Transcripts For CSPAN2 Aspen Security Forum Discussion With

CSPAN2 Aspen Security Forum Discussion With Former National Security Advisers July 12, 2024

Senior counsel at omalley and myers. He serves as a National Security advisor for obama and also headed the obama biden transition of he is a veteran of many democratic campaigns and of course serves on multiple. [inaudible] steve hadley served as the National Security advisor for resident george w. Bush from 2005 to 2009. Hes a deputy from 2001 to 2000 vibrant he is now a partner in a great little Consulting Firm called. [inaudible] also the chairman of the u. S. Ip and involved in just about as many bipartisan causes as one can be in washington d. C. So thank you steve for all the bipartisan work that you are doing. And here to interview both of them we have jim shoot a which is achieved National Security correspondent, we all see him on tv throughout the middle east and the arctic. He has a book out coming out next week with his virtual book tour called the mad man theory which i just looked at online jim and it looks fascinating although not a very relaxing beach read. But we all look forward to reading it that comes out next week. And let me just say steve and tom we have had conversations about the cold panoply of issues facing our nation. And no matter who is elected in november, by january 2021 when the next president is inaugurated. We will still have the pandemic crisis, the economic crisis as well as all of the issues facing our country. We were in the green room and we are talking about in the form so far weve had a lot of conversation about china and asia. Its a lot of conversation and top of mind theres a lot of conversation about iran with talk less about russia. We have talked less about alliances, less about whats going on in the developing world. So i will open it to jim to discuss any topic he wants but if you like to touch him as im sure our audience will live to hear about them. Thank you so much. Thank you anya, and to steven and tom the real honor to be grouped with you. Seven years as National Security advisor but of course many years be on that in government and dealing with these interactions which im sure many folks listen today both steve and tom have proven themselves not only smart and knowledgeable but also very fair and openminded. I certainly always appreciated that. So i look forward to hearing your insights on so many of the things today. I only wish we were in aspen. [laughter] its the year of the endless zoom call so here we find ourselves together. I want to just begin is to imagine yourself back in your roles as National Security advisors to the next president or a reelected president. In a meeting with them today after the inauguration of 2021. And what would you lay out to them is the biggest threat that famously barack obama communicated to donald trump 2017 it was north korea. Almost the biggest National Security threat. To picture yourselves in that position the day after the inauguration 2021. What would you say to the reelected president or the new president is the biggest threat to the country. And what would you recommend how would you lay out the world to them in that conversation . Be brief if you can. Tom, if i could start with your just because you happen to be next me on the window. Nnc. Thank you and thank you anna for the introduction. Jim got to get the book a little more centered in the picture here so people can see it there. There we go. [laughter] okay. I have a couple of responses to that question. One is, sitting here today, i hope we move to the challenge we have in front of his here which is we are going to very important moment in our democracy and that is to have a competent and vibrant election was an agreedupon outcome the next president whoever that is. The leadership in the world, really in many ways dependent on our being and being seen. Confident as a very important part is a place in the world the authority in the world from world war ii until today. Hopefully we can get through that moment. On generate 20 us, we both have these sessions i would have two or three things even if its a National Security briefing has to be in domestic renewal and meaning we are still going to be i think the tripartite challenge and health and social justice. Veloso be going into this next year for sure. That requires a definite agenda for the country. We both written about this, its a sharply targeted smart investment agenda can address a number of the challenges we have. Including the economic challenges. Including china, i will come back to that im sure during the course of this discussion. Second would be and what will be i think the most important Diplomatic Security challenge as far as the eye can see in this century would be to develop a comprehensive roach with respect to china for a no we will come back to that. I fear we are to reactive and defensive right and every were using all the elements of National Power and his National Security advisor to the next president. These are the up the approach of the china challenge if possible. Theyve gotten have not gotten a lot of attention but certainly my mind if i gave this briefing next to be cyber. We dont talk about a lot as of late, if you look at the director of National Intelligence threat assessment for the last five or six years that is at the top of the list is even greater today. I say that for a number of reasons including by the way exemplified by the way which we are having this meeting today. We have a lot of our Nations Online right now and virtually with all kinds of vulnerability. We have increased tensions with states that have a high caliber cyber capability like iran, china, russia, we have an entire new area of a tax base and growing in the internet of things. Some are not really structured i think the way we should be in the