Bicameral, bipartisan support for u. S. Foreign policy. Im grateful for this broad audience of folks across the spectrum of washington as will. Im thrilled to have the opportunity today to talk with my dear old friend, secretary madeleine albright. Im going to briefly introduce you, you are probably better known to this audience than any audience in the world. But i think it bears repeating on taking the prerogative of a nor to say that before your distinguished service as an ambassador to the you United Nations and the 64th secretary of state you worked in the United States senate as a staffer to senator ed muskie of maine, whose desk i have. There is no other connection. She is today as you know, a professor at the school of Foreign Service at georgetown, a head of the truman scholarship board and the National Democratic institute and contributes to our National Life and our dialogue and remarkable ways and is a tireless advocate for america. Around the world, thank you, madam secretary for joining us. Were going to talk broadly about six different themes. I cant think of one we left out but were doing a pretty quick survey of areas of challenge and difficulty in the world for us. Maintaining u. S. International engagement and how do we uphold the liberal rules based on the International Order. The utility of multilateralism. A word i now you have opinions about. A need to promote human rights and democracy. The consequences of president trumps proposed bucket cuts and the importance of maintaining a bipartisan Foreign Policy consensus. And to imlum nate those wur going to take a quick romp throughing north korea, china, russia, terrorism and nato. Ready for some fun . Im delighted to be here with this great audience. But especially with you, because you are exactly what a senator should be in terms of delving into the most difficult subjects and ed muskies desk is a pretty good place to be. So thank you very much for asking me to do this. Let me be clear, it was also joe bidens desk. Thats also okay. Thats pretty wonderful. So if i might just start, secretary, albright, in washington we talk a Lot Community about the liberal rulesbased world order. Im not sure that is broadly understood. Why exactly is this order so important . And how does our support for organizations like nato and the eu help support that order that we invested so much in building over the last seven decades. I do think that it is absolutely essential because if there werent world order what we would have is complete chaos. And the bottom line is how do countries treatment each other. How to citizens relate to each other and the rulesbased part of it is very important. Because i think that what makes anybody thats participating in National Security policy nervous is when things are just kind of ad hoc and you cant figure out what youre doing and there are no rules. And i think that, so the rulesbased part is important. The part that i think is worst talking about a lot and especially given the way you outlined the themes and what do americans have to do with us, we did the rules. We were the ones that created the rules. And what was so interesting was that the rulesbased order was really based on the problems that had come between the two world wars, when we were not a part of something. After world war i we withdrew, we did a locate of America First and there really, the league of nations failed, there was no real system. So everything that happened after world war ii was based on our leadership and the fact that we wanted to establish the United Nations and were behind nato and were its interesting, i just was up celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was something that came out of america wanting to help the countries in europe after world war ii. But then it also was the basis of the rulebased order in europe. Because the european coal and Steel Community came out of that and that evolved into the European Union so we have been supporters of this. And one of the things were trying to do is have more of a rulebased order in asia. I think that is part of the issue. So that leads me to my question to you. Which is how do chinas actions in south and East China Seas erode world order. And what happens in terms of whatever rulebased order there is and why do we need it in asia. Well madam secretary i recently travelled to a Regional Security conference in singapore. I travelled with senator john mccain to vietnam first for a memorable visit there and senator mccain and senator brasso participated in a security conference that brings together leaders from throughout the asia pacific and frankly the rest of the world we had a chance across seven different bilateral meetings with heads of state or National Security advisers or Foreign Ministers from new zealand, indonesia, myanmar, japan, germany to hear their concerns. We also met with secretary of defense jim mattis, who was one of the keynotes at the overall conference. I will tell thaw chinas aggressive actions in the South China Sea and the East China Sea has created a great deal of instability in the region. And chinas lagging willingness to engage actively on pushing back against north koreas destabilizing Nuclear Weapons program is raising a real question. So op the one hand youve got china, not taking a rulesbase aid approach to the International Order. Not respecting a ruling that said that their claims for exclusive economic zones, their building islands by dredging and taking remote rocks or coral reefs that they claim and turning them into military bases, thats been ruled illegal in an International Court ruling. But the real is asking where are we. What are we doing to push back on that . And unfortunately much like the league of nations, there is a table that we built and there is a chair at the table thats empty and were not in