Skip to main content

tv   Aspen Discussion on President Bidens First 100 Days  CSPAN  April 30, 2021 9:31am-12:35pm EDT

9:31 am
>> from parts overseas, we're looking forward to a really good conversation today about how to assess the biden's
9:32 am
administration performance on national security in the first 100 days in office. we have three conversations beginning in just a minute or two. we'll have a conversation with former national security advisor tom donlan and that will be moderated by our friends jennifer griffin of fox news. at 10:30 a.m. here in the yiet we'll have a second conversation with the new deputy secretary of defense, kathleen hicks moderated by another good friend of ours, helene cooper, the pentagon correspondent of the new york times and then at 11:30 a.m. this morning, so two hours from now, a third and final conversation and that's when our good friend, the national security advisor, jake sullivan will be interviewed by another friend from the wall street journal. and the as spend group has a
9:33 am
radical notion, that is that republicans, democrats, independents in the united states ought to be able to get along, ought to be able to meet together to talk about the major national security challenges we face, we've been doing that for 37 years. i want to pay tribute to our current co-chair, joe nye, professor of harvard one of the founders of this and professor condoleezza rice, professor and former secretary of state. we're delighted you're here with us today, i would say as a way of setting the ground for these conversations we've seen a major revolution, in my judgment, in american foreign policy under president biden's leadership. he has started with the belief and the core belief that i think is right, obviously, that the united states has to prepare itself at home. strengthen itself at home, and strengthen the middle class in the united states in order to be successful overseas. you've seen the president's
9:34 am
focus on the pandemic, on the issue of refloating our economy, on the continued challenges to our democracy as evidenced by what happened in washington on january 6th, and certainly, in doing much more to make sure that america is a nation of racial equality, and racial justice. those four imperatives at home, obviously, have been the focal point of this administration, but we've also seen a major change overseas. we've seen a refocus on the power of our alliances. building up nato to contain russia, forming and having the first quad meeting of heads of government so that australia, japan, the united states and india are working to limit china's growth and china's ambition in the indo-pacific. we've seen a focus in the appointments of john kerry and gina mccarthy and the works of president biden in hosting his
9:35 am
first major summit last week, the virtual summit on climate change by the positive event. we're seeing a major focus on china and our competition with china for military power in the indo-pacific, our competition on trade to make sure that china plays by the rules of international trade, which it's not doing now. our competition technologically, ai, machine science, biotech, and the militarization of those technologies and certainly what president biden talked about in his state of the union address the other night and that is the importance of democracy being self-confident and democracy's being powerful and democracies taking on in this battle for, really, for the future, the authoritarian power and they believe it's in his ascendency and i think that nearly everyone in congress would
9:36 am
agree with him, democracy should be the way forward and the organizing principle for the world so there's a lot to talk about. we've seen major changes over the past 100 days and we look forward to a very good set of conversations this morning and thank you for joining us. each of these will be a conversation with our interviewer and we'll leave time for all of you watching and listening and i think you all know zoom technology and rush the raise hand button, if not, the chat and q and a and alert our staff to call on you for a question. without further ado, it's a great pleasure to welcome two good friends of mine of the aspen strategy group, interviewed by jennifer griffin, fox news, take it away. >> thank you. thank you so much, nick, it's so great to be here today. i'm jennifer griffin, national
9:37 am
security correspondent for fox news at the pentagon and i was there with my last post in israel for seven years and i want to welcome two guests who need very little introduction, tom donlan national security advisor for president obama on national security and steve, last job was deputy secretary of state, but served in government dealing with these very difficult global issues for so many years. i want to start with both of you about take us into either the situation room or your last job and talk to me about what was the most dramatic day or difficult decision that you had to make in those jobs? why don't we start with you, steve? >> so jennifer that there are so many and let me start with one. on my first day, officially in
9:38 am
office as deputy secretary of state, was van january 3rd of 2020. i came in the office with the intention to get a good start on my new position, arrived around 6:30 in the morning. by 7:00 i was called down to the state department's op center, where we were briefed on the imminent execution of a strike against general qasem soleimani, and the revolutionary guard, and that was my first day in office and there were many more that followed. a couple of days later we detected signs of an iranian counterstrike against the u.s. targets across the persian gulf. it turned out to be a feint, but we had 50 minutes to get every american diplomate underground.
