tv Laura Bush Madeleine Albright Amb. Nikki Haley Condoleezza Rice CSPAN November 26, 2017 9:53pm-11:01pm EST
announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> the c-span bus is on the 50 capitals tour, visiting every state capitol and hearing about each states priority. delaware, ander, have now visited 12 state capitals. our next stop is tell, florida. on september 6e with live interviews during "washington journal." >> next, a cover station on freedom, democracy, and security. will hear from madeleine albright and condoleezza rice. ambassador nikki haley talks about russian interference in
the 2016 election. this begins with brief remarks from former first lady laura bush. [applause] >> thank you all. thanks, everyone. thank you, can. good morning everyone. .elcome in 1944, a federal judge and philosopher, judge learned hand, delivered his speech in central park to over one million people on "i am an american" day. his speech reached people who had just been sworn in as nationalized united states citizens. he said, we have gathered here to affirm a faith.
a faith in a common purpose. a common conviction. a common devotion. some of us have chosen america as the land of our adoption. the rest of us have come from those who did the same. just across the street is central park. today we would begin a conversation about how to foster a new consensus that spreads freedom abroad. over the past century, the world has witnessed a transformative power of freedom around the world. in 1900, there were no true
democracies. my mother was born before women have the right to vote. only until the voting rights act of 1965 were restrictions on voting by african-americans finally lifted. begin to change in what is described as waves of transformation. by the end of the 20th century, from western europe to latin america to asia and africa, societies that had been rolled by military governments or dictators were choosing democracy and communism had collapsed almost completely. millions of people around the world no longer think of themselves as subjects but rights.s citizens with that is a major accomplishment. this progress is a testament to the human spirit, to the sacrifices made by brave men and women who fight for freedom and
to those courageous individuals who continue this fight for freedom today. george and i believe that freedom is the universal desire of all people. during our time in the white house and now at the bush institute, we have met with andns of dissidents democracy applicants from every part of the world. despite their differences of history, culture, language, and common., one thing is a fundamental belief in the dignity of all human beings and free.right to be these conversations reminded me of the fragility of freedom, particularly in places where it is newly one. last, freedom house noted the 11th year of decline of freedom around the world. this is due to the use of more foods -- forceful tactics by military regimes. we have seen populist and national forces gained strength
and democratic space. even in the united states which remains a beacon of freedom to others. freedom house has raised concerns about signs of erosion attention. research shows less than one third of american students in 12, are, 8, and proficient in civics. the knowledge of the american constitutional system and the role of government and civil society in the lives of free people. this trend is even more concerning when you consider more than one third of respondents in a recent annenberg setting could not name a single right protected by the first amendment. more than 30% of people surveyed could not name a single branch of government. andust prepare our children grandchildren with the tools they need to be informed, engaged citizens who care about individual parties and
democracy. -- must teach them history. we much -- we must teach them to show empathy, civility in the face of disagreement and to overcome malice and hate. we must model that behavior ourselves. of parents,task teachers, and anyone who touches the lives of young people today. and, it is our patriotic duty as americans. this situation do not develop overnight. we have been neglecting to tell our nation's story for years. it will take time and effort to repair. two years ago, the bush institute released "freedom ," a supplemental curriculum for high schoolers. our work with freedom matters is simple. generation ofnext
americans, perhaps even a future president of the united states, to care about democracy and individual liberties at home and abroad is. "freedom matters" is available online for anyone to download free of charge. the 16 lessons combine the personal stories of dissidents against democracy advocates featured in the bush institute's freedom collection with broader freedom, concepts of rule of law, representative government, and the protection of basic human rights. developing a consensus about the value of freedom. we are grateful to work with partners on a new initiative. i'm thrilled to announce that collaboration with freedom house forthe biden center diplomacy and global engagement, we're launching a major public opinion research study. it will help us learn how
americans feel about their democracy and what americans inieve their role is spreading liberty abroad. the results will serve as a resource for others who share our commitment to democracy and freedom. joe is a fine example of somebody committed to spreading liberty worldwide. grace came to the united states as a refugee from north korea and she knows what life is like when freedom is absent. as an inagural recipient of the scholarship of freedom, she wants to help other north koreans. honored that i are she is here today to share her story. please join me in welcoming grace jo.