it. And thats the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. As a member of the Foreign Relations committee i sat through seven different hearings. Where we had fourstar generals and admirals, we had ceos of major companies. We had former leaders in the bush and clinton administrations telling us the senate should ratify this and at the time the risks were hypothetical. Today those risks are real and we insist on doing freedom of navigation operations which are important. Which is important to keep the sea lanes open and free and i think thats an important thing that all of our allies asked us to keep doing we could have a stronger role and we would have a stronger role had we the con law of the sea. There are other International Conventions like this that by our absence we weaken while we were there in singapore. There was a recently concluded global agreement that we withdrew from or renounced our attention to withdraw from the paris climate agreement. These actions raise questions on the part of our allies about whether or not were really there or whether or not we are determined to be a part of it in the long haul. Frankly, the fact that secretary mattis dedicated his entire remarks to how the United States is committed to the rulesbased world order, is committed to the regional allies and is committed to a positive relationship with china and defining a path forward where we are competitors, but not military adversaries, was an important way to set the table for that conference as a whole. Can i add on a little bit, but going back to what i said, part of it is there are a number of examples where the u. S. Has taken the lead on, in fact, developing some rulebased thing and then we dont follow through which puts us in a very peculiar decision and the law of the sea is one of them. Ed musky was a congressional adviser to the law of the sea and the role that Congress Plays by not being absent from the table, but being there when the rules are being put on the table, but the same thing is true of the International Criminal court where we thought it was a good idea because it would come out of the war crimes tribunals of the former yugoslavia and rwanda or the land mines treaty or any number of things where we begin a process and then for some reason dont follow through, and so it puts us in a weak position in believing in rules based, setting up some of the rules and for a variety of reasons not following through and i think thats something that needs to be we have an couldable insistence on sovereignty and not letting International Organizations tell us what to do, but we are then also surprised when the absence of an International Order puts us at greater risk and makes it harder for us to marshal our allies. How does our support for organizations like nato and the eu actually increase the security and prosperity of the average american . For my voters, for constituents of every member of the house and senate, its sometimes hard for them to see a connection. Why are you going to singapore, senator kuntz . Why are you going to ukraine and to estonia . Why would you be going to brussels . Whats the point . Some see our support for nato as a zerosum game as others owe us for providing their defense and others are in our interest for us having to create and sustain nato. This goes to a very basic question is can the u. S. The job of a president and congress is to protect the people, the territory and our way of life. That is the job, and the question is then how is that done . Can we do it alone . And while we have been blessed by being behind two oceans people thought that was safe until 9 11 and by having, i would say, friendly neighbors. That is not something that other countries have a great advantage and so then people think why should we worry about all those people in faraway places with unpronounceable names . Partially, the truth is we are more protected well, our people actually like to travel. Our territory, as i just discussed and our way of life does depend on what happens in other countries. Can we trade . Can we educate our children abroad, can foreigners come here . Any number of things that improve our life, but nato is set up for security reasons and we have been concerned about being attacked ourselves, but also we have alliances. It is an alliance and the heart of it is article five which is in for one, one for all and all for one and it is a collective responsibility and the interesting thing is article five has only been invoked once and that was after 9 11 when we were attackeded and so then, i think it is a sign for those who might help us and its not where you pay dues to us. It is a plan that works in order to help develop the forces, the systems, fighting terrorism and all of those things together on nato. The eu, i think, is very important to us because we do want to trade with europe. The people in brussels help to make the rules in terms of what happens on a digital market or how do we what happens to our agriculture. None of those things are easy, but ultimately one can make an argument that various congressional districts really benefit by some of the things that happen both in the eu and nato, but it takes explaining because we do have a tendency as americans to think, well, we know what to do all by ourselves and were strong and we are the most powerful country in the world, but i do think that often we need allies to help us. So, i think that there are serious things going on now that do, in fact, have a question in terms of how do we benefit. So how does the u. S. Presence in asia deter and defend against north koreas provocations . Because i think theyre not members of nato and eu, but what is the system and what do ywe have to do and youve been there. We have a different setup in asia. We dont have a collective Security Agreement with