tv American Patriot Award Dinner CSPAN May 8, 2018 9:01pm-9:49pm EDT
we hear is what we have to change in my view. one, we have to deal with income inequity. i love bernie, but i'm not bernie sanders. i don't think 500 billionaires are the reason we are in trouble. i hope my grandkids grow up to be world food program, another attorney general, social organization for at-risk youth. they've got all this education and you know, i should have had a republican. [laughter] when they put me in a home i would have a window with a view now there will be no view. [laughter] but all kidding aside, we haven't seen this huge concentration of wealth. the top folks are not bad guys.
wealthy americans are juswhile s patriotic as poor folks. i found no distinction, i.e. really happened. but this gap is yawning. ♪ >> thank you. excited about this next session of the program. hope you enjoyed dinner tonight. i had a great dinner at a wonderful table. we are gathered to present the 2018 american patriot award to two exceptional americans, the honorable james baker iii and the honorable leon pinetta, whose global leadership contributed to democratic ideals, diplomacy, global peace, and there is no doubt about that if you look around the world and all that they have done. the american patriot award
symbolizes the national defense university's mission of educating, developing and inspiring strategic leaders to be comprehensive collaborative academic experience to anticipate and confront national and global security challenges. so, the leaders, the men and women of strength, character, of an imaginative, disruptive thinkers who will personally lead the charge in the united states and their respective countries around the world to find new ways to integrate military and civilian, domestic, public and private sectors, new ways to leverage and synchronize the wisdom and knowledge and experience that they've gained to present to the desperate hearts of the national and international security structure forging new partnerships, strengthening existing ones. all of this coming together to overcome shared threats around
the world. and changing and the dealing with the threats and challenges to our collective national security. ultimately achieving the shared goal of universal peace. aof the 2008 american patriot award is presented to the 62nd secretary of state, the honorable james baker iii, and the 23rd secretary defense, the honorable leon panetta. this evening, our distinguished honorees -- [applause] are going to participate in a discussion on national and international defense, diplomacy and peacekeeping. please welcome secretary baker and panetta. ♪
♪ >> the standing o. that's got to be a good feeling. thank you for doing this. this is a great place and we have some big issues to talk about. today was a breaking news day with iran deal. i guess i'd like to get your perspective on that move today and what potentially comes next with this administration and what happens pulling out of the iran nuclear deal. secretary baker. >> first of all, i'm not sure anyone can tell you exactly what's going to happen, because i don't think anyone really knows. i would have to say that in my opinion, the deal was questionable to begin with, and i don't believe that it is an
extraordinarily great deal for the united states. having said that, -- and i think that because it doesn't cover ballistic missiles, its sunsets after ten years, it doesn't cover terrorist activities in the region by iran. so i would have preferred to see us not get into that negotiation to begin with. once we got into it and came to an agreement, then i don't think it's in our best interest just abruptly pull out unless we do know what's going to happen next. and i don't think anybody knows right now where our allies are going to be on this. if they are winners, that's great. if we were going to pull out, i would like to see us make sure that we had our allies with us when we pull out so that we
could keep sanctions. the only reason the iranian came was for the sanctions and if they are not with us, we are going to lose those sanctions. we have our own, that unilateral sanctions don't work as well as multilateral sanctions, so i'm not sure where we go from here. i wouldn't have gotten into that discussion to begin with. having gotten into it, i'm not sure i would have pulled out of it abruptly unless i knew that our allies were going to be there wit with this. >> secretary panetta is the prospect of getting iran back to the table to renegotiate another deal a realistic one? >> no, i don't think so. i think the fact that the president has basically torn up that agreement has sent a signal to iran that it isn't worth going back to the table because they are not sure even if they
negotiated whether or not the president would be there. and i think that is one of the praises that is being paid. i had preibus at the institute and we were talking about how the president operates and he said something that really impacted on me because i think it is true, which is that this president operates by chaos and he uses chaos as leverage. and i think that is what we are seeing right now is when he walked away, she tore it up but the problem as there was no strategy as to where we were
