the united states is committed to making the united nations more effective and accountable. i have said many times that the united nations has unlimited potential. as part of our reform effort, i have told our negotiators that the united states will not pay more than 25% of the u.n. peacekeeping budget. this will encourage other countries to step up, get involved, and also share in this very large burden. we're working to shift more of our funding from assessed contributions to voluntary so that we can target american resources to the programs with the best record of success. only when each of us does our part and contributes our share can we realize the u.n.'s highest aspirations. we must pursue peace without fear, hope without despair, and security without apology. looking around this hall where so much history has transpired, we think of the many before us who have come here to address the challenges of their nations and of their times. and our thoughts turn to the same question that ran through all of their speeches and resolutions, through every word and every hope. it

the united states took the only responsible course. we withdrew from the human rights council and we will not return until real reform is enacted. for similar reasons, the united states will provide no support and recognition to the international criminal court. as far as america is concerned, the icc has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. the icc claims near universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country. violating all principles of justice, fairness and due , process, we will never surrender sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. america is governed by americans. we reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism. around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty, not just from global governments but also from other forms of coercion and domination. in america we believe in energy , security, for ourselves and for our allies. we have become the largest energy producer anywhere on the face of the earth. the united states stands

we are right now employing more states thane united any time ever. i look forward to partnering with president duda. thank you for joining me today. poland has chosen its place in the world and as a loyal ally and strategic partner of the united states, we greatly appreciate that. we welcome the next 100 years of them ship between our two nations. thank you. >> i am delighted that in this polandhe year of regaining its significant i'm .ble to be hosted here also from this perspective, -- and those living abroad, especially those in the united states. is the measure of polish independence was an important policy. before 1918, he was the one who put polish independence on his agenda. fact that the pols back then experienced a lot of good from the united states. i am delighted today i can be and which isngton renewing that strategic partnership. -- back then it was signed by the ministers in today, the new version has been updated for a lot has changed. was signed byip myself and president trump. this agreement indicates the most important aspect ever a

the united states is committed to making the united nations more effective, and accountable. i have said many times that the united nations has unlimited potential as part of our reform effort i told our negotiators the united states will not pay more than 25 percent of the us peacekeeping budget this will encourage other countries to step up and get involved and also share in this very large burden. we are working to shift more of the funding of contributions to voluntary to target american resources with the best record of success. only when each of us does our part and contributes our share, can we realize the un's highest aspirations. we must pursue peace without fear, hope without despair and security without apology. looking around this hall for what has transpired think of the many before us who address the challenges of their nations and of their times and our thoughts turn to the same question that ran through all of their speeches and resolutions to every word and hope, what kind of world will be leave for our children? and what will they inherit? the dreams that fi

the united states pushes forward its ambitious project of a pan arab alliance against iran but there are deep divisions brought on by the gulf crisis so can washington's desire to rope in israel along with the arab states against a common enemy actually succeed and what does it mean for president trump's middle east peace plan this is inside stuart. welcome to the program today with me peter w. washington has begun putting together a plan to forge and iran alliance with the arab countries now the u.s. secretary of state mike pompei has met foreign ministers of the gulf cooperation council states and egypt and jordan they discuss the perceived threats posed by iran to peace and stability across the middle east however the g.c.c. is of course a house divided once the blockade imposed on by some of its neighbors lifted before the u.s. security plan can be considered credible husham. discussion today from new york. a gathering of gold fry vel's. this is the first time qatar's foreign minister has come face to face with his counterparts from saudi arabia the u.a.e. and egypt since the fou

united states navy. commander william donovan, united states navy. [bell chime] >> lieutenant commander, charles. united states navy, retired. commander patrick dunn, usn. petty officer first class, edward tl heart, usn. [bell chime] >> barbara edwards. [bell chime] lieutenant commander robert elsie, united states navy reserve. [bell chime] >> charles falkenberg. [bell chime] >> and his wife, leslie whittington. [bell chime] >> and their two children. dana.s muilenburg -- [bell chime] >> petty officer third class, jamie, united states navy. [bell chime] >> j joseph ferguson. amelia the field. [bell chime] gerald fisher. [bell chime] >> darlene flag. [bell chime] husband, admiral wilson avenue flag, united states navy reserve, retired. [bell chime] petty officer second class, matthew. united states navy. [bell chime] >> sandra foster. [bell chime] first lieutenant, richard gabriel, united states marine corps, retired. [bell chime] >> captain lawrence, usn. [bell chime] >> cortez. [bell chime] >> brenda gibson. [bell chime] linsky, unitedld states army