white house on this. I will be looking at nonproliferation as well. I heard it was touched on during the course of the session to date. Which could end up with more countries and more Nuclear Weapons. This would include obviously moving to re up the new start treaty. I think three courts today on the un making progress on its program during the dependency of the negotiations with the administration for it iran is closer to a Nuclear Weapon that was two or three years ago. And i dont think were working hard enough on Raw Materials and locking that down the way we should. And the last couple would be an important focus, the United States is kind of been out of the climate addressing the Climate Policy gains for the last three and a half years. Thats not where the world is right now though. Look at the investment world, talk to europeans and even more so increasing in asia, climate is the front of the agenda. Increasingly they see the climate risk as an investment risk and we certainly should see that as a risk here. One of the great kind of firestorms is in the emerging world. We obviously have to deal with our issues here. Going forward in the emerging world and they are in the middle of a perfect storm of coveted think were going to have the debt crisis will require a lot of international work. And last maybe we can talk about that on january at whatever time the president comes in. I had it a little easier than steve. George w. Bush came in very early. Steven. Grews everything tom said. But i think before i got to those. I would have a little conversation. Mr. President was going on the world right now . Why so much chaos . I think i would step through with that all know, the International Order in the International System weve had for the last seven years is really under attack. Under attack for the things we all know through the reemergence of great power, competition, the reemergence of an ideological beast tween authoritative state capitalist in the heart of russian china versus the democrats. New Technology Challenges that are increasingly revolutionizing our world beyond our ability to a cup to cope and adapt. Global challenges like pandemics and we dont seem to be in a position to manage. All of these things are going on. But fundamentally we have a problem here at home. We have a democracy that does not seem to be delivering what democracies deliver. That is the way of life consistent with the highest aspirations of the human spirit. But democracy is to deliver economic and administrative competence. We dont seem to be doing that so well right now. There is a certain crisis of confidence among our people, inner institutions, and our system. If you look internationally our brand does not look so good. And in addition theyve got a little tired of American Leadership always leading the way. If you put all those things together, we are one of these points were the system we lived with is really breaking down. And there always inflection points you have choices. At some the work we have before us isnt going to beat 1919 or 1945 . Are we going to pull back from the world, focus internally, look to our own problems and let the world in some sense deal with that own . Or is it going to be 1945 for he helped found with our friends and allies over International Order. I would hope we would make that second choice. But if we are going to do that we need to fix our institutions at home when need to reconnect with our allies, we need to start kneading and engaging in the world. We need to start revising, adapting international institutions. And we need to start in some sense refreshing our brand in the world and our values in the world. So mr. President , you have a huge task before you. Youve got to address all of the things tom talked about. But we have to somehow explain to the American People what is this moment . And what the most fundamental choice is . And then you have to make a case to the American People that fixing that helm, engaging abroad, and leading the world is still in americas interest. Select thanks for both of you, thoughtprovoking and so many levels. Youre speaking i recall the conversation at aspen i believe it was three years ago. And he raised a concern then, three years ago about the fragility of u. S. Institutions. I had asked him at the time kind of apply your intelligence and brain the often applied to other countries et cetera to look at the u. S. And what concerns you. And thats what concerns him born out in the last several years of crisis of confidence et cetera. So two that point aspen is an continuing conversation. I certainly felt that they are. Okay theres a lot discovered. We will nephew minutes get to participant questions. On the question of russia, tom, and steve and i as you know there is a discussion now often led by the president of another reset, finding a way forward. Had long conversations wishes of the root of a lot of President Trump outreach and conviction that he can somehow get this relationship right. Hes not the first president to believe that. Tom, you first. Is there the groundwork now the potential for somehow improving that relationship with the increasing aggression on so many fronts what your view and then steven ill get yours back ten seconds on your point on jim klappers observation. If you do kind of an old fashion set the United States in the world you would bet on the United States moving forward here for sure. There are challenges and you cant take them for granted. We have issues we have system breakdown have investment issues, we have any quality issues in the United States. We have big policy choices on things like immigration to ensure our demographic advantage Going Forward. Those are choices. We work from a strong base but it cant be taken for granted. With russia a couple of things. Number one is russia is actively hostile to the United