Cable or satellite provider. Up next on after words, new America President and ceo annemarie slaughter in her book the chessboard and the web. Director of policy plan at the state department and formerly dean of the Woodrow Wilson school of public and 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 at the arrest, or as a teacher, professor of International Affairs. So its an exciting opportunity to discuss her new book. Why do we just jump right in, right up front, just tell us little bit about the thesis of the book and about why he decided to write the book now. Guest denis, its great to talk to you and to be able to reflect on both of our experiences, actually as foreignpolicy practitioners. Ive been writing about networks since 1994. So as a scholar ive been looking at how the world was moving increasingly from big hierarchical organizations like the United Nations or the imf or the world bank, and increasingly toward networks, government officials like central bankers or finance ministers, but also big networks of ngos, when they are seeking humanitarian disaster you see all these nongovernmental organizations playing an increasingly important role. When i was in government and, indeed, you chaired many of the situation rooms meetings, what would strike the was that we knew there was a world of states and state threats. Today if you 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 its the world of how do we essentially beat our adversaries. We think about a move and we try to anticipate what moved they will make. That world is there and its very important, but equally important is what i call the world of the web. That world of criminal networks including terrorists but also arms traffickers and drug traffickers. The world of business which is increasingly big Network Supply chains, Global Corporations and the world of nongovernmental organizations. I think of all those actors as well actors as increasingly important actors, but we dont have strategies for how to bring them together. So this book is a book that says if are going to have all world of chessboard and strategies of how you deal with conflict between states and cooperation between states, we also need a set of strategies for how to Design Networks for specific people. Who do reconnect, how to reconnect them, how do do we run this networks to meet challenges or to advance our goals. And this book is a set of the strategies. Host it is surely a timely book, very much, and just building on what you said in your opening remarks, annemarie, let me just go to what i thought was a pretty effective quote that keyed up the argument in the book where you say on pages nine and ten that whatever the future brings we need the ability and the tools to operate effectively in a very different world where states still exist an excellent power but sidebyside with corporate, civic and criminal actors enmeshed in a web of networks, this chessboard running up against this web of networks that you talked about. There is a question of either or, is it that your realist and, therefore, you just click on the chessboard or youre an idealist and just playing in the web. Or is it question of both, and now do you see that, and how should the reader into into the book on this debate which goes back decades and decades among practitioners and students of the field that you and i have both come out of . Guest its definitely both and. And, indeed, the endless debate between realists and liberal internationalists about to pursue our interests interests or do we pursue our values. Those are i think you and i would both agree often overplayed. I strongly believe, for instance, that we have to pursue our values. Thats part of our interests, 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 often its a question of shorter term and long term. So we have an immediate crisis with another state, if youre thinking about the middle east and you are thinking about what do we do with iran or what we do about syria, theres going to be an immediate set of choices that are going to involve other states. We push back. We try to cooperate. We said to our willingness to cooperate. Sometimes that works, sometimes we dont. But longe longerterm, if you tk about president obamas speech in 2009, a new beginning with the muslim world, to really address the causes of terrorism and the deed of lots of other problems coming out of the middle east, you need to build networks, networks of entrepreneurs, civic groups, scientists, networks of actually muslim groups that are pushing back against a radical islamist narrative. And thats where the web strategies come in and thats where you bring in business and civic groups and governments, and you design a network a particular way and you run it. It really is both. Host makes a lot of sense. The question that that leads me to raise, something you call on page 37 of the book, the disaggregation of the state which and you just had been arguing since 199 1994 as humank 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 repeating away from the chessboard model of foreignpolicy. Directed by the head of state and the foreign ministry, and instead creating networks of both private and civic actors. The question i have is, as we are watching the debates play out now, debates are in this country that really fueled i would argue the election of President Trump, among the things he still argues as president but then argued as candidate was that the need to return american sovereignty, to america. 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 one candidate, the winner ultimately, arguing that the french interests are best served by more aggressively engaging that network of the european union. Whats your sense of kind of where this ebb and flow goes as a relates to the arc of this debate and the development of these networks since 94 when you started as you said making the argument and really digging into this . Guest thats a great question. In a way again he back to both the hand. In the book i reprint that famous picture look at and do you see an old lady or a young woman . Some of the say its an old lady. You see the big nose in the wort and that could what it is host i was going to ask you about that because i saw the young lady cited know if that says something about me or what. But anyway, i guest i believe that to you and your wife. Some of the cdm lady, some of see the old woman. My point is you actually have to see both. And then to do foreignpolicy effective you must be able to toggle between them. Because in some cases the state needs to be unitary. If we are under attack thats 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 can everybody has got to be on the same page. So when where 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 contacts to the government, the department of energy like a very important role, the state department, Defense Department but it was what i would call a unitary state figure somebody in charge and everybody 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 her 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. And again are civic organizations thinking of the networks abroad. Weve got to be able to do both, and the second disaggregation dates a very aggravated term but it means our cities and our states are able to engage others. Others. The right now on Climate Change, california and the cities of new york and chicago and los angeles, they all are actively networking with their counterparts abroad to fight Climate Change. But 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 dont have opportunity for you to fight the longterm causes of terrorism. Youve got to toggle back and forth. Some of the time you need to be really unitary, all hands on deck crisis or conflict state. And in other cases its critically important that we stay open to the world and able to participate and network. Host is remarkable, its great you brought up the case of california