two dozen or more countries. We have close alliances, bases, troops in a number of asian country, south korea and japan, principally and a longstanding treaty relationship with a number of other countries. The forward deployment of american troops and our extension of our Nuclear Umbrella of our protection for japan and south korea, particularly in the face of the threat from north korea at previous times other threats has reduced proliferation, has avoided the possibility of countries like japan and south korea feeling the need to develop their own Nuclear Weapons in order to keep themselves safe through deterrent. Its also, frankly, given us a strong footprint in asia with two of the strongest, most vital economies over the last half century. Theres also something that i think is an often overlooked benefit to the average american which is the democracies share our core values. They believe in the peaceful resolution of contract disputes and the rule of law. These principles allow our companies to be more successful and the Fastest Growing economic sector of the world and they also help set some of the ground rules. As china has become ascendant, and they are not a flourishing democracy, there is a real tension and with their one belt, one road program where they are increasingly becoming the Major Trading partner of the investor and infrastructure, i think were at risk of having them set commercial expectations of rules and standards of political conduct and that that begins to deflect away from an emerging global consensus around societies that are organized around human rights, free elections and a commitment to journalism and a free press. The sorts of things that allow democracy to align with each other and democracy is messy, noisy and inefficient, but democracies very rarely go to war with each other. I think what is interesting is that there has not been a structure such as in europe. When i went to college which was some time before the invention of the ipad and the discovery of fire, we were actually studying a lot of alphabet soup and there was cto, which was supposed to be like nato and one of the things that we tried to figure out is what was the structure in that part and it is not exactly the same and the question is why and is it the role of china . But i think its something that needs to be explored in terms of looking at the world order. What sort of leverage against russia in ukraine and russias aggression in europe and elsewhere does having a collective security entity like nato, give us, and then why is that something that we might pursue or might want in Southeast Asia or in the asia pacific . I think thats the whole question about collective security. I mean, it really does show the predominance in agreement where they can defend themselves from an armed attack and also something that weve been talking about which are hybrid attacks and these are ways of trying to find common ideas which would make us find common goals. Its difficult, for instance, having just been and ive just been in georgia and ukraine. They are not members of nato or the eu, but they are kind of have affiliated members and that helps them, even, and the hope that they would be a part of it and you were talking about democracies, it gives a sense of confidence to democratic legislators within their countries that if they moved the process forward in term of value systems that they could be a part of a club that really reflects those kinds of values that then leads to a liberal world order. So it builds up. Ill take us off topic for a minute, but i think its worth exploring. Certainly over the last 50 years, certainly over the last 25 years, one of the most important factors in europe is what you were describing, after the berlin wall fell and the warsaw package became free of soviet domination. They had choices to make and they had very difficult choices to make and what pushed their political leaders, their economic leaders to make choices that aligned with our world view, with the liberal rules based world order to insist on less corruption and more transparency to support human rights and to tolerate journalists and even celebrate them were those were conditions of admission to the eu and or nato and the pull of this enormous stable, prosperous market was a very attractive force. A question a whole group of us have been debating several republicans and democrats is for the arc of fragile states that are on the edge of either stabilizing and advancing or being in worse shape, what is that poll for nigeria, for senegal, for egypt, for you can think of a whole crescent of states that are significant for this half century, but where there isnt currently a Comparable Club of countries, certainly not on their borders which they might join, and i think theres something to be done there in terms of thinking of how you incentivize. Thats what the millennium challenge was designed to do. It was, because it was conditional in term of the countrys and another thing, if i might say, one of the things we did when i was in office was create something called the community of democracies, where, in fact, was there a way of combining best practices and working with democracies in various stages in order to help them try to figure out what i mean, lets be very frank. Countries, how does governance work and it works in a way that the governments provide something for their people, the social contract, and the question is how do you get support for it so that youre not creating authoritarian countries, but countries that are democratically based because the u. S. Is more comfortable when there are democratic countries. There was a great deal of debate during secretary tillersons conversation and subsequent both in our committee and publicly about the privacy of human rights and openness as opposed to Na