>> my name is grace jo and i am an american. [applause] >> thank you. it is my privilege to be an american. myn freedom is absent in life, it was dark, sad, desperate and i was fearful. my grandmother raised me until i was seven years old. she passed away. because she starved and she didn't have any food to eat. her last words were to ask us to leave the village and survive. also, her last wish was to eat
a baked potato. i was a little i was unable to provide her with what she wished for. but i survived, i came to america and i found freedom. my father, who was a hero to me, he thought it was best to try to find a way to help us leave north korea. regime killed my father. only crime was to cross the border between china and north korea. his only crime was to bring a bag of rice for his dying children. he was handcuffed on a train. he was not able to see or stand completely. he was start for many days and severely tortured. my youngest brother, he died e because of starvation. powidn't have enough corn
der to make portage. -- make porridge. he decided to leave us first, maybe because he decided the regime was not worth it. when i grew up in china, i was able to eat white rice, and sometimes even meat. my life in china was difficult, -- but it wasi better than north korea. tried, we hard we byill got g many times chinese police and were sent back to north korea. each time, i had unforgettable memories. it reminds me that freedom is a
treasure. i now know the blessings of liberty in the united states. i'm a happy college student, which is almost the dream life. i almost dreamed of going to university and study what i wanted. now i have become a college student and i am happy and honored to share this news. private dentala office and support my family. also, i travel place to place to raise my boys. i cannot imagine his life if i lived in north korea or china. so, i feel very blessed again and i'm very happy to be an american. [applause] thank you.
leadership in advancing freedom in the world is essential. it is the most important and valuable thing in this world, i believe. people try to help other people, it's very difficult and they faced challenges and difficulties. when i meet them, i tell them, keeping a person alive than killingarder a person, but you are doing a good job. together, americans have the ability to change the world. thank you. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome nikki haley, madeleine
albright and condoleezza rice. [applause] >> good morning. amanda and i am the global director of the bush institute. the fear of liberty never waiverexd here. this session is about namthing threats to liberty in the world today. some are old. some are new. this is mostly about turning our attention as a nation to action and getting things done and at
the core, it is about affirming the american leadership. to help us explore these issues, we have three distinguished leaders that need no introduction. but for the record, i am joined on the stage by nikki haley, the u.s. representative to the united nations, madeleine all th secretary of state, and condoleezza rice, the 66th secretary of state. it will be hard for me to say, madam secretary on this stage today. i will try to mix it up a little bit and make sure we know with whom we are chatting. shall we begin? i will start with the first piece i mentioned and name the threats in the world today, and they are serious. nuclear weapons in north korea, the brutality of isis, russian aggression, china's aggression in asia, and more.
all of these threats attack the values and institutions that have contributed to spreading the spirit of liberty abroad and ambassador haley, let's begin with you. how is the united states prioritizing these threats in the world into our nation and what should american leadership look like, whether at the u.n., or with our alliances, to address them. ambassador haley: being between men is thecool wo jo,gest highlight and grace you inspire us so much. you are the reason we fight for what we fight for. so, thank you so much. [applause] ambassador haley: we do have a lot of threats, but leadership matters. our biggest threats, north those aren, isis --
the three because we have to make sure we are doing what we can to protect americans and our allies. then you have so many other issues. when you look at the other migration problems we have and the human rights problems that are happening come whether it is cuba --uela or those things matter too because if any government does not take care of their people, conflict will follow. human rights is such a clear part of what we have to do. then you have to look at china and russia as major players. russia cannot necessarily win anything. they don't have a big enough military or strong economy. they insert themselves within every situation and create chaos. china is doing what they do best. they are business people and are making sure they have infrastructure all over the world. they are making sure they have a stance. the u.s. needs to be above that. we need to make sure we are watching our threats, me to make sure we lead in every aspect and we have to be true to who we are
as americans. >> dr. rice? rice: i would agree completely. whereeally glad you are you are where you are. ambassador, you are doing a terrific job. i think that grace jo gave us the testimony that we need at the core of what we're talking about here. i do want to say, i think the threats are more complex, more difficult. the nature of social media makes it more difficult than when i was there or when madeleine albright was there. we also need to recognize that the united states has done this before. it could not have looked as if we were going to get to 1989, 1990 and 1991 when the soviet union collapsed. it could not have looked that way when the italian communists won 48% of the vote.
