a friendly, easy and relationship. The three amigos comes to mind. All of this is positive about a neighborhood and its been a very hard thing for me to see us denouncing mexico and trying to break it up because this is our neighborhood and this is where we live. We were working well. We worry about we say oh their drug gangs are coming over andre where do they come from . They come from the war on drugs in the United States<\/a> and thats where the money comes from and after the guns come from and thats where the incentive comes from so i think we ought to look at the war on drugs or self what we are doing and at the same time obviously our neighborhood deserves attention and not just mexico and Central America<\/a> butd on south and some good things happening in some bad things happening down south but this is where we live. Thank you. My time is could i make a point on the Nuclear Deterrent<\/a> issue . Guesser. Ive been part of this discussion since 1950 and my original reaction to the problems of massive retaliation was to see the tactical Nuclear Weapons<\/a> might provide a substitute or an alternative and at that time i came to the conclusion that has been presented to you that the distinction could not be drawn in any manner that was [inaudible] at the time. Now we are moving into an area in which apparently relatively smaller tactical weapons are being considered by opponents and of course i would recommend a solution but its familiarized if this happens and this becomes and if this is our only then all our nuclear that we will face again the same dilemmas we had with massive retaliation and so while i would like to maintain a dividing line between nuclear and Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and while ie would be highly desirable if some agreements could be made that would have influences if the Technology Developed<\/a> in such a way that other major countries possess them we should think carefully before we put ourselves in a tenable situation in an allout nuclear [inaudible] thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Doctor kissinger its an honor to have you here and thank you for your service in providing the wisdom today. Mr. Armory talked about having the means in china they have the means but not the desire to attack us. My question to you is based on your long years of study on china and the book he wrote on china what does china want . It has developed out of along culture and this is my assessment based on my observations. We in the best tradition think that for a country to be determinate it needs to conquer regions and occupy them and i think the historic view is that the chinese while they will use force they are thinking that their impact is through the magnitude of their culture besides her achievement and they will intend to impose and respect rather than do it through a series of military complications but it will be backed by a force with which they tend to demonstrate penalty of opposition. If you look at the conflict in the communist with india and vietnam and to some extent with us they have always aimed at some dramatic demonstration followed by negotiations that benefit from i think the chinese at this moment are proceeding by their culture and they built and wrote concepts that tend to restructure eurasia but not entirely by military conquest but through performance that will lead these countries to look at china as the center kingdom. For us [inaudible] activity by any country over eurasia is a potential threat to our security so the issue in my mind is is it part of to have such a competition by political means with the backing of the military force that may be needed but that we first have to know what we consider threats to our security and how we convey that to china. In china, in my opinion there are two schools of thought probably. One of the police that a type of conflict would risk everything that they have achieved and would even in the long run be very difficult to manage and another one that thanks that america is basically on the decline and that therefore no attention needs to be paid to our strategic overtures and that they can simply plow ahead. Not in the military way primarily but in a way that challenges the system and that seems to me to be the key issue in our relationships with china. And i think it is of great importance that we attempt a conversation a permanent relationship in which we decide we will not settle our complex by military means and that we will take account of the others point of view and also make clear that [inaudible] in the end a conflict will happen. So, this is of possible problem and it depends on how we conduct our [inaudible] in both countries are evolving in a new direction. China after several is reentering the International System<\/a> and america is dealing with not only what we discussed here but i have been very much concerned with the impact of Artificial Intelligence<\/a> and the whole evolution of science in which scientists are runningng y ahead of what the political world has been able to absorb and so how do those trends it seems to me the key issue in the china relationship and i cannot conceive of a war between china and the United States<\/a>. It will not do to the world what it did to europe and so that should be in the minds of both leaders but it may not be and if it isnt then we will have to look to our interest and we must always abdicate to have the ability to prevail in such a conflict. I now understand my generations of the United States<\/a> president s have sought your counsel. That was brilliant and i appreciaterint it. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Ma chairman. Senator scott. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to the panel for being this morning. Mr. Schultz. Ic im done here on the kid side. Thank you for your service to our country. I was very interested in your comments about threats that we havent seen before. I think specifically about your comment with new threats would be small, smart, cheap and very gleeful. I combined together your comments about drones with new technology and a new gene editing advancements caring unique and specific biological weapons and how do we create a National Strategy<\/a> around these new emerging threats the world has never seen before . I think its a very hard questionio and in our own little workout at the institution were trying to address it. Were trying to say to ourselves what is going to be the impact of this on us and what will be the impact on russia and china and iran and so on in south america and around the world. After we try to figure way through those things we look at how we position ourselves in this new kind of world to be effective and be effective in advancing our interest and taking care of our own population. But the threat of pandemics coming from Climate Change<\/a> as lucy shapiro brings out in her paper. Read that paper. I read that paper and called her up and said lizzie, i just read your paper and i am shivering. Its very compelling stuff but there are also things that you can live with this new technology that she talks about that will help us and so i think we ought to be pursuing these things very aggressively. Sir. Ank you, i would allude to the chairman doctor scholz comments about perhaps having lucy shapiro come talk to us about the importance of the new gene editing opportunities and other new avenues that we will have to explore in the future. Doctor kissinger, i love to ask youst question. I want to underline mr. Chairman that you ought to get lucy to come here and talk. She is so smart and she so much fun and she will light up the place but show you can learn a lott from her. You guys have been engaging and very intelligent. Thank you for being here. Doctor kissinger, this morning i had the privilege of having breakfast with one of your high school mates, chairman Alan Greenspan<\/a> said hello. My question for you,r. Sir, is when you talk about the economic sanctions against russia specifically energy sanctions as a way of impacting their aggressive behavior. Russia is, in my view, another strong country. Russia is a weak country with a large military establishment and a very determined leadership. Russia has a presented historically a dual challenge to itself into the world and it covers 11 time zones and has involved in every region of the world and has no natural borders. It has always been attended to expand to extend its security. On the other hand it has proven in human moments of history that it stood up to the mongols and the threat of [inaudible] and to the germans and preserved the freedom of the world by the willingness to suffer for their independence. So when i talk about [inaudible] i tried to recognize both of these factions aspects. We need a cooperative russia for the peace of the world because of its dreams but we wont have an exclusive russia that seeks to impose its domination on neighboring countries so what we face is dual [inaudible]. Sanctions are, of course, a normal weapon but one cannot accept the notion that russia has a right to hold the ukraine by its own unilateral decision. But an effort to be not to break up russia but to retain russia in the system in some fashion so i agree with the concept of sanctions but i would also think now how to bring russia back into a community of nations concept or even cooperative relationship with the United States<\/a> and i met Vladimir Putin<\/a> ten years ago and at that time the issue was the aggregation of the Missile Defense<\/a> which i had been involved. At that time it was months before 911 and Vladimir Putin<\/a> said im not so into the Missile Defense<\/a> agreement. Im interested in radical islam and i want to know whether its possible to have a Strategic Partnership<\/a> with america going from iran to macedonia. That sort of thing is always in the back of my mind but there it also in the front of their mind the environment so my answer to your question is i would reluctantly agree to sanctions but i would now look for a way to see whether we can endure a meaningful dialogue in the context that i mentioned even keeping in mind some of the absolutely unacceptable things they did during our Election Campaign<\/a> and that we would be [inaudible] further but i would now think in the restructuring of the world that i tried to indicate weekend make an effort to have a dialogue with russia. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. To senator warren. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for being here today and for your history of service. Secretary scholz and secretary kissinger you, along with secretary former defense bill perry, and former senator of Armed Service<\/a> Committee Chairman<\/a> sam nunn have formed a group of former senior nationalrn securiy officials who have warned about the risk of Nuclear Proliferation<\/a> together you have called for a global effort to reduce reliance on Nuclear Weapons<\/a> in 2007 the four of you wrote we endorse setting the goal of a world free of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal. Today in this hearing we have talked about russia and russias Nuclear Policy<\/a> but i want to ask about americas Nuclear Policy<\/a>. In the coming weeks the Trump Administration<\/a> will release its Nuclear Policy<\/a> review which is rumored to call for new Nuclear Weapons<\/a>nd capability, more usabe nukes in expanded conditions under which the United States<\/a> would contemplate using a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. S secretary scholz, do you continue to believe that the United States<\/a> should reduce its reliance on Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and if so why do you believe that would be in our National Security<\/a> interest . I think the use of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> is your mic on . Sees me. I think the use of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> would promote an exchange and would be devastating to our planet. I continue to believe that we should be trying to eliminate them. We were getting there for a while and that has stopped and now are problem is proliferation. This is a new problem we have to work at it and work at it hard. Thank you. Specifically you have recommended that we change the posture of our employed weapons to increase warning time and that we eliminate the class of short range Nuclear Weapons<\/a> that are designed to be Forward Deployed<\/a> and how would taking steps like that to reduce the risk of miscalculation that could lead to a Nuclear Exchange<\/a> . Well, actually the intermediate range Nuclear Weapons<\/a> we did deploy in the reagan. And particularly the ones that we deployed in germany i think was the train point in the cold war. But we agreed with the then soviets to eliminate them so that whole class of weapons was eliminated. I read now the russians are in the process of violating that agreement and i have no knowledge but thats what i read in the papers but i think thats an ominous development. I agree very much with what henry was saying earlier. We need to somehow put a stop sign to the aggressive behavior of russia and try to include them in a constructive dialogue. We then can expand to other countries and try to get a joint enterprise going that would have the objective of getting Nuclear Weapons<\/a> out of the world. Thank you. Thats very helpful. I appreciate your answer. One other topic i would like to ask you about it last year the Trump Administration<\/a> sought aic significant cut to the funding to the department of state and many of us arend concerned about reports of turmoil as the state department, low morale and investor ships that have lasted unfilled and senior career diplomats who are resigning in large numbers and i know senator reid asked about morale at the state department but i want to ask a question from a different point of view. W. The world still looks to be united for leadership and i am concerned that we are increasingly not there to answer the call. Let me ask secretary kissinger and secretary scholz what impact does the Trump Administration<\/a>s apparent downsizing of the state department have on our National Security<\/a> and on advancing our interests around the world . Would you like to start, doctor kissinger . I dont look at the state and primarily in terms of its size. I would look at it in terms of missions. Of course its mission should be to supply as with a correct analogy of where we are functioning of developing a group of people that can take strategically sidebyside with the pentagon. This must have a minimum and i would not make downsizing in the abstract a principal objective. If one looks at the organization of the state department they are a lot of special assistants andn sort of technical assignments that can probably be dispensed with. I have not thought the size of the state department is the principal obstacle to Foreign Policy<\/a>. Doctor scholz i think we should stab it staff it to the level we think is needed for our general Foreign Policy<\/a>. I think this year is a little, its too dramatic. Thank you. Secretary scholz. You told me earlier when we discussed this that the cuts that were proposed have let them go to congress and congress has limited them greatly which i welcome. I think it is essential that we have a strong Foreign Service<\/a> to do the kind of analytical work that henry was talking about and have the capacity to have execution is to in a strong analytical group. I added when i was secretary a lot of work on the Security Side<\/a> and an odd way as an economist i had a council of Economic Advisor<\/a> that it seems to me that i was getting people who knew a lot about subjects. We had a little cea in the state department but that is just a Small Organization<\/a> rearrangement. I thinkng we need a strong state department and as rich was saying earlier its particularly important to have a strong inflow of talent because these are the people ten or 15 years from now to be looking to you got to bring them in and train them and