going. and he did the same thing with regards to the paris agreement and the next step and he did it on terrorism, imposing but where are we going with that? the same thing is true with iran. basically throwing the agreement out. but what's the next step? he's right, nobody knows what's going to happen next. so let's just say this, we are where we are. you are experts, how do we avoid israel hezbollah war as we are watching the iran react to what has just happened. >> we are going to be there for israel if the security is threatened and she's intact is
no doubt about that. i don't care whether you have a democratic president were republican president. let me back up a minute to do iran agreement, we wouldn't be in this place today if the obama administration had done what they should have done and that is to send the agreement to the senate. it wasn't that good of an agreement so they didn't think that they would get it through so they said we would treat it as an executive agreement that we would end be here in this
situation if they send it to the president. >> what jim is pointing out is something that i think has changed which is like my concern about the dysfunction on capitol hill because in my time i saw washington work and not work. in our day we worked together. a republican administration when we worked together on legislation and we were able to do if things about ronald reagan passing of legislation that was bipartisan. it takes a lot of work. it takes a lot of negotiation and capability and if you can
slam dunk these agreements you are crazy. if in fact there had been that kind of careful negotiation that keeps the senate informed with what you are doing a. the senate knew what we were working on because they had to get those ratified. if you are working with the congress and you are negotiating and they know where you are headed, you would have a better chance of getting it approved by the senate. it's not, we are going to continue to have situations where agreements will be made because you can't pass it on the hill you try to put it into effect. >> the last thing on this, for the foreign governments if they look at the u.s. essentially
pulling out of this agreement, the opponents of the move says that sends a signal to the countries that when the u.s. get an agreement who knows, administration to administration whether you are going to stay. is that a concern? >> sure it is. i don't think how bi get how bis quite frankly. it is a verifiable agreement anywhere anyplace anytime on the ground. why worry about the deal is we've seen this movie before a.
we've seen at the first tim it n 1994 in the administration. we had clinton, bush and obama administration's three three eight-year administrations try to appease north korea and it didn't work. it's as far as we are going to denuclearize the peninsula. what does that mean, what it means to them is probably a lot different than what it means to us or what it ought to mean to us, so that is a great transition. the secretary of state is on the ground as we speak at this hour in pyongyang. she is a part of laying the groundwork for peace talks and is going to leave probably with the three americans that have been held hostage. that is what is out there like me. what should we think about these talks? you mentioned some concern about
them. as the administration gets ready to do this in the next couple weeks, what are the landmines? >> book, landmines havbooks, lan there time and time again. we know well what the landmines are. because -- what, north korea is in many ways from an intelligence point of view, from a strategic point of view it is an easy read. north korea's first goal was to protect its regime. that's been true for all of the camps. protect the regime. how do you protect the regime? by developing nuclear weapons. so the idea that somehow they are going to walk in and denuclearize and they are going to suddenly say we are going to get rid of it all goes right to the heart of why north korea exists which is to protect the
regime. so, they are not just going to throw their hands up and save denuclearize, which doesn't mean we shouldn't be negotiated or try to work something out on a transitional basis. but the problem i see is that that takes a lot of work. secretary of state knows damn well if you are preparing for a summit between president of the united states and kim jong-un, you've got to d do it with preparation, and you've got to determine what steps you are going to take to denuclearize on a traditional basis. how are you going to verify it? how are you going to develop some kind of a cap on testing for both the nuclear testing as well as missile testing? how are you going to be able to develop some kind of transition in terms of the force structure?
all of that needs careful work. >> i get that this is a policy on the fly. >> my concern is if they are going to have a summit in a couple of weeks, i don't think the president is going to be prepared with the visit to be able to go in and really develop the kind of property agreement that has to be done which isn't to say they shouldn't be. that's why. that's fine, go ahead and meet. but the reality is that seems from my point of view the best that you can hope for is to agree on a framework, they will agree on some goals and put the negotiators to work. that is the most hopeful approach. but if they have a summit and it ends in a disaster because they can't work out anything, i think that is.