of easternn was not europe or western europe. we had the berlin crisis and the birth of israel and war breaks out in the middle east the next day and the soviet union develops nuclear weapons five years ahead of schedule and the chinese communists win. it could not have looks like we would triumph. that happened and american leadership happened. the united states of america said, we are not going to return home. we are going to insert ourselves right in the middle of these threats and a pledge through article five of nato, an attack on one is an attack on all. think of taking the pledge when the soviet union destroyed half of europe. we decided we would stand up for people who want to live in liberty and freedom. i had the great joy of being trained by madeleine's father.
the family would not have without the united states of america. i think the stress are multiple. can talk about specific responses to them, but the core has to be, the united states has to be confident enough to say that with our leadership we can solve the problems that we face. anybody else who tries to do it will not do it on the basis of our values and if we don't work from our values, our interests will be compromised as well. >> secretary albright? sec. albright: i agree with condi, in terms of the role the united states has to play. this is an incredibly complex time. to use a diplomatic term, the world is a mess. the bottom line is, the issues are coming from everywhere and i think grace jo's story is terribly moving. i have to add something.
i am an immigrant. the thing i liked most of all was to give people their naturalization certificates. the first time i did it was on july 4, 2000 at monticello, and i am giving up naturalization tickets and this meant says, can you believe it? i'm a refugee and i just got my naturalization ticket from the secretary of state and i went up to him and said, dcan you believe a refugee is the secretary of state? so, welcome. i'm an american and so are you. i do think the issues are -- and i do think condi describe them so well -- in addition to that we are living in a very different world, where the combination of the technology, the interconnectedness of society, have created issues where people -- it used to be that there was a division
between rich and poor, but the poor did not always know what the rich had. is absolutely essential for the united states to lead. nikki you haley, said i could call you, unless u.n.,s. speaks at the either at the beginning to start the conversation or at the end to summarize, or sometimes in the middle, nothing happens. i'm very concerned in terms of how we project our leadership, how we explain to the american people that nothing works without us and there are certain sacrifices that have to be made to have that leadership role, but we don't do it alone. about the workg that is alone. it is engaged. there are incredible challenges out there that you see everyday, that we used to, but i think
american leadership is crucial, and how to explain it to the americans. >> i think i have an interesting story, in terms of when i first got there, we always we had issues, but the one that was defining was when the president made the decision to hit syria. after the chemical weapons. when he made that decision, the imber oc f calls and emails received from country saying, it is so good to see america lead again was amazing. they felt like we had been dormant and they really feel weaker when the u.s. does not lead. they want us to weigh in. they want us to lead on the international stage and when we do, they feel more confident. you are seeing that with japan and south korea on the north korea issue. whether it is with our arab par tners and iran, it will always
be important for us to know the power of our voice and what leadership means. >> you also, nikki, were a governor. in ways thatrican ways some of us never will. howink you are right with the world feels when america leads or does not lead. it's early yet in this administration. there needs to be in overarching narrative about what america is doing. i thought the strike on syria is essential. i think the voice about what is going on in venezuela and the sanctions, if this is a middle income country or people cannot buy medicine or food and you are going to have a refugee crisis in countries that are now stable, and the president said, what mador is doing is
unacceptable. he's acting and a democratically. that she is acting anti- democratically. we need a narrative that says, human rights, what happens in other countries matters to us. if we step back and leave others to their own devices, we don't have an overarching way of explaining why what we do in syria are venezuela is important. as a governor, you know that getting a narrative out to south california or texas, ultimately has to happen because without that you can sustain american engagement. you have toaley: have the only international communication, but the country needs to believe everything is ok. they need to know there is stability. they need to know we are leaving and they need to know why. it's there in fortinet we need to make sure we are in touch with americans.
weit is very important that need to make sure we are in touch with americans. >> some of the new dangers, we are only beginning to find the right strategies and tools to deal with them, take for instance, the cyber threat. significantned attention to this issue, and in particular, problems with disinformation. sec. albright: this is part of what makes this era so different, but i have always been interested in the role clinicalation in change. whether it is the printing press. i wrote a book about the polish press. was cassettes.it he'd be in one factory and they would tape it and send it to another one. there's always something. right now, the repetition of the
technological spread is amazing. and cyber, something we don't really understand. on the 60th anniversary of nato i was asked to lead a new strategic concept for the new secretary-general. one of the things we talked about was whether a cyber threat was an article five threat because estonia's banking system are brought down. at that stage, people were nervous, saying, we don't of the genesis. now we understand that a cyber threat can bring a state down. there's also the usage of cyber and technology to undermine systems. one of the things -- i have just come from georgia and ukraine. in ukraine i was briefed by people that showed what the russians had been doing to undermine the system there through fake news.