States. And you know we have had reporting on the bouncy issue in afghanistan. But it is well be on that. And virtually acrosstheboard , we can talk about the individual. By the way thats not the first incident with afghanistan talking about this publicly with respect to supplying arms with the taliban its actively hostile across the wind. I think that at least the public presentations from Intelligent Committee seems to be unanimous that we expect additional attacks and interference and try to upset the United States elections in 2020, the first one. The second point is United States should address russia for a better position of strength his memoirs called situations of strength United States should build situations of strength in your with respect to russia. And that means, i heard work about ambassador boltons conversation at his form today, speculating whether or not a second term of President Trump would have them pull back from nato. Dividing United States and russia for a long time. In pushing back and not addressing that i think is really quite important. This will depend i think Going Forward here, on russian conduct. I think it would move forward to build additional strength but russian conduct will matter a lot during the course of this election. And i do think that we do in the opportunity cooperation category, we do have an opportunity to go back to the table and renew the new start agreement which provides for a renewal prayer of up to five years at the two sides agree freight for the life of me i dont know why we would do that. We have a discussion going about whether we should have the chinese with a complicated agreement. Thats not on the table right now. But what is on the table is i think to not have a schedule place for the first time in half a century. I think those would be the elements of the approach that i would move forward. Thank you jim. Steven . Stay back i dont disagree with much of that. I think so it needs to be put in a framework. If you are talking to the president and the question is what can we expect of a relationship with russia . What should we be shooting for . I think they are hostile. They are a spoiler almost acrosstheboard. And so what is the kind of relationship we can hope for with the country as a common adversary. I think the american approach to that has really of longstanding administration after administration. And it is not complicated. It is basically to cooperates with potential adversaries where we can. We cooperated with arms control and the worst days of the cold war with the soviet union. Shouldve had a strategic ability conversation with russia developed over these issues. So cooperate where we can. Oppose them and stand up to our principles where it is in our interest to do so. That manage those differences so they dont result into permanent confrontation or military conflicts. That is kind of a formula we have with adversaries. We are off the page with brush on that. The question is can we get russia back on that page. I think a couple things are required. One, they better not interfere this election. They interfere this election as a did with 2016 we are going to into the deep freeze again. Second, we need to try to make progress on beginning to solve ukraine initially addressing the issue. Think theres a possibility there. There is a ceasefire in place shaky though it is. That should be addressed. And again i would try to begin things like a strategic dialogue. But at the same time we have to deter russia from their intervention and interference with the neighbors. Thats a strong relationship with nato. That means more aggressive with ourselves and checking russian behavior. And its not that hard. Putin has been brilliant taking Tactical Advantage of situations and enhancing russia with very modest investments. So it is trying to engage russia in a sensible way. Also deterring and in some sense taking away the free ride russia has had in some areas something we can do the overlap with your analysis and emphasis right . Give a president that disagrees on the fundamental points. One to be the important sanctity of alliances. And that would extend to nato. Were still in it always concerned about leaving it but general questions the president has raised about article three, defending nato partners not just limited to nato. Youve had a weakening of the south Korean Alliance dispute there again over money with the u. S. Withdraw troops as a means of applying pressure. But then again raising questions about the u. S. Nuclear umbrella for japan. You have a Current Administration the immune ability of those of alliances but also the importance of them. I wonder if i could ask both of you what is the lasting damage to those alliances from those questions being raised . Their confidence pieces, right . Confidence is easily lost and difficult to be gauged perhaps start with you on this one. Is there longterm damage can be turned around with a new approach new president . High think it can be turned around whoever is elected whether it is by an or trump i think tom and i will probably disagree a little bit on this. Look, i am less worried about a reelected President Trump pulling out of these alliances. I think there are a lot of people in this administration who understand particularly in a conversation with china the big advantage we have in our system of alliances also plans this is huge youre worried about competition with china the last thing you want to do is throw it away. The presence tried to do is to get the allies to do more. That has been an objective of republican and democratic administrations for the last 20 years. The present has been willing to be much more forthright about it and threatening about it. We can discuss with her that was the right tactics are not in some respects its got some results out of nato i think l

© 2025 Vimarsana