Good morning and welcome to the wilson center. I hope you liked our movie and i think you will really like this event. Chicago council engage or retreat. Im jane harmon, the president and ceo of the wilson center. Im a rm toer nineterm 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. In that spirit, let me introduce the fifth time that evo dalder and the Chicago Council is here. Its a Great Partnership that we have with the Chicago Council and in this report and prior reports its an enduring alliance. Its also reassuring to me to learn the good news in this report. That by 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. Who served as president a century ago. Wilsons words are on the wall. Part of the quotes say this. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war. But the right is more precious than peace. And we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts. For democracy, for the right of those who submit to short in their own government. For a universal dminian of right. But a concert of such at least free. That was wilsons vision a century ago. He tried hard. He died trying, literally. But a hundred years later, were still struggling with the challenges that he raised. And at times like this, as the audience in this auditorium and online knows, this center and the chicago counsel had are needed more than ever to connect deep leadership. Welcome to our panel today. Especially to our dear friend and repeat presenter ambassador evoda dalder. I stayed with our former twoterm member from texas and on the wall was evo dalder. And we have had a succession of great ambassadors to nato including her. She has the tougher brief, id say. But shes there and no one should forget, no one, two days before 9 11 that on 9 11 without being asked nato invoked article five and was ready to come to our defense. Richard fontaine is executive director for north america of the Trilateral Commission. Which is a group many of you have heard of. Im on the executive committee but its back and trying to play a more active role in international affairs. And finally we have the woman who knows everything. Chicago Council Senior fellow who will amplify parts of the report. So the program is that i sit down, which im going to do right now, and ask them questions to illicit some of their views. Then guess what. We want the smartest audience in the world, that would be you, to ask some questions. Not make speeches. But identify yourselves and ask questions. And i see in the audience a Wilson Council member Michael Waller who is a great consumer of our stuff as i hope all of you are. So welcome to this panel. And lets get going. Es vo, as this is our fifth rodeo, i think. Theres some dispute about the fourth or fifth. But weve decided its the fifth rodeo. I am recalling that all your reports, all your good reports, all said basically the same thing. Not identity things, but the same thing. That americans by overwhelming majoriti majorities in the five years or four years since we started doing this, weve had 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 . Well, i think the public has a basic view about how the United States needs to engage. And it hasnt really changed even from the cold war period into the postcold war period to whatever period were living in now. I dont want to characterize it in any way except to say its different. And that is fundamentally has bought into what we now call the sort of what we now call the postwar rules based International Order and an american role within it as the leader of that order. Not only as a country that has created but continues to maintain and shape International Order based on three fundamental principles. 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 opinion supporting alliances now at greater levels than at any time in the 45 years we have been polling, including that organization we just talked about, nato. U. S. Support, public support for nato in order to maintain or increase the u. S. Commitment to nato is now at its highest level in 45 years. U. S. Support for nato as an essential to American Security is the highest 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. So in all of those ways, Public Opinion remains robustly supportive of alliances. The second way in which we have tried to maintain this order is through an open economic system, based on the concept of trade. And, again, the u. S. Public is more supportive of trade now than it has been at any time weve asked questions about trade. Including belief that trade is good for the American Economy. 87 of americans, thats a large number, 87 of americans think trade is good for the u. S. Economy and good for american companies. Finally, one of the we did in this report, weve been asking the question, which comes from gallup so it goes back to 1946, which u. S. Play an active role in Foreign Affairs or stay away . This year as last year, we have reached near record high. 69 of americans think we should play an active role. Then were asked, what do you mean by an active role . When you say an active role does it include or exclude the following . It means alliances, International Trade agreements. The third most important most support is promoting democracy and human rights. Still the fundamental belief that the United States has to be a beacon for freedom and beacon for democracy and human rights. Not necessarily to do so through the uses 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, the three sort of fundamental pillars in Foreign Policy are now as supported as they have ever been in the time ive been asking these questions. So, am i watching a different movie . In the last several years ive seen statements from senior government officials, whoever they may be, that cast some doubt on whether were truly committed to nato and if they dont pay their full share, maybe were not and if were now moving money away from military construction to pay for a wall, we expect nato allies to make up the difference to the extent that some of the projects were in there, in their countries. In spite of all that, the American Public stays constant. And they are not are they not buying into that or theyre just tuning that out or why is this happening . Theyre not only tuning it out but theyre rejecting it. Two very important findings. When you ask, as we have, do you think alliances in europe or in asia or the middle east benefit mostly the allies, mostly ourselves or are mutually beneficial, a large majority says they either are mutually beneficial or benefit the United States. So european alliances get supported. 60. Are either mutually beneficial or 65 . Or benefit the United States. Only 20 of americans think what the president thinks, which is that theyre beneficial only for the allies. The same is true on trade. When we ask the question, do you think trade is useful for those we are trading with, us or for both . Overwhelmingly the answer is both. So this idea of a transactional alliance, the 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 of the mutual interest of both of us, winwin rather than winlose is fundamental to the american conception of our role. By the way, it has been for 75 years. The president is trying to move away from that. And as far as we can tell, hes not succeeding with the American Public when it comes to Foreign Policy. Dina, did you want to add something to that . Exactly what he said but also weve been tracking it over the past three years since trumps been in office. In fact, you might expect some of the America First type of policies to get more traction, but instead weve seen the opposite. We have even higher numbers of american now saying alliances are mutually beneficial. We have super majorities that say trade benefits u. S. Companies, the u. S. Economy and relations with the United States and other countries. So, its even underscoring what theyve always said over the last 45 years. Let me probe that more with