of the united states. because there are no other words to describe the fact that that great state indicated to poland and defined poland as the country who should be back on the map and was reinstated on the map 100 years ago. and i'm absolutely delighted that today as polish president i can be here in washington at the same table with the president of the united states and sign an agreement which is deepening our strategic partnership and renewing that strategic partnership. i'm talking here about the agreement on the strategy partnership, such agreement signed in 2008 between our two countries. back then signed by the ministers of foreign affairs and today this renewed version, the version which has been updated because a lot has changed over the ten years, this renewed version of the strategic partnership was signed personally by myself and president donald trump. and i would like to express my deep gratitude to you, mr. president, for that fact. this agreement indicates the most important aspects of ou

other governments, but not the united states. there are no mechanisms to hold the court and its personnel accountable or curtail its unchecked powers when required. icc proponents argue that corrupt or ineffective judges can be removed by a two thirds vote of parties to their own statute and that a prosecutor can be removed by a majority ote however, i ask everyone in the room today, would you consign the fate of american citizens to a committee of other nations, including venezuela and the democratic republic of the congo, entities that are not even states, like the palestinian authority? you would not appear i would not. this administration will not. the icc is an assembly states party and cannot supervise the court anymore than the united nations general assembly can't supervise bureaucracy. recent allegations of mismanagement and corruption among icc personnel make this perfect clear. the first prosecutor elected by the states parties attempted to protect a high-ranking government official from prosecution, assisted a busines

it certainly has no consent whatever from the united states. as americans, we fully understand that consent to the government is a prerequisite to true legitimacy. we reject such a flagrant violation of our national sovereignty. to make matters worse, the court structure is contrary to fundamental american principles, including checks and balances on authority, through the separation of powers. our founders believed that a division of authority among three separate ranches of government would provide the maximum level of protection for individual liberty. the international criminal court melds two of these branches together. in the i.c.c. structure, the executive branch, the office of the prosecutor is an orbegan of the court. the framers of our constitution considered such a melding of powers unacceptable for our own government and we should not accept it in the icc. other governments may choose whichs reject the powers but not the , united states. there are no mechanisms to hold the court and its personnel accountable or curtail its unchecked

it certainly has no consent whatever from the united states. americans, we fully understand that consent to the government is a prerequisite to true legitimacy. we reject such a flagrant violation of our national sovereignty. to make matters worse, the court structure is contrary to fundamental american principles, including checks and balances on separation ofthe powers. our founders believed that a division of authority among three separate ranches of would provide the maximum level of protection for individual liberty. the international criminal court melds two of these ranches together. the executive franch, the office of the press theater is in oregon of the court. the framers of our constitution considered such a melding of powers except all for our own government and we should not accept it in the icc. , but not theher governments united states. there are no mechanisms to hold the court and its personnel accountable or curtail its unchecked powers when required. proponents argue that corrupt or ineffective judges can be removed by a two

member to have signed by a lot of agreement with the united states to combat terrorist financing. let's bring in our panelists joining us from doha it will him for a hat associate professor of conflict resolution to high cities for graduate studies into holland hammett more so a professor of political science at the university of tehran and from washington d.c. hillary mann leverett former u.s. state department official and c.e.o. of the political risk consultancy strutter welcome to the program blame weather report talks about the decline in attacks and casualties. from terrorist groups is that an indication that groups for example like i said until qaida have lost the fight. well first of all the report talks about an induction and number of attacks by. by isis by about twenty three percent compared to last year so it's very obvious that the move of isis from. dakar has impacted the numbers of attacks launched by these by by isis this year however this leaves us with two major questions one is that with these numbers are sustainable with that there are continuing they're going t

it centers the united states or the idea of the united states being a welcomed haven for people who were exiled. unfortunately, the history of the united states tells a somewhat different, more complicated story. the truth is, we have not always had a humanitarian impulse to welcome refugees. usually, we have only done so when it is in our humanitarian national interest. usually, we are more inclined to actually reject refugees than to accept them. and to brawl the words of -- borrow the words of historian eric king, refugees who have been accepted are not only resettled, but are also deeply unsettled by the experience of forced migration. -- migration and resettlement in the united states. to give you an overview of what i will talk about today, i will give you a little background about american refugee resettlement policy after the second war. then i am going to use that background to set up why the 1970's were such an important period of change. the ugandan asian refugees first arrived in united states and they were followed by an even larger group of refugees, southeast asian refugee