japan, south korea and others who participated in sanctions against north korea including by the way, china. china isn't happy with what they've been getting. doing. they don't want to see a nuclear armed peninsula and we don't either. so there is room for cooperati cooperation. i would say you don't like what's happening there and we don't like what's happening there, tell you what we will do, we will find a peace treaty with north korea ending the war we will give full recognition to any government you put in power in north korea.
to exchange the diplomatic relations to the job is to put a government in power that doesn't seem to acquire or maintain nuclear weapons i think we could cut that deal and we are beyond that, we are negotiating directly with north korea. the verification part of any agreement is going to be where the rubber meets the road, and i hope we don't just take a promise. so how about those relationships and south korea that people have looked at not as the new leadership that particularly as the u.s. overall. >> no they are not. >> they are trying to trade with the u.s., but not as much as the last administration. so vis-à-vis, how do you deal with in the south china sea when you are dealing with china.
>> it is a serious and important issue and what we need to do first and foremost is to make sure that we maintain a very robust presence in the pacific in the form of, we need to continue to do all of the navigation exercises and the full range of diplomatic political and economic sanctions for any behavior that is against international norms. the emergence of china as the new global superpowers, they are already an economic superpower, that this is the biggest geopolitical and geostrategic
challenge facing american policymakers today, how we react to the emergence of china. it's extremely important for the united states to have the best possible relationship we can have with china. it's extremely important for them to have the best possible relationship that they can with the united states. there's areas we can operate with china and we will have to confront with china. where we can cooperate in on the difference is we need to manage those differences and very carefully. >> i think that i think that ite diplomatic challenge. i had the honor of meeting with the president xi. i have to tell you that even
though he's obviously concentrating power, he is a very thoughtful guy and he speaks very directly. most presidents, as jim knows, when you sit down with the leader of other countries, they have talking points they have to go through, so you have to play this game of talking points and xi had no talking points. he basically was concerned with our redistributing of power to the pacific. that is one of the things we had in our defense plan and he was concerned about that. we are a pacific power, you are a pacific power. we have common interests. you are concerned about terrorism and north korea, trade, freedom of the seas. those are issues we are concerned about, so we can work together. he said we can because in the end of this is about peace and prosperity. i think the key is to communicate, to be there to talk with them, to negotiate with
strength which means we have to have the navy power in the pacific and we have to be clear that they have to protect the freedom of the seas. >> out as thhow does the situatr into that? >> the trade war back and forth. >> as i said, this trade issue has been something we fought over in both parties but in a global world you want to protect free-trade. that's important to the economy. you have to be tough negotiators and protect your interest, but you're not going to engage in a trade war. that means disaster. the key rate now is having implemented these terrorist ters
very strategy to negotiate so you can try to move forward with some agreements that will allow the trade to take place and will not be sold in a trade war. >> i think i understand politics. i've done a lot of it and i've got the scars to show for it, but i think one of the biggest mistakes that this administration has made was to pull us out of the transpacific partnership because it wasn't just important economically, it was important geostrategic for the leadership role in the pacific and we have withdrawn on that and tha anna china is fillt void. there are some indications we may be trying to claw our way back and this was a terrible
mistake. leon is right nobody wins trade wars. it used to be the holy grail of the left in this country, the political left and the political right. the consensus to free trade has gone down the tubes and that is too bad. the economic growth that's what creates jobs. >> understanding the russians actions have caused some re- energizing of nato because of its expansionist efforts. what do you think that the fundamental strength and status of the alliance today and look forward about russia? nato is incredibly important to provide for national security.
