The 2019 Chicago Council survey conducted june 7 to the 20 among more than 2000 americans reveals americans are rejecting retreat. In fact, much of what has underpin u. S. On policy for decades remains widely popular. Again this year seven in ten americans its best the United States takes an active part in World Affairs. Majorities believe i like this, military strength, promoting democracy and human rights, and participating in International Organizations takes the u. S. Safer, not weaker. 78 say washington should maintain or increase its commitment to nato and majorities who support using just troops to defend nato allies in south korea. More americans than ever endorsed the benefits of International Trade both the u. S. Economy and u. S. Companies. At the same time partisan divisions are growing with the threat posed by immigration, Climate Change and the rise of china. Americans may be searching for a new way to make sense of the world, but these results clearly show they reject retreat. To find that what else the public is thinking, export the full report at the Chicago Council. Org survey. Good morning and welcome to the wilson center. I hope you like her movie i do think you will really like this event, Chicago Council, engage or retreat . American views on u. S. Foreign policy. Im jane harman the president and ceo of the wilson center. Under former nine term member of congress, and happy to be here, a place where we engage in bipartisan civil conversation, deep research, and active thinking about the future of our world. And in that spirit, let me introduce the fifth, fifth time that evil doll dollar and Chico Council here to release the survey of American Public opinion. Ivo daalder. The Great Partnership and in the parlance of the support and prior reports, its an enduring alliance. Its also reassuring, certainly to me, to learn the good news in this report, that americans by huge bipartisan, huge bipartisan margins, continue to support an active u. S. Role in Foreign Policy and World Affairs. Much of the vision for that role, a little brag here, started with Woodrow Wilson, r28 president , for whom this center is named, who served as president a century ago. Downstairs in the memorial hall, which you all pass through, wilsons words are on the wall. Part of the quotes say this, it is a fearful thing to lead these people into work, but the right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we always carried nearest to our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority have a voice in their own government. For universal dominion of right by such a concert of free people as and i shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself, at last, free. That was wilsons vision a century ago. He tried hard. He died trying, literally, but 100 years later we are still struggling with the challenges that he raised. At times like this, as the audience in this auditorium and online knows, this center and the Chicago Council and cnas, forgot to introduce richard, and the Trilateral Commission, about to introduce richard, are needed more than ever to connect the scholarship and thought leadership to the global challenges. So welcome to our panel today, especially to our dear friend and repeat presenter, ambassador ivo daalder. Ivo, i think i told you i was in brussels about a month ago and i stayed with our current ambassador to nato, k bailey hutchison, the former member from texas, and on the wall was ivo daalder. Weve had a succession of great ambassadors to nato including her. She has a tougher breed i would say but shes there and no one should forget, no one to back days before 9 11 that on 9 11 without being asked, data and vote article v and was ready to come to our common defense. So also here are Richard Fontaine, ive been hinting about button, Richard Fontaine is the fairly newly minted head of cnas, we all know that, and also executive director for north american Trilateral Commission, which is a group that many of you heard of it im involved with it. Im on its executive committee but its back in time to play more active role in international affairs. And finally we have a woman who knows everything, Chicago Council senior fellow deana smeltz who will amplify parts of the report. The program is that i sit down, which im going to do right now, and asking questions to elicit some of their views and then guess what, we want the smartest audience in the world, that would be you, ask some questions. Not make speeches but identify yourself and ask questions. I see in the audience a wilson councilmember, michael waller, who is a great consumer of our stuff and as i hope all you you are. So welcome to this panel, and lets get going. Ivo, as this is our fifth rodeo, i think, theres some dispute about the four of this, but we decided its the fifth rodeo, i am recalling all of the reports, all your good reports all said basically the same thing, the same thing that americans by overwhelming majorities want a robust and assertive u. S. Foreign policy. In the five years, or four years, since we started doing this, without a change in government and a change in many of our government policies. Yet, by and large Public Opinion has stayed pretty constant. Why do you think this is . I think the public as a basic view about how the trend it needs to engage and it hasnt really changed, you do, from the cold war into the postcold war into whatever period we live in now. I dont think i want to characterize it anyway other than to say its different. And that is, that fundamentally have bought into what we now call the sort