give them experience and they will not learn from books. They have to have experience out in the field. Thats what they got. Thats essential to keep going. Thank you, senator moran mac senator sullivan. Gentlemen, thank you for your decades of service and being here. I apologize, the only thing that would keep me away from the hearing was my presiding duties of the senate so i just had to go preside for the last hour but im glad i made it back in time to ask a few questions it is great to see all of you again. Really the whole panel or two former secretaries of state, you know, there has been a lot of focus, doctor kissinger, as you mentioned in your testimony on the immediate challenge of north korea and the Trump Administration<\/a> is pretty much put out a redline and i think they call it that and maybe theyve not called it that but they are not going to allow the north korea to have the capability of an intercontinental Ballistic Missile<\/a> with the Nuclear Weapon<\/a> on top. And yet, that redline is either already been crossed in terms of some intel analyst for will be crossed soon and so it has led to a discussion among many policy officials and military experts on what is really in some peoples view a coming fork in the road that that is the policy of the administration that they will not allow that. And yet, north korea either hasnt or will havee it soon and the fork in the road is either some kind of preemptive military option to prevent that capability with all its inherent risks or increasingly tight sanctions regime perhaps with the naval blockade that would address clamping down on north korea even more with chinas help hopefully and address the issue you mentioned, doctor kissinger, of proliferation. In your expertise for all the Witnesses Today<\/a> give us your sense of that fork in the road is that of false sense or is that how would you look at this issue given the administration has said we will not allow this and yet it looks like it will happen soon. In terms of the analogies i gave here we will hit the fork in the road. The temptation to deal with it with a preemptive attack is strong and the argument is rational but i have seen no Public Statement<\/a> by any leading official within any event within my own thinking i would be very concerned by a unilateral american war at the borders of china and russia in which we are not supported by a significant part of the world or at least the aging world. If china took an unqualified opposition to Nuclear Program<\/a> then they joined the program with us i think it should be possible to develop the sort of sanctions that are irresistible and that would be my preferred course. On the other hand if it turns out [inaudible] they better get used to the fact that south korea, in my opinion, will not accept being the only korea that has no Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. That will lead to similar trends in japan and then were living in a new world in which technically competent countries withle adequate command structures are possessing Nuclear Weapons<\/a> in an area in which they are considerably national disagreement and that is new and will require new thinking and require rethinking, i believe, over our whole deterrent because right now are deterrent is basically assumed one major enemy when you deal with the world in which there will be multiple possibilities of complex in which we are engaged so that we cannot pull back our strategic weapons and will have to rethink it. I dont know yet in which way and this is why i think this Little Country<\/a> that by itself cannot present an overwhelming [inaudible] and said to us and represents a key issue right now and i support the administration but when we get to your question we have to do some prayerful thinking because it will be to fight a nuclear war at the border of china and russia without some agreement with them alone that is a big decision and im telling you my doubts in my thinking in a policy i agree with putting pressure on north korea and i agree with the statements the administration has made up till now but and i have not stated to that publicly but if you ask me directly what i think of the war with korea this is what i think. Secretary scholz, secretary, any thoughts on that important. I think henry has given a very thoughtful statement. I would say be careful with redlines. I remember at the start of world war ii im a boot in the marine corps and i remember the day the sergeant handed me my rifle and he said take good care of this rifle. This is your best friend. Ke remember one thing, never point this rifle at anybody unless youre willing to pull the trigger. No empty threats. Empty threats destroy you. I would be very careful in drawing redlines and apply that if someone messes with them there will be a nuclear war and i agree entirely with henry here that we should be working with china and perhaps russia and perhaps particularly in as it dawns on everybody what is potentially happening here is what happened exactly with what henry said. A proliferation of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and thats not comfortable for china and i think if we could work constructively with china on this we might have i cantbe help but believe i know its been a while but my own experience like henrys has been that you can work constructively with the chinese and