they were able to penetrate it in a number of ways and take a piece of the story and turn it around. ukraine is a very complex country and in the western part during world war ii, there were some that worked with the germans. all of a sudden, there were stories in the ukrainian paper about how all of western ukraine were nazis. they took pieces of information and pushed it. i think we have to recognize that we are dealing with a president of a country -- of russia -- who is a kgb agent and they know how to do propaganda. they are using information in a way to undermine the system, democracy. what they want to do is undermine the democracies in europe and separate us from europe and i do believe they have figured out how to make our life more complicated in every single way through various new methods and various aspects. we are an open society and they
are using our openness. how do we deal with it without closing down? of us challenge for all to think through, but it has changed because we are being attacked in a new way through a new system and it is very interesting because the chairman of the russian's joint chiefs has developed a doctrine about this. it's hybrid warfare. their military guy has put it together in the way they plan to reassert themselves in a variety of places in the world. moderator: this information is not new. the mindset behind this information, meaning putin's worldview, it is not new either. is this a case of everything old is new again. last sovietology
students. what's different. >> this is an old story, but with a new capacity. we have to recognize that not only does a cyber world allow rapid world influence, but it allows you to do this in ways that was not possible before. i did some work as a student about what the soviet's average work. and actually, they were kind of clumsy. this isn't clumsy. this is highly sophisticated. onill say that i hope we are top of what really happened to us, that we are really investigating it in ways that bring all of our tools, placesing ways that -- like google and facebook will know how this is done. and then we have got to fix it. is, if they do
this to us once, it is their own fault and if they do it to us twice, it is ours. we have a national effort to stop this. matalin said the right thing, we have to do it without shutting
ourselves down, absolutely. but we need better cooperation between the private sector and the government on this. sometimes out where a live and a silicon valley, people talk about privacy. we all want to protect privacy, but we also want to protect the country and that conversation is not going on in a very effective way. there is too much division between government and the private sector. i know the europeans worry a lot about privacy and some of the things they believe american intelligence agencies might have done in that country. that whatever differences we have with the europeans about privacy pale in comparison to the differences we have with russia or china. so, i hope the europeans will be
a part of the conversation as well. >> i find it fascinating because the russians, god bless them, they are saying, why are americans anti-russian? well, don't interfere in our elections and we won't be anti-russian. and i think we
have to be so hard on this. we have to hold them accountable and we have to get the private sector to understand they are responsible for this, too. we all have to step up from this event. we can't just assume that will happen again. i will tell you, when a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. it really is because you are making sure the democracy shifts from what the people want. and we did not just the it here. you can look at france and other countries. this is their new weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get front of it and i can tell you our intelligence agencies are working overtime
now because there's just so much when it comes to cyber threats that we are having to deal with. siliconrespect to valley, i think these companies are recognizing this responsibility. this is the time, then, for a quiet national conversation. i don't want it on the front page of "the new york times." but a hope people are reaching across his boundaries. i think there is a willingness to have this conversation that was not there a few months ago because this russian effort has gotten peoples' attention. >> but i think also we have to be very protective of our friends. the u.s., our democracy depends on having a free press. are allowed to cover the stories as they want to. when you do not undermine the importance of the press in this country.