of postwar rulesbased International Order and an american role within it as the leader of that order. Not only as a country that has created it but continues to shape and maintain an International Order based on three fundamental principles, and this poll once again reaffirms americas commitment to those principles. Number one, that we engage the world in Security Affairs through allies and alliances, and we have u. S. Public supporting appliances now at greater levels than at any time in the 45 years that weve been pulling, including that organization we just talked about, nato. U. S. Support, public support for nato in order to maintain or increase the use commitment to nato is not at its highest level in 45 years. U. S. Support for nato as an essential to American Security in size since we first asked the question in 2002. U. S. Support for alliances in asia and in the middle east remains extremely high, as does the question of whether the u. S. Should use its troops to defend its allies. In all his ways Public Opinion remains robustly supportive of alliances. The second way which we try to maintain this order pursuant open Economic System based on the concept of trade. And again, the u. S. Public is more supportive of trade now that it has been adding time weve asked questions about trade, including on the bleep trade is good for the American Economy. 87 of americans, thats, thats a large number, 87 of americans think that trade is good for the u. S. Economy and its good for american companies. And then finally one of of the things we did in this report, weve been asking the question which actually comes from dallas so goes back to 1946, should the United States plan active role in the World Affairs or should it stay away from gallup this year as last year weve reached near record high, 69 think we should play an active role. Weve then ask what you mean by an active role . What does it, when we say, when you say an active role, does it include or exclude the following year it includes things like alliances, military security, International Trade agreements. The third most important is promoting democracy and human rights. Still the fundamentally the United States has to be the beacon for freedom and the beacon for democracy and human rights. Not necessarily to do so through the use of military force but as an idea that is central to americas role in the world, democracy and human rights, along with trade and alliances are the three fundamental pillars of policy. For my watching a different movie . I mean, in the last several years ive seen statements from senior government officials whoever they may be that casts some doubt on whether we are truly committed to nato and if they dont pay their full share, may be one not, and we are now moving money away from military construction to pay for a wall, we expect nato allies to make up the difference to the extent some of the projects were in their countries. In spite of all that, the American Public stays constant and they are not i do not buy into that or are they just tuning that out or why is this happening. They are rejecting it in a ia very fundamental way. The idea that our engagement is a transactional gain as opposed to based on the concept of leadership is rejected. Two very important findings. When you ask as we have, do you think alliances in europe or asia or the middle east benefit mostly the allies, mostly ourselves, or are mutually beneficial . Large majority says there either mutually beneficial or benefit the United States. So if youre european alliances get supported 65 , or benefit the United States, only 20 of americans think what the president thinks, which is better beneficial only for the allies. The same is true on trade, asked the question, do you think trade is useful for those were trading with, us, or for both . Overwhelmingly, the answer is both. This idea of a transactional reliance, transactional relationship where we do stuff in return for payment, whether it is nato payment or something else, as opposed to we do stuff because its in the mutual interest of the both of us, when when rather than winlose, is fundamental to the american conception of our goal. Either way, it has been for 75 years if the president is trying to move away from that and as far as we can tell he is not succeeding with the American Public when it comes to Foreign Policy. Dina, did you want to add something . Exactly what he said but also weve been tracking over the past three years since trump has been in office and, in fact, you might expect some of the America First type of policies to get more traction but instead we seem to opposite. With even higher numbers of americas americans dousing alliances are mutually beneficial. The supermajority the sake trade benefits u. S. Companies, this economy and relations with the United States and other countries. So its even underscoring what they have always said over the last 40 years, 45 years. Let me probe that more with you after turn to richard but i want to ask you one thing. The trump base is more or less constant about 39 ish, if you do the math with the support that some of these policies have. They have more support him if the trump supports trump and trumps policies, and thats 39 , out of 82 82 support sof the other stuff that you just talking about . Well, the loudest part of the elite on the trump side, and the activists that leave the same thing, they are louder and the ticket more space in the media and in the public discourse. But, so they still captured that portion of the trump vote. And they care more perhaps about