united states. a balanced trade relationship provides more exports than any other country from the united states. canada is a small country and cannot continue with the instability with investors keeping their hands in their pockets, with manufacturers slowing down. that instability is problematic and has been for quite a while. prime minister judo's political -- prime minister trudeau's opposition is stepping up and says they're concerned about what he is doing to the economy. the first time in this process that the prime minister is getting domestic push back at home. >> if you have questions about negotiations, give us a call, democrats at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001 negots a. independents, 202-748-8002. outside the united states, we want to hear from you, especially in the --202-748-8003 is the number and you will join the discussion. remind viewers that the wilson center is? guest: a nonpartisan think tank created by congress in 1968. our mission is to advance understanding of the w

member to have signed by a lot of agreement with the united states to combat terrorist financing. let's bring in our panelists joining us from doha it will him for a hat associate professor of conflict resolution the highest it's used for graduate studies into holland hammett more so a professor of political science at the university of tehran and from washington d.c. hillary mann leverett former u.s. state department official and c.e.o. of the political risk consultancy strata welcome to the program blame whether port talks about the decline in attacks and casualties. from terrorist groups is that an indication that groups for example like i said until clyde to have lost the fight. well first of all the report talks about induction and number of attacks by. by isis by about twenty three percent compared to last year so it's very obvious that the move of isis from. dakar has impacted the numbers of attacks launched by the byte by isis this year however this leaves us with two major questions one is that with these numbers are sustainable with that there are continuing they're goin

the united states and the i.c.c. have had a rocky relationship since the court's inception the united states is not a member it doesn't it refuses international jurisdiction over its nationals but following the prosecutor's decision to open a case and to investigate alleged war crimes by u.s. military personnel and u.s. intelligence personnel in afghanistan that relationship has worsened and that's when we heard john bolton really use very harsh language against the i.c.c. it's not really the first time that john bolton has used such language he was an official in the bush administration and since then he has been trying to undermine the credibility of the court now the i.c. i c c did not react to following john bolton speech but when x. excerpts of his speech were released by the media they did send us a statement now in their statement of the courts of mentions that it benefits from the membership of of some one hundred fifty parties from from across the world trying really to defend its credibility even though the

the bank of the united states. this is the second bank of the united states. if you recall from earlier in the semester, there was a first bank of the united states. 1791, alexander hamilton pushes through congress a bank of the united states. this bank a private bank with stockholders and dividends. this bank, hamilton says, will benefit not only financial interests, but will benefit the country, the public. how will it benefit the public? because the u.s. treasury will deposit money in the bank coming in from taxes and the treasury can borrow money from the bank. it has a 20-year charter but lots of opponents. the chief opponent, thomas jefferson hates the bank. the bank, jefferson believes, is an imperils american liberty by elevating to power a wealthy financial elite. jefferson opposes it. jefferson comes to power in 1800, the first banks charter expires, but one year later, a war iraq with britain. a very expensive war -- a war erupts with britain, a very extensive war. thomas jefferson charters a second bank of the united states and this bank, much like

the other nuclear arms date has far more than the united states. do you share that view and what we need to do to catch up to both of them before behind. >> i do, senator. certainly in the case of russia which is the focus of our discussion today and been engaged in a distinction modernization program, but of their nonstrategic nuclear weapons as well but i would argue has far outpaced with what they've done today. the comments that were made importance of the u.s. modernization program. over the years we have reduced the levels of our nuclear stockpile by some 85%, they pursue the modernization being referred to earlier. the united states has not built a nuclear weapon in many, many years. russia we know has come to china hunts other nuclear weapons states have. so i do see a discrepancy there and i would completely agree with the conclusions reached in the nuclear posture regime. >> so, one of the things that senator corker pointed out was that part of the agreement around new s.t.a.r.t. was the modernization piece. the idea would continue to mod

together with the united states hopefully. not having the nuclear deal in place would not put us in a better position toiscuss with iran the rest that we need to address. indeed, we have started to discuss with iran the last couple of months the situation in n,ye the situation in syria. i believe we are better hesitioned with agreement to discuss and address and achieve results on the issues than without. >> you have spoken over and t again about security, ab making sure you maintain the global security so far as you can. some said that maybe you shouldn't be using just that as your paradigm. for instance, eli lake of bloomberg, if she didn't exist, the oug autocrats w trying to create her. dictators should not aim to transition these countries to open societies but rather to prevent conflict at all cost. >> the? question is >> the question is, do they have a point? is there, for stance, a stronger way you couldr eit then or now be engaging iran on human rights as well as for instance ernon-prolion? >> we are the only one in t