you after turning to richard. I want to ask you one thing. The trump base is more or less constant at about 39 ish. If you do the math with the support that some of these policies have, they have more support if the trump base supports trump and trumps policies, and thats 39 , how do 82 support some of the other stuff you were just talking about . Well, the loudest part of the elites on the trump side and the activists that believe the same thing, theyre louder and they take up more space in the media and in the public discourse. So but so they still capture 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 things about alliances, but thats where issues like immigration and Climate Change were going to get to those because im interested there are some issues that are divisive that are single issues which might attract some voters or that might be what they are most engaged about. Right. But as we head to 9 11, the 18th anniversary, an issue like nato is on my mind because of what nato was prepared to do. And its the only time nato involved article 5. And nick burns, who was then our ambassador to nato, weve had a slew of excellent ambassadors, nick burns, who is a professor at harvard and runs the Foreign Policy group for aspen newt, nick burns said he didnt ask, he was just told were invoking article 5. Thats pretty darn amazing. Richard, we havent talked about congress. You did work there in one lifetime for a hero of mine named john mccain two lifetimes. Two lifetimes. Whose voice is sorely missed right now. I would 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, another movie, john mccain was the leader of many congressional delegations on international trips. I went on at least ten of his codels to the Munich Security Conference in munich, germany, in february. And then ive attended it another decade since. But john mccain, among other things, was the pid piper of Foreign Policy for congress. And he taught all of us how to think about a world and its challenges. So, richard, it would be helpful just because i think it fills out some of what were learning here to tell us about and also tell us about what youre doing at cnsas and the Trilateral Commission and how a how a person outside this report thinks about what theyve just achieved . Sure. Well, i think some of the findings in this particular report would coincide where with where senator mccain came down with americas role in the world. Ivo touched on this but since the end of world war ii, there have been 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 to increase prosperity wed had an economic undergirded by free trade, and support the freedom we would have 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 those things, how you make the tradeoffs, when do you embrace friendly, how big a military do you need . Not whether we do those things. I think weve gotten to a time when theres a lot of questions at the most senior levels about whether those are the right principles. Its good to have alliances. Is it good to have free trade or should we be tariff people . Is it really good to promote democracy or poke our noses in places where its not welcome . And the findings of this seem to support the traditional view. Of course, then you get into the arguments about how to do it all and Everything Else but its not a reputation. Its not the fundamental questions of those principles you might guess from our policies and our political discourse right now. The fact there does seem to be, though, the public feeling one way and our policy makers not just the president but a lot of Democratic Candidates and others who seem to be in a different place suggest, to me, that its not just the sheer numbers but also the intensity of the feeling among minorities. Which is what dina said, on both ends of the spectrum. Trade is a perfect example of this. Its diffuse consequences and costs. Raise your hand if you feel the costs associated with the aluminum tariffs. Probably nobody can feel that, although theres a cost. Lets try that. Does anyone feel those costs . For those watching online, i think there was one hand. If you work in the aluminum industry and you were going to lose your job, even though the cost to the American Economy of keeping that job was 700,000 and its certainly not your salary, then you feel it a lot more strongly. Youre more likely to vote on that issue. Youre more likely to lobby your government on this issue, more likely to mobilize on this issue other than those that feel it. That is a relevant factor as we think through all of this. If john mccain were still in the senate, i wish he were, what would he be saying right now . Hed probably be on a plane to afghanistan right now. And i think hed be wondering a couple of things. One, as he did, frankly, until his passing a year ago, one is, if we adopt a policy of retrenchment, retreat, disengagement, whatever you want to call it, what comes next . Is it true if the United States steps back, whether militarily, diplomatic, economically, then they step up and fill the gap in do things in our interest, i think the answer would be no. I think his answer would be no. Is it the case that we can sort of get out of afghanistan, for example, and ask the taliban for assurances theyll behave and theyll treat women and girls appropriately, that they wont overthrow the government, they wont form a sanctuary for isis and al qaeda and that we can we can have it all. We dont have to be there. And we can have what we want out of that. Again, the answer is no. That puts a set of requirements on the United States for engagement. That then gets back to the more Traditional InternationalForeign Policy that so many of our political leaders say they dont see support for. Let me just stay on that for one minute because no one has missed the news in the last 24 hours about the cancelled talks with the taliban at camp david. I want everyone in congress except for one person voted to authorize the use of military force against those who attacked us based in afgt. I voted for it. Barbara lee was the only no vote of 535 votes. And she did that as a matter of principle and i respect her courage in doing that. At any rate, we prosecuted our case. I would say looking back, especially when you add in iraq, that we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for either of the wars. And were still in them, especially the one in afghanistan. But my question is, if we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for the wars, do we have any day after strategy for getting out of the wars . Well the answer is no. It looks like, i suppose, the United States would be staying in some capacity in syria, essentially pursuant to a deal that senator Lindsey Graham brokered at the Munich Security Council but the dayafter strategy seemed to be turn it over to the locals and hope things go well after we leave. In afghanistan it appears to be, lets get the best deal we can get making perfectly clear that were getting out irrespective of what preet sisly that deal looks like. But anybody whos done any of these things knows that if you want to see certain conditions after you withdrawal from a place, you have to be willing to go back in. There has to be reversibility. Does it feel like theres any reversibility to an american withdrawal from afghanistan . I dont think so. The dayafter plan is get these assurances from the taliban and kind of hope for the best. Yeah, i want to ask you, too, ivo. Its harder to go back in once youre out. What would you say about that . So, i think two things. One, in terms of Public Opinion, theres no doubt that the public has completely soured on both of these wars. Right. Afghanistan and iraq as failures of american Foreign Policy. And i think genuinely speaking, thats probably not a bad analytical judgment on their part. And i do think there are lessons to be learned. We are now in the Third Administration when it comes to afghanistan. 18 years in,