nato was the first to be established and is proven successful in that effort but more importantly, nato has shown the ability to be able to adjust its mission. after 9/11, nato became because of article five, they helped us in the war in iraq and afghanistan. you heard the ambassador talk about fighting the war alongside the united states, so w we usedt in a way that did protect our national security on a number of friends. nato is important if we have to continue to provide leadership. nato doesn't work without the u.s. leadership. you can't stand back and say you
take care of it. the united states has to be there at the table because frankly if the united states doesn't believe it, nobody else does. that's the problem, that is the essential ingredient here. of course they need to provide more money for nato. of course they needed to develop capabilities like refueling. we did a lot of the refueling in a lot of the reconnaissance. they needed to develop those capabilities. but they can only do it with u.s. leadership. it's absolutely essential to make it clear with russia that nato is alive and well and we will abide by article five. unwinding from a cold war perspective, i know because i just wrote a book about it it out of tuesday.
as they reenergized the old soviet union. [inaudible] i was there at the end of the cold war and when we won the cold war and now i want you to use something else for 15 years after the collapse of communism and the implosion of the soviet union, we had a pretty damn good relations with russia under boris yeltsin and under vladimir putin and there was cooperation and joint efforts to. it hadn't gone to pot because of
us in our opinion but because of them. in trouble domestically, politically domestically, and if they need a whipping boy i don't know, that he has turned nato into a whipping boy. don't think for one minute that we are not back into a full-fledged cold war. we are. what should we do about it? the same things we did when he e fought in the first cold war over 40 years, and we ought to be confronting russia when she's unreasonable the way she has been, buzzing our ships and airplanes. i'm a secretary of state and he's a secretary of the senate, he may not be able to see this. we ought to shoot one of those airplanes down. [laughter] i mean i really mean it. the turks showed one of them down and woul and would haven'te absolutely nothing.
[inaudible] >> it really is regrettable that we saw the progress ending the conflict and now we are right back into it and not because the united states or our allies. >> the new cold war and the reason that it happened, a lot of it is putin playing his games, but i think putin read the weakness on the part of the united states and on the part of the european countries in terms of whether or not you're going to confront him for the things he was doing. and as a result of seeking that weakness, that's why he went into the ukraine and crimea and attacked our election system in
the u.s., because he felt they could do it without any kind of response. if we are dealing with putin, which i think that we can, but tcommitto deal with an arm stred the best way to do that is to draw the lines that jim talked about. you draw the line and say you are not going beyond those lines. if you make it clear and stick with it, then i think you can take the next step. we ought to make sure that we have our allies. one of the strengths of our security policy is our worldwide alliances, so when we do this and we definitely should, we need to bring our allies along behind us. don't have a hiatus between us and our nato allies. the three were just talking about cybersecurity.
in this new world that we are getting attacked all the time for the different state actors and that people on computers how do you generate the public support to fight and that in a public way? >> people understand cyber is the battlefield of the future. this is an area that is expanding on a basis that frankly i've never seen before in the technology. cyber can only interfere with
service and steal intellectual property of the bigges that thet problem is cyber can destroy the sophisticated virus that can literally destroy computers. iran developed this in saudi arabia and took down 30,000 computers. you can apply it in our electric grid and chemical systems or transportation systems or government systems or financial systems and paralyzed this country. that is the threat, and we are not frankly not aware of the potential of what cyber can do. they will have to take response ability to say to the american people this is a threat, and we'webetter deal with it. >> you said you were sitting next to the ambassador and the shift in the middle east has changed.
the gulf nations have taken a different administration. the shift in ho and how it refls our relations in the region? >> i think it is significant and important as one who's worked very hard to try to promote arab israeli peace, i am happy to see this because you now see saudi arabia and the gulf arab states teaming up with israel to fight isis and the terrorism and do a lot of other things that i think are very important. so, the transport has changed quite a bit since i was there some years ago. i think it is a healthy change and as i said before, it is important that we stay close to all of our allies. don't get separated.