we were talking about freedom house and what has been happening in other places. when we are out abroad, talking about the importance of compromise and parliaments working with their executive branch and how they can work better and they look at me and say, like you guys at this point? we need to remember, we are an example without press, with our institutional structures. that's very important. >> let's turn to part two. that's the way back to the question about the imperative miss of the american leadership. -- the imperative nature of the american leadership. in washington, d.c. they are no less than eight dozen conversations going on right now about the future of the liberal democratic order. so, we will start another one here today. secretary albright, what do you think about this now, ears in the making, that the worldwide
democratic order formed in the wake of world war ii. is that still relevant and what is the role of american leadership today? sec. albright: i believe it is still relevant because i believe it is all the same and people want to be living in societies where they can make their decisions and be respected for them. i never liked the fact that people said, people in x country are not ready for democracy. everybody is. it involves in different ways. -- it evolves in different ways. i am so proud to be an american because of the things we have done and especially if you have come from this country, wanting to live in freedom. how do weon is, explain what we are doing and how important it is to talk about the resiliency of democracy and the strength of democracy is we can correct our mistakes. but it does require us to have honest conversations and to say, for whatever reason, one
election turns out one way. why did it happen? it that we messed about how the liberal order needs to operate and that it is based on respect for other people's views. i think it's more important than ever for the united states to act in a leadership role. i would like to think president and mrs. bush for doing this because i think it is an important message i and i am proud to be a part of your system here. moderator: ambassador haley come you have been at the united nations for nine months now. the u.n. was formed in response to world war ii and the charter of human freedom and rule of l aw. the liberal democratic order has traction at the u.n. today. how do you assert that? ambassador haley: i tried to give a strong voice to america. the biggest surprise i saw, the
capacitors, they are not as figures -- the biggest surprise they aree ambassadors, not just figures that are sent. negotiations can actually happen at the u.n. i can negotiate something and they can literally get on the phone with their president and we can start moving foreign policy. the united nations is the center of the universe for every other country. my job is to show the american people why it matters to us. what the role of the united nations can be, and how we can make it more effective. we need to communicate what we want to see happen. the u.s. has led and always will lead, but if you look at the rest of the world, as much as we worry about the threats and chaos that seems to be there, it is still in a better place than it was years ago. it's improving slowly over time,
but there are different issues that come up. it is in port and for us to use every avenue, whether it is nato, the united nations and always make sure we are not doing things alone. we are doing them together with other countries, but are showing the power of our voice in the process. >> i have to say, you just said something, nikki. people think that people at go to receptions and do nothing, but it is opposite. i found that when i go there, the people were high-level people in their own governments, and they acted from that perspective and everybody works very hard. you see more foreigners than any other diplomat and being able to do that is so important. but there are receptions -- but they are working receptions. >> there have been fun receptions. >> the liberal order, i think is
actually a bit in trouble. i think the principles are still extremely important. for what was it? we believed in an international economy that was not zero-sum gain. the perfectionism of the period between the first world war and the second record led to a great depression. so, the people who found themselves in leadership after world war ii said, not again. they believe that with the free trading system we could build prosperity for everybody, not a zero-sum game. then there would not be conflict or competition over resources -- we would compete, but it would not be conflictual. secondly, we believe in free people. henforget that wha germany and japan were rebuilt, they would again rise and threaten people. democracies don't fight one
another and there is something called the political piece. democracies don't fight one another. on third, they counted american military power to protect the whole thing. you know, there are challenges with that. there are questions of whether the benefits of free trade have been evenly spread in our economy. we have to recognize that the system really did create an awful lot of prosperity. without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we have got to find a way to reaffirm that. i think what the international order needed most was patients. that'-- needed most was patienc. that is what i most see lacking. it took a long time to defeat the soviet union, but we did it on the basis of our own model, prosperity, and on the basis of our own values and we stayed the course through multiple
administrations and different parties, we stay the course will step i always use the following example. people say, you cannot do anything about the russian annexation of crimea. maybe not during the short term. but for more than 40 years, we refuse to accept the incorporation of the balkan states into the soviet union. -- i had a stamp on my desk. never you mentioned that the and estonia, we stamped it with, the united states does not support the incorporation of the balkan states into the soviet union. we have never had better friends than estonia, latvia and lithuania. who are we as americans to say, well, they just can't get it right? as i stood in front of the portrait of ben franklin as president bush swore me in, i
had to remember that the first american constitution counted my ancestors as 3/5 of a man, and there i was, taking an oath of by a jewishrn in my supreme court justice, ruth thisruth, so, democratic effort is a long-term effort. sometimes i think, one of your hardest problems is explaining to the american people and maybe to the administration, this can be hard. as madeleine and i will tell you. these things take time. >> these things take time. they have also taken over the course of 70 plus years bipartisanship. there was a sense during the bipartisanship.