dates. -- united states. many of the refugees are in camps. one of the key aspects in being a refugee is you are facing persecution and unsafe conditions in your homeland, you cannot go back. but refugees, before they come to the united states, have already been vetted and authorized. they already have an immigrant visa. as i said before, you can go through all of these processes, but if the united states has hit the annual cap of how many refugees they will admit, you have to wait. asylum-seekers, i will add this, you can see the way the united states gets to control refugee admissions. you just have that number. we are only going to admit this number of refugees. one of the tensions and concerns around asylum-seekers is that you don't have the same control. the international law and u.s. law is that asylum-seekers can come to the united states and request asylum. their case is supposed to be evaluated. this is the law. but the united states can't control them, the number that apply, you are just supposed to

dates. -- united states. many of them are in camp. of beinge key elements a refugee is your facing persecution and unsafe conditions in your homeland, you cannot go back. refugees, before they come to the united states, have already been vetted and authorized. they already have an immigrant visa. as i said before, you can go through all of these processes, but if the united states has hit the annual cap of how many refugees they will admit, you have to wait. , i will add this, you can see the way the united states gets to control refugee admissions. you just have that number. we are only going to admit this number of refugees. one of the tensions and concerns around asylum-seekers is that you don't have the same control. the international law and u.s. law is that asylum-seekers can come to the united states and request asylum. their case is supposed to be evaluated. this is the law. but the united states can't thatol them, the number apply, you are just supposed to take the men and evaluate their cases and ma

states and north korea's very low to be fair to the north koreans united states has also cheated on nuclear treaties with rogue states most obviously with libya seven years ago are ten years ago right so there's low strategic trust on both sides which is why these big grand gestures are sort of denuclearization exchange for peace treaty these large things they're just not going to happen what we need to do is kick this back down to the working level and lead diplomats start making small steps and build toward something more substantial this is just not a big bang approach is just not going to work and once the american election said after the midterms the democrats take the house of representatives and trump is embroiled in investigations and scandal all this is going to disappear in twelve weeks the trauma administration is not going to be talking about north korea suing i mean if just robert talking about the domestic implications of the deal on my top annex do you think that. the south korean president is taking over those things into consideration and what would be the options a

not because of the united states. i came to the united states from the university which is -- built in 1953. that was the university i was working. it was built by united states. my first english teacher was a peace corps gentleman. i love him dearly, and they showed us the good of people. so i deeply thank the united states for their help, and thank you for that question. and now in the short past we've had some questionable support. it is not because of the united states support. it is our people who are bad on the top of the government who are using that support in their own direction. so i am thinking, you know, suggesting any help, even if it's bad, it helps somebody in that country which needs that help. so if united states support, we appreciate. i am thankful of that. thank you. >> thank you. mr. said, how do you think, or how do you view the united states but how do you think the people of ethiopia right now view the united states? >> take as much. it is a great question. let me start from this, from the memb

the united states is committed to making the united nations more effective and accountable. i have said many times that the united nations has unlimited potential. as part of our reform effort, i have told our negotiators that the united states will not pay more than 25% of the u.n. peacekeeping budget. this will encourage other countries to step up, get involved, and also share in this very large burden. we're working to shift more of our funding from assessed contributions to voluntary so that we can target american resources to the programs with the best record of success. only when each of us does our part and contributes our share can we realize the u.n.'s highest aspirations. we must pursue peace without fear, hope without despair, and ecurity without apology. looking around this hall where so much history has transpired, we think of the many before us who have come here to address the challenges of their nations and of their times. and our thoughts turn to the same question that ran through all their speeches and resolutions, through every word and every hope. it is t

the united states, resettled from other countries versus versus people who come to the united states who make an asylum claim within the united states. for those people in the second category, those that are within the united states going through the refugee determination process of there, they are at risk. the reason is for the policies you've made. for example, those that will be denied on the spot simply because their claim is situated within environments or because it is revolving around gender-based persecution. for those people they will not be provided the same kind of protection that they would be expected to be provided here in canada. i can give a very real example. there's a woman and her six-year-old daughter who fled guatemala to escape her abusive husband. on arrival in the u.s. she was separated from her daughter, criminally prosecuted. daughter was taken to a facility for unaccompanied minors. after five months in detention,, she was deported back to guatemala where she is hiding from her abuser, and her daughter has since been released to a family member in the unite

