Affairs program. Hello everybody. My name is Denis Mcdonough i will be your host today. We were joined by annemarie slaughter. We will discuss her exciting new book. Which is called the trust board and the web. Is one of several books that she has written. She is currently sealed new america. For my director policy planning of the state department and formerly dean of the Woodrow Wilson school of Public International affairs at princeton. Whats important, those are just some of her past assignments. And a very illustrious career. Whats important i think in terms of todays discussion is that you will see in her background and in the book that she is both a practitioner as well as a theorist. For as a teacher. A professor of international affairs. It is an exciting opportunity to discuss her new book, the chess board and the web. When we jumped right and to annemarie, tells a little bit about the thesis of the book and way decided to write it now. It is great to speak with you Denis Mcdonough. And to be able to reflect on both of our experiences actually as Foreign Policy practitioners. I have been writing about networks since 1994. So as a scholar, i have been looking at how the world would move increasingly from being hierarchical organizations like the United Nations or the imf or the world bank. An increasingly toward networks, government officials like central bankers or finance ministers but also big networks of ngos. Humanitarian disaster, he sold these nongovernmental organizations playing an increasingly important role. When i was in government and you know you chaired many of those situation rooms meetings. What would strike me was that we knew that there was a world and state reps today think about north korea or iran or sometimes china and russia. That world of state to state relations is still very very important and i think of it as the chessboard world because it is the world of how do we essentially beat our adversaries and we think about a movie and we try to anticipate what mood theyre going to make. And that world is there and it is very important. But equally important is what i call the world on the web. That world of criminal networks including terrorists but also traffickers of arms and the world of business which is increasingly big networks supply chains. Global corporations and the world of nongovernmental organizations. I think of all of those actors as webmasters as increasingly important actors. But we dont have strategies how to bring them together. This book is a book that says if we are going to have a world with a chessboard and strategies of how to deal with conflict between states and cooperation between states we also need a set of strategies for how to Design Networks for specific people. Good to reconnect how fluid connect them . How do we run the networks to meet challenges or to advance our goals. And this book is a set of the strategies. Wealth it is surely a timely book. Very much. And you just send in the opening remarks, let me just that was a pretty effective quote that teed up the argument in the book where you said on pages nine and 10 that whatever the future brings, we need the ability and the tools to operate effectively in a very different world where states still exist and exercise power but sidebyside with corporate, civic and criminal actors and mesh in a web of networks for this chessboard running up against this web of networks that you talked about. It is a question of either or. Is it that you are a realist and you are just playing on a chessboard or an idealist playing on the web . And then the Network Speed of the question of both weight and how do you see that and how should the reader into the book on this debate which goes back decades and decades among practitioners and students of the field that you and i are both coming out of. It is definitely both. Indeed, the endless debate between realists and liberal internationalists about do we pursue our interests or do we pursue our values . Those are i think you and i would both agree often overplayed as i strongly believe for instance that we have to pursue our values. That is part of our interest. But i would also say that i would also say that we have to be able to put together chessboard strategies and web strategies and 10 is a question of shorter term and long term. So when you have an immediate crisis with another state, so if youre thinking about the middle east and you are thinking about what do we do with iran or what do we do about syria . They will be an immediate set of choices that are going to involve other states. We pushed back, we tried to cooperate. We signal our willingness to cooperate. Sometimes it works and some not. But longer term and if you think about president obamas speech in 2009, a new beginning would be the muslim world. To really address the causes of terrorism and indeed, lots of other problems coming up the middle east. You need to build networks. Networks of entrepreneurs. Networks of civic groups. Networks of scientists. Networks of actual muslim troops that are pushing back against a radical islamist narrative. And that is whether web strategies come in. That is where you bring in business and civic groups and governments and you design a network a particular way and you run it. So it really is both ands. The question it leads me to believe something that you call disaggregation of the state. As you just said you have been arguing since 1994 as you have been looking at these networks. You say that the proliferation of these networks is a result of what i call the disaggregation of the state. Meaning that different parts of governments were peeling away from the chessboard model of Foreign Policy. Directed by the head of state and the Foreign Ministry and instead creating networks of both private and civic. The question i have is, as we are watching debates play out now, debates here in this country that really fueled i would argue, the election of the president. Among the things that he still argues