some of these issues than the average american who doesnt always have the time and attention to pay to thinks about alliances. But thats with issues like immigration and Climate Change we are going to get to those. There are some that are divisive that are single issues, which might attract some voters or actually that might be what they are most engaged about. Right, but as we had to 9 11, the 18th anniversary, an issue like native is on my mind because what native was prepared to do. And its the only time nato involved article five. Nick burns was in our ambassador of native, we had a slew of excellent ambassadors, runs the Foreign Policy group for the Aspen Institute on which i served, nick burns that he didnt ask turkey was just told we are invoking article v. So thats pretty darn amazing. So richard, we havent talked about congress, and you did work there in one lifetime for hero of mine named john mccain two lifetimes. Whose voice is one us right now. I would just like you to think about john mccain and what john mccain taught so many of us about Foreign Policy. For anyone who missed this movie, this is another movie, john mccain was the leader of many congressional delegations on international trips. I would not at least ten of his coattails to the Munich Security Conference in munich germany in favor odell test and ive attended it another decade since. The john mccain, among other things was the pied piper of Foreign Policy for congress and he taught all of us have to think about a world and its challenges. So we could come be helpful just because i think it fills up some of what were learning here for you to tell us about that and also tell us about what you are doing at cnas and doing at the Trilateral Commission and how a person outside this report thinks about what the of just achieved. Well, i think some of the findings in this particular report would coincide with where senator mccain came down in terms of americas role in the world. Ivo touched on this, but since the end of world war ii there had been kind of three animating principles of u. S. Foreign policy, to keep the peace we would have strong alliances underwritten by the forward deployment of american troops come to increase prosperity would have an open international Economic System undergirded by free trade, then to support the forces of freedom, when possible, we would have a bias in favor of democratic systems as opposed to autocrats. And the debate between republicans and democrats and conservatives and liberals is more about how you do these things, id make the tradeoffs, when to brace from the autocrats versus democracy movement, how big of military do need . Not really whether we do this thinks that i think weve gotten to a time when theres a lot of questioning at the most senior level about whether those of the right principles. They are really could have like this. It would get a free trade or should we all be tariff people . Is a good to promote democracy or should we just woke our noses in places where its not welcome . The findings of this seem to support the traditional view. And, of course, munich into the argument about how to do it all and Everything Else but is not a reputation. Its not the fundamental question of the special that you might guess from our policies at our political discourse now. The fact there does seem to be though the public feeling one way and our policymakers, not just the president but a lot of Democratic Candidates and others who seem to be in a different place, suggest to me that is not just the sheer numbers but also the intensity of the feeling and get among minorities. On both ends of the spectrum. Trade is a perfect example of this. Raise your hand if you feel the cost associate with the aluminum tariffs . Probably nobody can feel that although there is a cost. Lets try that. Does anyone feel those costs . For those watching online, it was like when hitler but if you work in the aluminum industry and you are going to lose your job, even though the cost to the American Economy keeping the job was 700,000, and thats certainly not your salary, and you feel it a lot more strongly and youre more likely to vote on the issue, or likely to lobster government on this issue, or likely to mobile on the issue than the rest of us who dont feel it. That is a relevant factor as we think to all of this. So if john mccain were still in the senate, i wish you were, what what we tv saying rt now . He would probably be on a plane to afghanistan right now, and i think he would be i think be one to a couple of things. One, as he did, frankly, until his passing a year ago, one is, if we adopt the policy retrenchment, retreat, disengagement, whatever you want to call it, what comes next . Is it true that if the United States steps back with its military, diplomatically, economically, to friendly locl step up in a burden sharing fill the gap into things in our interest that we would otherwise prefer not to do . I think the answer is no. I think his answer would be no. Is it the case we can just get out of afghanistan, for example, and as the taliban for assurances they will behave and they will treat women and girls perfectly, that they will not overthrow the government, will not perform century for isis an and alqaeda . We could have it all. We dont have to be there and we can have what we want out of that, and against the interest no. And then that puts a set of requirements on the United States for engagement, but that then gets back to the more traditional internationalist Foreign Policy that so many of our political leaders say today