they are part of the -- they have not declared war of the united states. we don't want them to take power. but, are they an enemy. the truth was, president obama did not believe the united states should attempt to find a forever war against the taliban. there is not a political clock nor the resources or prospect of military victory. but as generals who sold him on this that could succeed in afghanistan the way it was perceived to be in baghdad after the surge of 2006. the president was reluctant to initially -- there's a funnier conversation than afghanistan. let's make some noise. [applause] i try to get out of laugh out of fighting and dying, but we will keep trying. there is a scene where the president makes it known through his white house aides that he doesn't want to fight this. his aides go into a secure conference room and they say, have we ever really said he was sorry to defeat the taliban? the pentagon representatives were appalled and they come back with a big powerpoint that shows the different statements that statements that have been made o

that the united states is an unwelcoming hostile place. so recent dramatic cuts to the resettlement program have been predicated on this notion that they pose an undue risk into the united states. the vetting procedures do not work. all of the evidence suggests that this claim is unfounded. this is almost 40 years of history here. not a single refugee has been involved in a fatal terrace act on the united states. that includes the tens of thousands of refugees that we had resettled from syria and iraq. over 70% of the refugees a very small number relative to the 6 million that have been displaced so the 2% are women and children under the age of 14. and a single one has been involved in a terrorist attack. so slashing the program not only runs contrary to american values and commitment to human rights and democracy but it's also counter to our national security interests. it also helps fuel the idea that the united states is a hostile unwelcoming place which promotes the extremist narrative that the united states is hostile to islam. to pe

right now in this moment in the united states senate where the united s states the president says a woman cannot be trusted because she was drunk although he was tweeting she cannot be tweeted because were really that bad she would have reported it when she was 15 when it happened. republican leaders say they will plow right through this while they desperately try to do anything that the substance they hire t a woman that they are calling their female assistant they cannot trust the man on the republican judiciary to ask so they are scrambling to line up the committee votes and planning to stay through the weekend to rush through the vote that they are confident they will win. before doctor ford has even had a chance to be heard and a vote that does not need to be rushed. mister president, right now in this moment these are the questions. will women be heard? or will women be ignored? coming forward to share the most terrific one - - horrific experience of their life? will they be trusted? will they be respected or listen to or heard? so right now in this moment in the united states senat

state her case. he will state his case. before representatives of the united states senate. and then they will vote. they will look at his career, they will look at what she had to say from the 36 years ago. we will see what happens. i just think he is at a level that we rarely see not only in government, anywhere in life. honestly, i feel terribly for him, his wife who is an incredible lovely woman and for his beautiful young daughters. i feel terrible for them. reporter: on trade, mr. president, you announced a new trade tariffs against china. trade tariffs are an important part of your economic and trade policy. in your first year in office, the u.s. trade deficit increased by 12% per last month, we saw the trade deficit increase to $72 billion. my question to you is, is your trade tariff policy working? pres. trump: where would you started? we did not do anything with respect to china because we wanted to have the benefit of china doing with north korea. they have been helpful. i hope they are still helpful. there is a question about that. it got to a point where the num

states are very different than the actions of the united states not only the closure of this mission but also turning a blind eye to ongoing israeli settlements back. expansion rather and also the cutting of bilateral aid to the palestinians and also of course the most symbolic one of all is the moving of the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem so well we hear that this is an effort to bring about peace is seems just the opposite thank you for a white house correspondent live there in washington now we'll have reaction to the closure of the piano office in washington in just a moment we'll be speaking to ari fawcett who is standing by in ramallah in the occupied west bank but first let's go to i.c.c. headquarters in the hague in the netherlands and holder is therefore is quite a tough posture from the u.s. administration from john bolton as we heard in his remarks any reaction from the i.c.c. so far. well like you mentioned hard harsh language she was not diplomatic but we did get reaction from the international criminal court before her before that speech excerpts of that speech

the united states and the i.c.c. have had a rocky relationship since the court's inception the united states is not a member it doesn't it refuses international jurisdiction over its nationals but following the prosecutor's decision to open a case and to investigate alleged war crimes by u.s. military personnel and u.s. intelligence personnel in afghanistan that relationship has worsened and that's when we heard john bolton really use very harsh language against the i.c.c. it's not really the first time that john bolton has used such language he was an official in the bush administration and since then he has been trying to undermine the credibility of the court now the i.c. i c c did not react to following john bolton speech but when x. excerpts of his speech were released by the media they did send us a statement now in their statement of the courts of mentions that it benefits from the membership of of some one hundred fifty parties from from across the world trying really to defend its credibility even though the