as president but then argued as a candidate was that a need to return american sovereignty. And the ongoing debate that we see even most recently in the french election. For president. Where one candidate was arguing very much to pull back from the european union. In an argument she made at the time to reassert french sovereignty. And the winner ultimately arguing that the french interests are best served by more aggressively engaging that network of the european union. What is your sense of kind of where this ebb and flow goes as it relates to the arc of this debate and the development of these networks since 94 when you started and really digging into this. That is a great question. And anyway again, goes back to both and spirit in the book i reprint that same picture. You look at it and see an old lady or young woman. Some of us look at and say oh it is an old lady you can see the big nose and the warts. Thats clearly what it is. As not to ask about that. Because of the lady. I didnt know if that says something about me. Or what [laughter] im going to leave that to you and your wife. But some of us have young lady and some of us see the old woman. Fair enough. My point is you actually have to see both. Then you can do Foreign Policy effectively. You must be able to toggle between them. Because in some cases, the state needs to be unitary. If we are under attack that is no time for different Government Agencies and different citizens and different corporations to be networking around the world. In those situations, the president is the commanderinchief and the secretary of state and the secretary of treasury. Everyone has to be on the same page. So when we are really under threat and again, i would say dealing with north korea. Right now or again when you were working with iran, there were many different contexts through the government. It was what i would call a unitary state. There was someone in charge and everyone was on the same playbook. At the same time, in a globalized world and interdependent world, our networks are a great source of power and advantage for the United States. The fact that our corporations are doing business around the world. The fact that our movies and entertainment are seen around the world. The fact that our universities are attracting students from all over the world. And running campuses abroad. Again, civic organizations linking up to networks abroad. We have got to be able to do both. And that second disaggregated states, it is a very academic term but it means our cities and our states are able to engage others. So right now on Climate Change, california in the cities of new york and chicago and los angeles, they are all actively networking with their counterparts abroad to fight Climate Change. But because they can do things on the ground. Or similarly if youre fighting terrorism again, you want the ability to help build educational institutions and businesses in states that do not have opportunities for you to fight the longterm causes of terrorism. So its really, you had to toggle back and forth. Some of the time you need to be really unitary. All hands on deck. Prices are conflict state. And in other cases it is critically important that we stay open to the world and able to participate in networks. It is remarkable. It is great that you brought up the case of california and Climate Change. I think the times reported this week. Maybe even yesterday on the things that the state of california and the governor are doing as it relates to work on climate and convening a meeting in fact of ministers of the government of mexico. Of mexico city or the state of mexico. And ministers of the government of canada in california, it strikes me as a really remarkable thing. The question is, d. C. Transport do you see risk in that . Or is it just the fact that is the world as it is. And if this was an independent country will be the do you see any risk in this case is california . Absolutely. And this is actually an old question. The Supreme Court has revisited this several times and im sure that they will have another shoot right now about what individual states can do. So early on, the Supreme Court informs or issued a ruling that said state cant engage in treaties with other states. So california can actually you know create a kind of nafta formally with the governments of canada and mexico. On the other hand, and again this was happening in the 1990s where governors started leaving trade delegations to china and other parts of asia for their states. And california actively intervened and issues going on in the eu and there was a lawsuit brought about that. Brought about their about californias tax. The ability to tax and californias power was out there. So this is again, it is back to sort of same United States as a unitary country but also a country of 50 states at the same time. We benefit as a nation having our states be able to forge relationships with other countries or other states around the world. Think about the sister cities networks. That is one example. I think chicago has more sister cities than any of the country. With all of our cities have those relationships. That is a form of soft power. That is people learning about the United States and also help with for trade and culture and the flow of ideas. But what you have to make sure is that a state or a city cant get you into trouble. The reason the founders insisted that the Foreign Affairs power be located with the federal government was that they didnt want back in the revolutionary era, they did not want states refusing to pay british creditors. So states were very sympathetic to american debtors. After the revolution. But that could get us into war with britain. So it is a balance. I tend to favor more autonomy for states and cities because in the web world, he simply has to allow more independence. But i am mindful that you know you would not want california going and making a deal with china that might imperil our defense capacity or