9:39 am
and i walked into the op center and gave the order for them to alert the embassies and it was like something out of a movie. those people are incredible in the state operations center, it's a well-oiled machine and it made the state department op center, the op center team one of my favorite parts of the job, as deputy secretary of state. really, an incredible group of young men and women worked certainly around the clock to protect the nation's interests. >> these are the same issues that president biden is facing and the kind of pressure that he's under. tom, what was your most dramatic day in the job? >> they're dramatic days, the most difficult are the days you're making decisions as to whether the -- to send men and women into their ways. and we had two trips to iraq
9:40 am
and afghanistan and we were about to increase the size of the force in afghanistan and we had one of the most aggressive counterterrorism campaigns the country has ever executed. those are the most difficult days when you sit with the president and the president is making those decisions with knowledge that he's putting it at risk and in harm's way. he probably the most dramatic set of events. we'll mark the operation of bin laden and thursday night before the raid the president was in the situation room asking their final recommendation whether or not to go ahead with the raids and asking the phenal recommendations, the views whether the raid was the right
9:41 am
option as opposed to other options and a bombing and other options that we had and a clear memory and pretty dramatic when the president was hitting in the situation room and some of the most prominent people of national security. joe biden, now president of the united states. hillary clinton, bob gates, leon panetta, mike mullen around the room and the president asked for final recommendations as to whether or not to go ahead and the room was split. and you know, we put it on our president, right, and i walked back to the oval office with him after the -- after the meeting and he had told the group that he would have this the next day, which would have been this morning, 10 years ago and i remember watching him walk back to the mansion from the west wing of the white house and really striking me, all of us that we put the tremendous decisions on the
9:42 am
shoulders of one person and we had an e-mail, and the president wanted to be in the situation room, you look out at the tremendous vistas of washington and came in and said i've made the decision, it's a raid and i have gathered there with bill daley, chief of staff and john brennan then the counterterrorism director and would go on to be cia director and a chief of staff and made the decision, it's the raid. draft the appropriate orders and he walked out to the helicopter to go to alabama to view storm damage. so, those were-- of course on sunday we launched the raid. we were on the fifth anniversary of dramatic events on the country's history and my experience in the white house. >> absolutely. let me take you to look at the last 100 days since you left office, steve. what's your assessment how the biden team is doing?
9:43 am
what's the biggest mistake they've made so far, do you think? >> yeah, so when i was first invited to speak at this session, jennifer, i have to say i reflected upon the kind of the absurdity of at that i canning -- of reflecting the administration 100 days in and i think it should be the last 100 days rather than its first 100 days and i actually look back at how he started using this metric of the yard stick for presidents and according to the history channel, the origin is in napoleon's escape from alba through his defeat at waterloo and transpired over 100 days and a marker for measuring success or failure for the leader. franklin roosevelt was in his tenure 1 #00 days as president
9:44 am
to look at the ravages of the great depression. here we are, struck with 100 days which is way too early. the-- i would say that i've seen or participated in a few discussions over the course of the last week on president biden's 100 days and i just find them way too gloomy and way too pessimistic. not about president biden, necessarily, but just about the country and the issues we confront and i think there are real positives out there and i think they're worth highlighting and one is the country is not involved in major wars. we have troops serving abroad in harm's way in many places around the world and we should never forget that and never forget them. but we aren't involved in any major wars currently and no major hot wars were left to the biden administration.
9:45 am
we have an economy that's rapidly rebounding, rapidly rebounding from the, i guess the pause i would call it last week and we have a really strong economy going into the beginning of 2020, but obviously, the shutdowns and everything else that were necessary to respond to the pandemic put it on pause, but it seems to be rebounding dramatically, all the more so with the stimulus poured into it. we have a military that's strong and capable and well-funded. we have relationships around the world with that the biden administration a rapidly advances and alliances is mentioned already. i will say that the leaders meeting of the quad was something that was part of an agreement at the end of the previous administration. in fact, the previous administration, i think, deserves eform --
9:46 am
enormous credit. and a combination of reasons including changing views of some of the partners, we have the makings of a partnership in the indo-pacific and i'm pleased that the biden administration has taken that on. along with building better relations and restoring a more popular tone and a nato alliance that's not as the previous administration on. the last thing in the positive, a strong bipartisan concensus on most of the major foreign policy issues we face today, geopolitical ones, climate change, immigration, trade, and still has contentious issues, in a national security sense, china, broad bipartisan common
9:47 am
views. on russia the same, north korea the same. the one watch i'd have for president biden there's a strong bipartisan view on iran, but not one necessarily supportive of his policy. i believe that there is a strong bipartisan on consensus on iran, and not for the jcpoa. and whether it could be a piece of legislation and vetoable that's the process that president obama designed in order to create the patina of congressional support or absence of two-thirds opposition. one watch-out is that president biden has inherited a strong bipartisan concensus on the major important policies today and one, he's swimming against the tide. >> host: and that's on the iran
9:48 am
deal. and david, biden's first 100 days he says that the countries are wondering whether the u.s. is a super power in decline. china, russia with troops to the ukraine border. and iran, even as they request more u.s. weapons and biden enters 100 days he needs a clear strategy for projecting power. your respond and your assessment of the first 100 days. >> yeah, i agree with a lot of what steve says by the way with bipartisan concensus around major national security issues facing the country, but referring to david's piece, i think the most important steps that the united states has taken in the national security foreign policy area has been on covid and economic recovery. this has been essential, i think, jennifer, the successful ongoing campaign, successful