certainly there were points of disagreement and sometimes big ones, but there was a certain unity of vision and got annuity. was that real? sometimes people say it wasn't. was that real, and can it live on today, and how? i really dot: believe it was real and it needs to be. ever-glory closely with chairman helm. worked very closely with chairman helm. i now am counting on bipartisanship in terms of funding democracy programs. lindsey graham is my best friend very think it has been important to make sure the budget of the state department and the various programs are funded bipartisan link because it is about american leadership. it is important and i have done
a lot of work with steve hadley and i believe in bipartisanship. it's what america is about, which is why when we go abroad and deal with opposition parties, to tell them that there are various issues they have to work on together. >> i think it is bipartisan now. if you look at the way both parties strongly support what we are doing with north korea -- the way they look at our military and making sure we are defending our military, building up our military, what we have done with venezuela -- there is a lot of focus on isis and syria and iraq and how we have been able to defeat them and move forward. there is a lot of bipartisan support and i can tell you in reference to the funding, what we have tried to do is really talk about what works and what doesn't. what can we improve on? what's necessary?
and what is not working? we just got out of unesco. they had assad on their human rights committee. you could not justify it anymore. you look at those types of things. because a deal happens, it does not mean a previous administration was right or wrong. you have to go back and reevaluate every program and say, is it still working? that should not be seen as an offense to a previous the ministration, but as america moving. >> i agree with the need to make sure that things are working and that is when the taxpayer needs to be assured their tax dollars are being well spent. i would say, when you take on what is not working, always affirm what is.
one of the questions -- and it is out there, and is the elephant in the room. will you affirm the things that clearly, have worked? if you ask most americans, how much of the national budget goes to foreign assistance, it will give you wilds numbers -- 20% to 25%. we all know that depending on how you count it is less than 1% or 1.5%. if you look at a couple of signature programs that president bush launched and president obama kept or extended, the president's emergency plan for aid relief, everybody says worldwide, we saved millions and millions and millions of lives. if you look at global health issues like women's cancers, we've saved lives. saved lives.e you look at the millennium challenge. we are actually saying two
countries, you have got to be governing wisely, fighting corruption, investing in your people or you will not get a grant from the u.s. -- we will take it away if you stop doing that as we did with nicaragua. that is something that could be affirmed tomorrow because there is plenty of testimony with how it has worked. i have been a budget officer, and as secretary of state i paid a lot of attention to the state budget. i may be able to spend those programs every year. but it is also important when you say, we're going to stop doing coming. unesco, you won't get an argument for me. you have to affirm the things that have worked because when you lead with what doesn't work, att is all that people here home and abroad. i hope it could be recalibrated to talk about the things that work. and if i could mention one other thing, when we talk about democracy motion, i prefer the word democracy support. people think that when we say
democracy support or promotion, we mean iraq an in afghanistan. -- we mean iraq and afghanistan. i would have never said, we need military power to bring democracy to afghanistan or iraq. wee had a security issue. we certainly had one in afghanistan, when those safe havens were being used to attack the united states, and after 9/11 we had to give it of them. once we had overthrown those dictatorships, we had to say, what are we going to leave behind? we believe we were better to try to help the iraqis and afghans bill stable democracies -- by the way, i would still rather be iraqi than syrian today. most of democracy support is not that complicated. it is helping women's groups to
find their voice in kuwait. it is helping to do elections and monitoring, which we do in places that are having elections and we want to make sure it is appropriate there. it is supporting the free press and civil society. i met a woman in russia two years ago when we were there, a woman with limited sight. she recognized that the soviet union and russia have a long history of just tossing disabled people on the streets because they did not somehow exemplify the greatness of the country. andactually went to putin said, we have got to be better than that. her support for disabled people. that's what we do. i hope that as we think about what doesn't work, we really think about what does. ambassador haley: that is a
pervert example. if you look back at the africa policy during the bush administration -- i am going to africa on saturday because we want to build it back up to what it was. it has fallen and our african friends feel that. we look at all of those programs, where we went and helped them build up their economies. we want to get that back to where it was. there needs to be a clarification on the budget situation with what happened. i was a governor. when you have an executive budget, you lay out ideas and you lay out the direction you want to go. you don't expect it to be set in stone. when the president laid out this budget, it was just his conversation point. he was starting the conversation. start theted to conversation of, we need to build up our military, update our nuclear programs and make sure we are prepared to take on any threat. the fact that the state department was brought to a
bottom level was not because we want to gout the state department in the process. it was, this is my priority. when we testified before congress, we told them, when it comes to peacekeeping issues, these are very important and we are doing these, but we are also looking at the peacekeeping issues. we are funding the u.n., spending 20%. but every challenge that came up, they were throwing more peacekeepers at us, but they were not checking if people were trained. if we are going to do something, do it smart and right. so, we cut off $700 million of the peacekeeping budget at the u.n., that we did not cut helping people. we made them smarter, better, we made the quality of those programs good. the same with every program at the state department. i am trying to bridge between the president and congress on, what is working that we don't
want to gut, and what is frivolous that we do want to cut. and i think condi is right. we to make sure we are talking about what works and what is right. a perfect example was the united nations. you saw a massive u.s. representation. you saw the president and vice president and first lady. you suck general mcmaster in general kelly. you saw so many of the u.s. delegation going. because they see the meetings that can happen. i think this is a learning process for the administration, as much as it is for the public. i think you will see the following problems. if funding from the netted nations is cut and then you go to work on reform, you will not be listened to. it happened to me because congress cut the amount of money
that would go to the u.n. it led our best friends the british to deliver a line they had waited for more than 200 years to say -- representation without taxation. it is very hard to have any leverage. the other part, i do believe we need a strong military, but the difference between the budgets for the pentagon, over $600 billion, and for the state department, under $50 billion at the moment, is crazy we don't have a lot of tools and it is necessary to have a functioning diplomatic service. to have people that are really out there -- and president trump is going on a very complicated trip at the moment and there are not enough people in the diplomatic system to be supportive. i'm worried about that. i agree with you. i don't like democracy promotion. i think you can't impose democracy.