one of the worries i have about this deal is that it's going to create a hiatus or a vacuum between us and some of our allies. i'm afraid that they may not come along. i hope that they do. i really hope they do, but if they don't, it isn't a good thing. >> we are living in a world now where there's a hell of of a lf flash planes that are more dangerous than "-begin-double-quote were too. we are confronting isis and dealing with failed states in the middle east and dealing with theory and north korea, dealing with iran, russia, china, cyber. a whole series of crises. the united states cannot deal with those challenges by itself and wait for the problem to
explode and then react to the crisis. the way you deal with them is through alliances to work with our allies to be able to put pressure on these different situations so we are taking action but doing it together. kim jong-un just spent the last day sitting down with china because he knows damn well he needs china on his side when he sits down. the united states ought to be doing the same thing with south korea and japan and the other countries in the pacific like australia and others to build the kind of alliance that says we stand together in this negotiation. if i can say one thing about alliances if you look at what george h. w. bush did in the first gulf war.
you bring people home and get other countries to pay for it. we paid $10 billion to that war and people paid $65 billion. in the budget committee i told jim in god because we were concerned about deficits. i was going to testify on the hill anhill and they would eat . how can you talk about spending money to do this when we have all of these cultural needs in this country and how many americans by the wa way it's a
forthcoming how many american lives is it worth? leon wasn't one of those guys that beat up on me that i only cite example because it shows you the leverage that you can achieve if you create alliances, but alliances need care. if you think that the public and private synergy that is trying to be established in elements of the government what about the future role and what can be done to facilitate the leadership that is needed to bring forward? >> we describe the kind of world wthat we live in in which we are confronting a number of challenges, we talked of cyber
and the new technologies that are being developed. the united states cannot be a world power unless we have leaders who are educated and understand the new technologies, the new kind of war that we are going to be fighting. russia has developed a hybrid war in which they are using cyber and proxy troops and the ability to undermine other countries. we are going to have to be able to deal with them and the potential of major power confrontation. all of that is going to demand leadership. it's in the business of protecting national security but the business of developing those leaders, and that's why it's critical to our ability to have a first rate national defense.
[applause] i want to acknowledge the medal of honor recipients in the room tonight. when i first became secretary of state, the first day i was in my office, the aid comes in and says there's a gentleman on the phone that says he's the commandant of the marine corps who wants to pay a call. the commandant of the marine corps, you bet i would receive him. i've never been higher than a captain in the marine corps, so i had him in my office, four
stars on each shoulder and it was all i could do want to stand up and salute. he looked at me and said this is just a brief courtesy call i want to congratulate you on being secretary of the united states and i bought you a gift. he handed me a box of business cards printed on the marine corps camouflage background and it said in the middle of the card james baker 3, marine warrior and then at the bottom of the card that said and secretary of state. [laughter] it has been an honor and a pleasure. thank you very much. secretary baker and panetta.
♪ ♪ we have come to the end of a remarkable evening. i want to once again congratulate our 2018 american patriot award recipients the honorable james baker iii and beyond panetta -- leon panetta. [applause] your work truly exemplifies the commitment to fostering the innovative and progressive global and national security exchange of ideas and strategic thinking that transforms the critical and integrative tapestry of the global peace. i also want to thank the
moderator of. [applause] and i would like to again thank all of the authors for your support. [applause] and for the gifts that you will receive as you depart this evening. and for those of you that have been supportive of ndu and the foundation, like tonight be a the call to stay engaged in the leverage your resources and innovative ways to support national security and global peace. for those of you experiencing dynamic work of ndu and the foundation for the first time, we look forward to building new alliances with you. the national defense university is the nation's premier military
educational institution. with an interagency and national security mission, ndu is not only the next generation of strategic leaders, but those also of our allies, part or send friends. we live in a difficult and dangerous world, both at home and abroad. we see the effects of the decisions made by the government officials in the 24/7 news cycles that are ubiquitous today. and with the partisanship of the officials, the decisions frequently made without a strategic context and nations that continue to grow in number, size and complexity the challenges facing the national defense university has never been greater. ndu makes a difference in the world and all of you make a
citizenry and the national concern to a lot of people i think it's important to remind the citizens if you get an opportunity to talk to each other, more than likely you will find this significance to each of us and we should try to remember that when we see these divisions between ourselves and congress. >> [inaudible] the death penalty, and i want to abolish it. i think that we can put money into education and other resources that would be better suited. >> an important issue in my state is education for the