and Climate Change. I think that time time supportes week, maybe yesterday, on the things that the state of california, Governor Brown are doing as it relates to work on climate in fact, even convening a meeting, ministers of the government of mexico, government of mexico city or the state of mexico, and ministers of the government of canada in california strikes me as a really remarkable case. The question is do you see risk . Is that ultimately, whats the risk in that for u. S. Policymakers or use interests . Or is it just a function of the fact that this just is the world, if california an independent state, and independent country, what, the seventhlargest economy in the world or Something Like that. Do you see risk in this case of california . Guest absolutely. And this is actually an old question and the Supreme Court has revisited it several times, and im sure there will be another suit right now about what individual states can do. So early on the Supreme Court informed, issued a ruling that said states cant engage in treaties with other states pics of california cannot actually create a kind of nafta formally with the governments of canada and mexico. On the other hand, and again this is happening in the 1990s where governor started leading trade delegations to china and other parts of asia for their states. And california actively intervened in issues going on in the eu and is a lawsuit brought about that about californias taxability to tax. And californias power was upheld. So this is again, its back to sort of seeing the United States is both 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 states around the world. Think about the Sister Cities Network just as one example. I think chicagos more sister cities than any other city in the country, but all of our big cities have those relationships. Thats a form of soft power. People learning about the United States, it also helps for trade and culture and the flow of ideas. But what you have to make sure is that a state or ocd cant get you into trouble. The reason the founders insisted that the four Affairs Power be located with the federal government was that they didnt want, back in the revolutionary era, they didnt want states refusing to pay british creditors pixel states were very sympathetic to american debtors after the revolution. But that could get us into war with britain. Its a balance. I can do favor more autonomy for states and cities because again in the web world you simply have to allow more independence. But unmindful that you wouldnt want california going and making a deal with china that might imperil our defense, defense capacity or frankly undercutting of the states economically. Host its remarkable, remarkably Diverse International system as we dig into this. I want to come back in a couple of questions and some of these case studies. I think china necessity. North korea which you reference a couple times also faceting. I want to dig in for maybe a couple more questions on networks themselves. You befitting a sum has been look at this long time, you know, i headed anybody else. I noticed Mark Zuckerberg talked about this in his commencement address yesterday about network networks. I guess you know something about them, build a pretty powerful networking self. But you break down different kinds of networks and i think the reader will be quite engaged by that. But the route, i just want to pull up one example if you talk about networks but each of your network to bring up you highlight the importance of diversity which i think is pretty interesting. I think as you hinted at in your remarks so far that a networked state ultimately is going to be a diverse state and their strength in diversity. You write on page 134 if i can find it, in the context of a taft networked you write their best carried out by small diverse but cohesive groups. Diversity of Team Members Provides multiple talent and perspectives while small size build sufficient trust in team spirit for the group to act as one and to adapt seamlessly to changing circumstances. If my memory serves me, you draw the set of conclusions out of an effective set of networks that a former colleague of ours by the name of Stan Mcchrystal, a highly decorated officer use army, used to carry out different catechism operations in place like iraq and afghanistan. Im interested if you want to spend a little time of the differentiation of networks that may be interesting but also it was in this concept of diversity. One could argue that this debate that which is 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 as was evidently the brags about who want to get out of the european union, theres a debate about diversity threatening something particular about them on the chessboard. Something that they identify as uniquely their own. So the question i have a little bit like a question about sovereignty. You argue its both and that is to say, both the chessboard and the network. That is to say, and the web. But is there a pushback on this trend . Because people are feeling their sovereignty slidably, because theyre feeling certain things that they dont identify as their own, this inherently powerful diversity, they are maybe retrenching against that. Is that if youre a conclusion or do you see it differently . Guest no, i think that thats right. Let me start at the end and then work backwards. To sort of oversimplify, United States that are more closed and more homogeneous, at least over ten years, 50 years. You sort of think about this great wave of globalization weve been through that really starts in the 70s and 80s and takes off in the 90s with Digital Technology were suddenly the world really is a web. You look at a map of the internet, we are all connected and you cant even see National Boundaries because the internet doesnt really 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. And one of the ways of understanding our politics and european politics is exactly this desire, and my vocabulary, to close backup and be a chessboard state. We are france, 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 and here we are on the world stage. And again, you do have to Pay Attention to that. Part of that is just real anxiety at a way of life that was familiar and comforting and that you could be proud of that many people feel is slipping away. So you have to Pay Attention to that just like you to Pay Attention to our ability to defend ourselves as a state. But the other way to understand it, and this was back to your point about diversity, is its the countries that have the most diversity internally and are most connected to opportunities and ideas abroad that will flourish the most. Again, this is not all good or all bad because some people will hear that and say you mean like being connected to countries where there are criminals, like drug runners or again arms traffickers all of that or terrorists. We dont want to be open to this country. Those contacts, those that works bring danger. Enough and jeff to protect against that. But those connections also bring us exports. And talent and the diversity that brings you new ideas. All the people who study innovations say look, innovation and creativity comes from the collision of unexpected things. So if were all the same people every group in same place and we think about the same stuff, we are much less likely to come up with something new and when you reach out to the people you dont know so well and your exposure south to new experiences and new ideas and to put those together with your own ideas, thats the magic of the spark of creativity. When you look at that from the perspective of the country, the United States, country of immigrants, country that has connections all around the world again through culture, our business, through our people, to our educational system in the world of the web, that openness is our greatest asset. But in the world of the chessboard we have to be close eno