united states to designate the commander of the forces. the same resolution authorize the unified command at its discretion to use the united nations flag in the course of its operations concurrently with the flag of the various nations participating. in its first report to the security council on the operations of the command, the united states informed the security council that on 25 july, 1950, unified command was established in the security council first use the name united nations command in resolution 88 on eight november, 1950. name, thending its united nations command is not a united nations operation or body nor does it come under the command and control of the united nations. furthermore, it was not established as a subsidiary organism of the secret counsel is not funded on the united nations budget. as such, there are no reporting lines between the united nations and the united nations secretariat. madam president, the secretary-general in the upcoming high-level brief of united nations general assembly discuss how he and the un

welcome to all of you around the united states and the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. today on the show. president trump spent much of his week at the united nations general assembly criticizing iran. >> the regime is the world's leading sponsor of terror and fuels conflict across the region and far beyond. >> iran's leaders sew chaos, death and destruction. >> i'll talk to one of those leads about the president's charges. iran's foreign minister javad zarif joins me in a moment. also, how to fight back against vladimir putin. lessons from petro poroshenko, the president of ukraine. his nation is literally on the front lines of russian aggression, and how to handle immigration from across the globe. i'll talk with mexico's president, switzerland's president and new zealand's prime minister on their views about one of the most divisive issues today. >>> but first, here is my take. president trump's speech on tuesday at the u.n. was an intelligent, at times eloquent presentation of his america first world view. he laid

they're not coming to europe or the united states and canada. they are remaining in the region and countries that are typically poor, have poor capacity, have managed massive flows and often have the same ethnic and sectarian rifts and their society as the country of origin. the united states is strategically using the refugee program as a way to relieve some of the burden on the countries at first asylum in addition to providing generous humanitarian assistance packages. we saw that in vietnam and the coast of opiate and it worked -- and in kosovo and it worked. helped facilitate military cooperation with partners and allies in the region. it is undeniable that we go to places like iraq and afghanistan and syria and somalia that there's going to be a negative impact on countries in the region who are expected to deal with the sizable refugee flow could unite states has facilitated military cooperation from basis to logistics and other support functions by accepting a share of the burden from those countries of first asylum. not only the countri

for decades the united states opened its economy. the largest by far on earth with few conditions we allowed foreign goods from all over the world to flow freely across our borders yet other countries did not grant us fair and reciprocal access to their markets in return. even worse some countries abuse their openness to dump their products subsidize their goods target our industries. and manipulate their currency is to gain unfair advantage over our country. as a result our trade deficit balloon to nearly eight hundred billion dollars a year. for this reason we are systematically renegotiating. broken and bad trade deals. last month we announced a groundbreaking us mexico trade agreement. and just yesterday i stood with president moon. to announce the success. completion of the brand new us korea trade deal. and this is just the beginning. many nations in this hall will agree that the world trading system is in dire need of change. for example countries. were admitted to the world trade organization that violate every single princip

the united states took the only responsible course. we withdrew from the human rights council, and we will not return until real reform is enacted. for similar reasons, the united states will provide no support and recognition to the international criminal. as far as america is concerned, the icc has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. the icc claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. we will never surrender america's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. america is governed by american americans. we reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism around the world. responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty. and not just from global governments, but from other newer forms of coercion and domination. in america, we believe strongly in energy security. for ourselves, and for our allies. we have become the largest energy producer anywhere on the face of the eart

the united states is stronger now than ever before. we have the highest stock market that we've ever had. if you invested in the stock market on average we're up over 45% on the various markets. you have to be quite happy about that. but i view it differently. i view it as jobs, i view it as a strong economy, i view it as as record-setting unemployment. we have unemployment at the lowest levels we have ever had and in particular with certain groups, african-americans, asians, hispanic, they're the lowest levels in the history of our country. we have been doing well, we appreciate the big investment and the confidence that you have in the united states. thank you very much. >> mr. president are you happy bout the kavanaugh hearings? president trump mplet i'm happy with the kavanaugh hearing. i watched a little while today, i saw some great answers. he's an outstanding intellect, he was born for the position. i heard people saying as long as 10 years ago that he should be a supreme court judge. i didn't know him, but i was hearing from f