after all they are losing population and there plenty of problems and their gdp. Capital is not high and they want to raise it and theyre not going to raise it by turning their backs on the rest of the world. They will raise it by interacting and being part of it. Mr. Secretary. Senator, im in the position of the guy who says everything that can be said has been said just not by me. Im going to forgo the temptation. Mr. Chairman, can i seek the indulgence of you in the witnesses for one final question . Yes. Thank you. Doctor kissinger, you mentioned in regard to china as the rise of y china and insight your testimony when you mentioned that china in the sense of history the is never conceived or nation is more of a tributary to the centrality of its power and culture. I was wondering in that regard theres an issue that a number of us have been focused on and is the basic principle of reciprocity and it seems that increasingly in our relationship with china us and other countries there seems to be a lack of reciprocity and how they operate and how we operate meaning of that there are many things that china does here that if you were an american citizen and american journalist and american diplomat in American Company<\/a> you cannot do the same thingme in china and that goes acrossss the Broad Spectrum<\/a> of Foreign Investment<\/a> in the comel here and they buy American Companies<\/a> in all kinds of sectors and we couldnt do that over there. They have that thousands of socalled journalist in our country and we couldnt do that over there and could you comment just on this issue given your decades long experience with china and how this issue of reciprocity which a number of us are starting to focus on is a key principle in our relationship and it should be something that we could do but it doesnt seem something there currently interested in and does that reflect your comments and your testimony about them never really perceiving a foreign nation as an equal in the long history of that country . The history of the country sort of forms its character to some extent. China didnt have a Foreign Ministry<\/a> until 1911. 41911 foreignpolicy was conducted by something called the ministry of rituals which placed the foreign country in a hierarchy visavis china so that as part of their thinking. On the other hand, we have seen that president xi in last year presented a sort of global view and i believed china has done the principles of sovereignty and equality and will be the governing one and the natural [inaudible] to some extent is in the back of the mind and in my experience they are compulsive students in the analyze the problem with enormous character to which our approach is usually pragmatic. We have all this allusion and the chinese approach is usuallyu no problem gets finally solved in every solution has an admission to another problem. If you could read us when we talk is how do you marry a conceptual of approach of the chinese with the pragmatic approach of i think the chinese are confident now of [inaudible]. At the same time, i believe it is likely that the leadership realizes that it is very difficult if not impossible for them to carry out the domestic changes in an atmosphere of cold war with the United States<\/a>. Therefore i have believed that at least an attempt should be made to see whether we could come to some understanding of the limit of outcome towards each other and if possible where we can operate cooperatively but if you look at the road if it progresses it will go across many great civilizations and not all of them will adhere to that automatically so they should be an occasion for the United States<\/a> to develop its concept. The chinese stay with a lot of flexibility even to scope but when there is no flexibility and a contest of wills we have to be aware of the fact that it would have catastrophic consequenceswo for the world and that it is hard to see who can win with modern weapons, with new weapons with one no experiences with and like george described this is what drives my thinking on china. I recognize the scope and history and they are a powerful force in the world and we cant and we have to be sure to be understanding of what our role is in the world and develop a longrange dialogue that doesnt change every four years and the capacity to deal with it. A part of that is, of course, that any lasting structure must have reciprocity. Maybe not in every individual field but the perception of the act must be that the relationship is reciprocal. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you this has been overwhelming to us and to be able to hear from you and this is better than it was back in 2015. Thank you for your patience and for wisdom. Youve done a Great Service<\/a> to america. Thank you so much. We are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] you would thank you would have done this before. Hes the good guy. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800106.us.archive.org\/20\/items\/CSPAN2_20180201_203100_Fmr_Secs._of_State_Kissinger__Shultz_on_Global_Challenges\/CSPAN2_20180201_203100_Fmr_Secs._of_State_Kissinger__Shultz_on_Global_Challenges.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20180201_203100_Fmr_Secs._of_State_Kissinger__Shultz_on_Global_Challenges_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240630T12:35:10+00:00"}