frankly, undercutting other states economically. It is remarkable, remarkably Diverse International system as we dig into this. I want to come back and a couple questions i think china or north korea which your reference a couple of times also. I want to dig in for a couple more questions on networks themselves. The fitting of someone who has been looking at this for a long time. Ahead of your, ahead of anyone else. I know that it was talked about yesterday. I guess he knows something about them. He has a pretty powerful network himself. But you break down different kinds of networks and i think the reader will be quite engaged by that. Throughout, i just want to put one example. You talked about networks. But in each of the kind of networks that you bring up you highlight the importance of diversity. Which i think is pretty interesting. And i think as you hinted at in the remarks so far a Network State ultimately is going to be a diverse state. And on page 134 hereby can find it, you write that in the context of a taft network he put that their best carried out by small diverse but cohesive groups. Diversity of members provides multiple talents and perspectives while small size build sufficient trust and team spirit for the group to adapt seamlessly to changing circumstances. If my memory serves me, they set of conclusions are really effective set of networks that a former colleague of ours by the name of sam mcchrystal, a highly decorated man. He used to carry out different Counterterrorism Operations in places like iraq and afghanistan. But i am interested, if you want to spend a little time on the differentiation of networks that may be interesting but im also interested in this diversity. Because one could argue that the debate that we just referenced a minute ago in this country and in europe for example, between those who want to stay in the european union, those who want to was evident in the brexit vote. Those who want to get out of the european union. There is a debate about diversity getting something particular about them on the chessboard. Something that they identify as uniquely their own. So the question i have is a little bit like the question about sovereignty. He argued it is both and that is to say both the chessboard and the network. That is to say and the web. But is there a point on this trend because people are stealing their sovereignty, because they are feeling certain things if they dont identify as their own. This inherently powerful diversity. Maybe retrenching against that. Is that a fair conclusion . Or do two different one . I think that is right. Let me start at the end and work backwards. I think what to oversimplify, you have states that are you know, were closed and more homogeneous. At least over 10 years, 50 years you sort of think about this great wave of globalization that we have been through that really starts in the 70s and 80s and takes off with Digital Technology where suddenly the world really is a web. Look at a map of the internet we are all connected and you cannot even see National Boundaries because the internet does not recognize them. That process brings all sorts of benefits but it also has brought lots of immigrants. Lots of changing cultures, lots of suddenly kind of new ways of working and being that many people find quite frightening. One of the ways of understanding our politics in european politics is exactly this desire in my vocabulary to kind of close backup and be a chessboard state. We are friends, we are the United States. We are britain. This is what defines us. This is our people, these are our customs, this is our culture. Here we are on the world stage. And again, you do have to Pay Attention to that. Part of that is just real anxiety and a way of life that was familiar and comforting that you can be proud of. Many people feel it is slipping away. So you have to Pay Attention to that just like you have to Pay Attention to our ability to defend ourselves as a state. But the other way to understand it, and this convective point about diversity. It is, it is the countries that have the most diversity internally and are most connected then to opportunities and ideas abroad that will force the most. Again, this is not all good or all bad. Because some people give and said again, like being connected to countries where there are criminals you know like drug runners or again, arms traffickers. All of that or terrorists. We do not want to be open to those countries. Those contacts, those networks bring danger. Fair enough. And you have to protect against that. But those connections also bring us exports. And talents. The diversity that brings you new ideas. All of the people who study innovation say look, innovation and creativity comes from the collision of unexpected things. So if we are all the same people and the growth in the same place and rethink about the same stuff, we are much less likely to come up with something new then when you reach out to the people you dont know so well and you expose yourself to new experiences and new ideas and you put those together with your older ideas. That is the magic of the spark of creativity. When you look at that from this perspective of a country, the United States where a country of immigrants, a country that has connections all around the world. Again through culture, business, people, educational system. In the world of the web, that openness is our greatest asset. But in the world of the chessboard we want to be enclosed enough to make sure we can protect ourselves. That is the balance we have destroyed. It is remarkable. I am persuaded by the argument. But i think on one of the more powerful things and they very well argued book is the argument you made based on youre not talking in terms of a bronze geopolitical questionnaire. Although, he is leading really remarkable unit in Foreign Countries as they do but it seems to me reading this book that general mcchrystal would argue on the tactical level what you just argued on the interstate strate