longer for decades the united states opened its economy. the largest by far on earth with few conditions we allowed foreign goods from all over the world to flow freely across our borders . yet other countries did not grant us fair and reciprocal access to their markets in return or. even worse some countries abuse their openness to dump their products subsidize their goods target our industries and manipulate their currency is to gain unfair advantage over our country. as a result our trade deficit ballooned to nearly eight hundred billion dollars a year. for this reason we are systematically renegotiating. broken and bad trade deals. last month we announced a groundbreaking us mexico trade agreement. and just yesterday i stood with president moon to announce the successful completion of the brand new us korea trade deal and this is just the beginning. many nations in this hall will agree that the world trading system is in dire need of change for example countries. were admitted to the world trade organization that violate every single pr

the united states has pulled out of it. and the president said that most in the middle east supported his decision to pull out of that deal. it's not quite true. it is true that the alliance of anti-iranians do support it, whether it's bibi netanyahu's government, whether it's crown prince of saudi arabia, the uae, that coalition support that because they think that they can achieve regime change in iran. but the rest of the world, including russia and china and the europeans and everybody else, are desperately trying to figure out some, as i have been told, new mechanism to keep the deal somehow alive despite american sanctions, secondary sanctions on european and other countries that do business with iran. so the iranians have yet again been certified as complying with it, and yes, of course, there are issues about ballistic missiles, about interference in syria, about hezbollah, about all of those things, terrorism, but those will never be addressed in this deal, according to the iranian president. he said that we are no

the united states and c.c. have had a rocky relationship since the court's inception the united states is not a member it doesn't it refuses international jurisdiction over its nationals but following the prosecutor's decision to open a case and to investigate alleged war crimes by u.s. military personnel and u.s. intelligence personnel in afghanistan that relationship has worsened and that's when we heard john bolton really use very harsh language against the i.c.c. it's not really the first time that john bolton has used such language he was an official in the bush administration and since then he has been trying to undermine the credibility of the court now the i.c. i c c did not react to following john bolton speech but when x. excerpts of his speech were released by the media they did send us a statement now in their statement of the courts of mentions that it benefits from the membership of of some one hundred fifty parties from from across the world trying really to defend its credibility even though the

we have had this debate in the united states before. for our younger participants, i want to remind you we have had this conversation more than once. this is not new to american politics. we talked about burden sharing with our allies in the 1960s. senator said, europeans pay up. there was a debate in our congress about amending our support on nato, based on how much europeans paid. these are consistent and continuous conversations that we ought to be having with our allies on alliance equities and i think we ought to make sure the american people support these alliances. they are important in that sense. i think this is what actually looks like one of our stronger relationships at the moment, because i think a lot of these indicators are shifting in a direction the american people should feel more confident about. we have also had economic reassessments of how we participate in the global economy, whether it is trade deals with japan or the plaza agreement in 1985. whether you go back to the 70s and think about the smithsonian agreemen

mostly the united states. the united states was always more global, far reaching and they have got along by agreements that set up institutions that take politics out of the management of the relationship. we sound a treaty that created an international commission that looks at management of the great lakes, water quality. invasive species and presidents don't need to worry about that at all. it is coming along below the surface. we have and air defense agreement set up in the early cold war to protect the shared airspace because we feared they would come over north america and we needed the institution. when it is needed it is not necessary to go back to the president -- of the united states as in 9/11 when we needed to do something because we did not know. the canadians ordered american and canadian fighters to secure the airspace. they were not trying to get around the politics. nafta is the most central institution in the relationship. what is unnerving them is shaking up of something foundational that the

states is a hostile unwelcoming place which promotes the extremist narratives that the united states as hostile to islam, hostile to people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds coming here. so we would do well not only to raise the cap to historical norms but to increase our commitment both here and overseas to protecting refugees. >> one of the things you mentioned that he think is important to confront head-on in a little bit more detail is this very pervasive idea that refugees pose a serious risk to americans in the form of terrorism. despite the fact we know they're vetted more thoroughly than any other immigrant that comes to the united states. but that's not to say that there is no risk pics i asked the panel and perhaps scott wants to take this on, what makes a national security community so confident in our vetting systems, and are refugees the population of people we really need to worry about with regard to terrorism? >> great question. first, let me just say what an honor it is to be on the internet and thanks for having me. you might imagine that my politics are