that is an oxymoron. what you have to do is have a support system and what i am very proud of what we do is elections, but also support for the rule of law, civil society, getting women into offices over the world. and by the way, the national democratic institute and the republican institute was created by ronald reagan. nationbuilding is not a four letter word. the bottom line is, it's in the advantage of the country we are doing it for.w condi,, as you said democracies don't fight each other and i am proud that we created the community of democracy, which is to meet and share best practices and to try to figure out how to support each other.t -- those are the kinds of tools that are out there. i know it's new. i know what it is like to take over, but i think there are things out there that the
current administration could really rose to strengthen america, by strengthening our friends and allies. ambassador haley: and i think congress has been helpful. they tried to see the fact that conversation was happening and say, how do we do this? with the peacekeeping, it was at 28%. u.s. was supposed to be a 25%. it is still going to be a 25%. we need to make sure we keep things fair and at a good place. we will not see things gutted. we're not. we can't and the president is not want to. but we do want to say, can we have a conversation on everything we are doing from a foreign policy standpoint international and make sure it is still in the best interests of the united states. >> in the few minutes we have left, i want to turn to one of the very important audiences for this conversation. that is the american people. they have often been described as reluctant internationalists.
how do we make the case to the american people today for a strong, active u.s. leadership in the world. what are the arguments and proof points that need to be different? maybe we use one example about free trade. ambassador haley, i will start with you. you were champion of the global economic engagement. you indicated that 1/4 of the state's workforce is supported by a global enterprise. how do we communicate to the american people that active trade and strong engagement has positive benefits for the country as a whole, but as individuals and families? what can we do better to support those who are adversely affected by globalization, by changes in technology? you could askey: the people of south carolina. they are overjoyed. we now have five international tire companies and three international auto
companies. comewe get companies to into the country and manufactured, everybody wins. our economy gets better, people start going to work and everything starts improving. as i recruited companies in, south carolina felt the strength of what was happening and i think americans know that. they want to see -- yes, we want to see more businesses do business in our country. but they don't want to see us as being taken for granted. in a lot of cases like south carolina, you can talk to them and they will tell you is it is absolutely worth it. as governor, i felt, either we can create the jobs as south carolina, or those jobs will go overseas. that was the goal of recruiting international companies in and getting them to help us with our economy. moderator: how do we create that in other states? >> first of all, i agree with you completely. alabama is very dependent -- actually, the german carmakers
there are being most prolific in terms of employers, other than a couple local companies. the problem is, if you start to talk about renationalization though, other people might start to renationalize. you can't start saying, let's bring those factories back from mexico or the united states and then tell the germans, produce and alabama. so, the free trade narrative cannot be broken into pieces. we want to have foreign companies here, but we don't want to have plants in foreign countries. that is the confusion right now. trying to say to the american people, the reason the system marked as people can locate their production in various places. if i could make one other point. -- i amve to recognize a believer in globalization and free trade, but there are places that have not benefited.