states and again our security policy is completely dependent on the protection of the united states and by singling out germany and by you know making making germany looking bad and i'm pointing to the fact that if we have a deal in energy deal with russia we would be competing depending on the country first of all he didn't have to facts trade but second it signaled that you know we have to work really hard to have to u.s. administration still supporting germany on a larger scale and diplomats said iran would request to speak at this meeting do you think that's likely well yesterday after the speech i thought well you know i think if the iranians really. play along and say we still. to talk to you with it makes them look very good if. there might be a small chance that advisory team around to our evaded pushes for the offer to talk to the president because if the sanctions were implemented the way the us government or not if it's a disaster for iraq. yes ok listen you know yesterday donald trump kept everyone waiting for over an hour today again his skeptical waiting off for quite

europe was two to three years behind the united states. in the u.s. federal reserve two years ago, with the labor market having more confidence reaching full employment. europe is not there yet. if the ecb still has negative interest rates in a year with some improvement in the labor market. : i'm wonderingie how you are senior approach at the moment. seeing a strong participation by investors. just given some of the headlines, we have had somewhat outlook for two years. the u.s. equity market has been stronger than anticipated. valuation still have significant merit for investors trying to orient our portfolio the next several years. that marketseve outside the united states may have slightly higher expect it returns in the next several years. we are seeing and urging investors to have modestly lower spec tatian's, but you withdraw from the markets. we see a significant risk of a recession. vonnie: do you see a bear market bonds? no, we would need to see a significant selloff at the long end. there is always a risk of that, but we have fairly high co

states to stay there and for the united states then to say in syria that it's plans to stay because even though it hasn't been invited was never invited and it's taking up all of eastern syria it means basically that the policy that's evolving from the us at this point appears to be a de facto partition of syria itself. and now when we take over eastern syria that means we're working with the kurds that then brings in the turks and the turks do not want to have anything to do with the kurds because they regarded miss terrorist but the united states is cozying up to the kurds so that in effect within the bride and all that area on the border with turkey it could potentially mean that turkey and the united states could have a confrontation if the decision is made to by assad and by. putin to. take back there. one of the most important if not the most important killers of western society is the rule of law and the equal application of the law this is now being put into down we are told it is the court of credibility that rules whatever that means is the cabinet nomination again. the ol

that tension manifested itself in the united states in the second red scare. the first red scare occurred after world war i. in this talk, i explore an important element of the red scare, the effect of spies real and imagined, on the american political system and the fear of communist subversion of the american way of life. several incidents occurred to reinforce america's fear of communist spies. one of the chief reasons for this fear involved the atomic bomb, which was used during the -- to end the war against japan in 1945. this slide here shows the bond -- bomb that was detonated over nagasaki, japan on august 9, 1945. the first bomb was detonated over hiroshima three days earlier, august 6, 1945. for four years between 1945 and 1949, the united states was the only nation in the world that possessed the atomic bomb. in july, 1945, a few weeks before the end of world war ii, harry truman informed soviet leader joseph stalin at a conference in germany of the u.s. development of the atomic bomb. remember, this is just a few weeks before the bomb was actually

russian ambassador to the united states that important verbal agreements were reached at the helsinki summit on arms control issues including preservation of the new start and inf treaty. we continue to find ourselves an incredible situation. the american people, the elected officials in this body and members of the president's own administration and hear more from russian officials about alleged agreement that the president is making about national security issues. what constitutes an important verbal agreement what constitutes an important verbal agreement as they reach key decisions with russian key arms control treaties. if so, why hasn't congress been informed about this decision? along with many others i have drawn support of policies to compare russia for its multiple and ongoing transgressions including military aggression, malign influence and repressive policies. i believe we must develop comprehensive strategy to confront our adversaries that ultimately prioritize safety and security of the united states in the defense. this requires being cleared by about the threats we fa

thanks to the united states military. and our partnership with many of your nations i am pleased to report that the bloodthirsty killers known as isis have been driven out from the territory they once held in iraq and syria. we will continue to work with friends and allies to deny radical islamic terrorists any funding territory or support. for any means of infiltrating our borders. the ongoing tragedy in syria is heartbreaking. our shared goals must be the deescalation of military conflict along with a political solution that honors the will of the syrian people. in this pain weird as the united nations led peace process be reinvigorated but rest assured the united states will respond if chemical weapons are deployed by the assad regime. i commend the people of jordan and other neighboring countries for hosting refugees from this very brutal civil war. as we see in jordan. the most compassionate policy is to place refugees as close to their homes as possible. to ease their eventual return to be part of the rebuilding pro