but it is also true that there are people who don't have the skills to keep up with the globalizing economy. it is absolutely true that there are people who look out at globalization and say, that's a threat. so, how do you address them? i'll make three quick points. i'm an educator. that's really my profession. first of all, we don't have anymore third graders can't read. ssecondly, don't have 18 and 19-year-olds who go into college, come out with debt and no marketable skills. thirdly, do something about 35-year-olds that need to be retrained. americans are not so confident anymore that they could compete in this global economy. we used to have supreme confidence that we would win our fair share. i think the president is right
to look at where those rules are not fair. he is right to look at some of the practices that china engages in. but when you are doing that, let's remember that if america is prepared, america can compete. we have really benefited from a system in which we are allowed to compete. sec. albright: i find it very hard to talk about trade as a zero-sum game. it has to be reciprocal and fair. what i'm troubled by is that we 're acting all the time as, america is in trouble and everybody is taking advantage of us. that's not healthy -- first of all for our troops and secondly, it is not the kind of attitude that we need to have. we gain from trade. but i have to say the following. i'm an wonky internationalist. i worked for ed muskie. he was chairman of the shoe caucus and because i was his chief legislative administration, i became the
empress of the shoe caucus. he sent me to maine to talk to people at the dexter shoe company. we get there and the feeble to not have the skills, and did not want to move. interesting part was, whether it was a walmart or something, they shopped there and bought cheaper goods. the interesting question was, are the workers only workers, or are they also consumers? i do think it has to be reciprocal. we can't tear down all the trade agreements. i happen to have been in mexico three month ago and there was a change in mind on nafta. we have confused our partners and friends in terms of the direction we want to go in with trade. part of the problem has to do with automation -- that has nothing to do with trade. i agree with condi on the educational issue. i think, we we can't keep
thinking that the united states is pathetic and that we are in trouble. we are not in trouble. we need to lead and we can lead from a position of strength with partners. moderator: would you like to respond? ambassador haley: first of all, i will never say this country is pathetic and i would never want anybody to think that. i'm the daughter of parents who came here. we were reminded how blessed we were to come to this country. i am the wife of a military veteran who fought in afghanistan. i want us to be proud of our country. we i do think when have these trade agreements, there is nothing wrong with saying if we can make them better. i don't see us tearing up any deals. if that was the case, we would have done it already. i do see the fact that this is an administration that said, let's see if we can make this better? that is the overall theme i see
from this administration. in some cases, we can't. in a lot of cases, we can. i think we need to have to look to that and i agree with condi -- education is key. i saw it in south carolina. we recruited an international bicycle company from china. it went to a small town of a few hundred people that had not seen any sort of business in years. they saw the greatness of it and those are the stories we have to tell. >> the other reason you have to be careful about the rhetoric, as you are looking at this, there can be a reaction in other countries, too. we sometimes think we only speak to our audience and they don't hear it abroad. mexico.e audiences in
it's having an effect, reinforcing this -- i call them the four horses of the apocalypse. they tend to ride together. when we use that language, even for very good reason, but sometimes we do need to look at the agreements -- we have to remember that others start to react. moderator: well, the clock tells me we are out of time. i'm so grateful to the three of you for your leadership. thank you so much. [applause] >> it was so nice. let's get together some time. [applause] >> on the next "washington
journal," we look at u.s. involvement in afghanistan by getting a reaction. we sit down with john sopko, the special inspector general for the afghanistan reconstruction to talk about the challenges in the region. after "washington journal," we head to the bipartisan policy center for the future of the u.s.-turkey relations, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. center for strategic relations looks at afghanistan. that is live, beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> monday night on "the communicators," the newest members of the federal communications commission joins us to discuss net neutrality, the justice's department effort to sue at&t over its plan to buy time warner and media ownership rules.
caller: -- >> do you have faith in the independence of doj antitrust authorities? given the pretty big situation unfolding right now. >> the fcc has a pretty limited role to play in mergers. when a transaction comes before us, we say, is there a transaction specific harm? a there is, we try to find tailored to for that harm and if that addresses the harm we have identified, we can move forward. i think one thing you saw the fcc deal with over the last couple years was the merger -- sort of the christmas tree. but that is not my approach. lawfully under the communications act. >> watch "the communicators," monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> that is all about prime minister
theresa may taking questions in the british house of commons. later, a look on how technology and other factors play a role in determining a person's health. this week on q&a, journalist and author robert mary, he talks about his book president mckinley, architect of the american century. >> the author of president mckinley, the new biography, 1897was life like back in through 1901 in the united states? what was going on?