9:49 am
today to distribute the vaccine and the economic growth that's following on from that. it's absolutely essential to the united states' standing in the world. why do i say that? it's obviously key to the health outcomes in the united states. that's key to the economic recovery and steve is right. most of the concensus is the economic recovery in the u.s. to post 7% growth this year we haven't seen in almost four decades in the united states and that's something that maybe we can talk about later. a tragic divergence between the united states and the developing world and countries. it's important in terms of academics and important in terms of our standing in the world that the united states is recovered the sense of
9:50 am
resilverado-- resill yens. and it's america's can-do attitude and the recovery of resilience has been essential, which we lost some in 2020 during the course of the covid crisis. it's interesting, i think that going to alaska where the secretary of state tony blinken and sullivan met up with foreign policy in the communist party of china, it would have been difficult to go to that meeting, i think, after the passage of the american rescue act, the covid relief back and the snap-back in the united states in terms of health and economics. so, i think that the united states is on a path to doing that and we're doing other things. steve mentioned, bringing allies is hall mark of this
9:51 am
administration, that's with the policies we have around the world. it's a strong experienced team. and one of the last things in terms of going forward and demonstrating strength, we've also, i think that president biden has brought the key issues ahead of us to the center of our foreign policy. what do i mean by that? climate with the united states has kind of joined into the concensus and trying to lead the effort around the world with respect to climate. on cyber, where i think we've had a terrific set of appointments dealing with seib and on health issues. i think that the president is building i think a very good platform to project leadership and the kind of strength that they talk about and the last thing i'll say on this, you can ask about this later today, but doesn't use the phrase, but i
9:52 am
think what the u.s. strategy is really reminiscent of, it's building situations of strength, that's what this is about. situations of strength at home and with respect to allies, which is a unique american asset and champs we face in the future. i think it's a big part of-- it's a big thrust of the biden policy, jennifer, is actually to kind of build out the situations of strength from which then we can operate and advance our interests. >> tom, let me follow up on one of the points we make. do you think that the covid recovery in the u.s. will be undermined if the biden administration doesn't do more to get vaccines to india and brazil? you could have two failed states. you're seeing states around the world as it's raging and protesters now taking on the government because they don't have access to vaccines. they're dying by the millions. it's not under control
9:53 am
elsewhere. yeah, this is is super important question, of course, it's the u.s. responsibility and i think in order to allow us to kind of move up from our platform to deal with our challenges at home, including the virus and the vaccinations and the economic recovery. the divergence in the world is striking now. and we won't be fully safe as americans from this virus as long as it's still, kind of at war with the world. right and from a number of perspectives, right, including, by the way, the development of future variants. the longer this goes on. so i do think as the united states gets itself in a strong position and we're seeing this already, you saw announcements yesterday that the united states is sending support to india, that it's a big discussion and an important discussion underway today about the listing, at least temporarily of intellectual
9:54 am
property and detection, around the core virus and around the world. that's a challenge, jennifer, i think is now kind of becoming front-- front and center for the united states in terms of policy and for the world. we do have this tremendous divergence and it's going to have to be addressed through strong and creative work to try to get more progress in the emerging markets and i see it's in latin america, as well as in india. it's a really important question and it's going to require effort and creative work. >> tom, it looks like we might have lost your video. i'll turn as you work on that. steve, we saw russia make some moves. putin make some moves. it seems he anticipated, he knew that the response was coming. biden said that he's going to
9:55 am
respond to the recalibration of the relationship, president biden called him a killer in the interview with abc. what do you think is behind the move to the border of ukraine? was that a bluff to do with navalny at home? what do you think moving to ukraine? >> and anybody who follows russia closely was puzzle over and even now, it's not a complete standdown, but it's less than it was. i'm not sure that president puth knew what his goal was there, at least what his final goal was. and i think his initial goal was to make it clear that russia would not be ignored. and that russia had tools at
9:56 am
its disposal and it could influence events and in a sense that that is correct, that our ability, much less our political willingness to defend the ukraine and russia border is not there. whether or not it was intended to generate the attention it got, the response was probably something russians would not like. and they've been expelled here and in the united states. and increasing scrutiny by the united states and partners in europe. and i'm not sure it was entirely the return he wanted. but president biden did something that i personally think was a good idea, was he also proposed to sit down with president putin in a summit and i know that many of my brethren in the analytical community on russia disagreed with that decision, but i did think that
9:57 am
i can see the contours of what the biden administration is trying to do with russia, the initial wave of sanctions and i do think that the preference to putin as a killer was a-- a word that -- it's something that president biden blurted out and frankly the words were put in his mouth by the interviewer and he went with. and circling the wagon making something out of the misstatements by our lead,ers, i've had to do it and i'm sure my counterparts in the administration have done the same. leaving that aside the broad strokes of the biden policy on russia seem to be first to reset it and try to find the bottom. so the sanctions, and i think the administration officials words, the sanctions were kind
9:58 am
of unfinished business, a direction of sorts to get to a point where we've made clear what our bottom line is on both election interference, campaigns and targeting u.s. candidates and on issues like intrusion into u.s. networks. and the second part of the biden administration's policy is one that i think that secretary blinken has advanced quickly working with our partners, particularly in europe to try to have a common front on the concerns that we have with russia and i think both of these, and having set those stages, you move to the third, which is an engagement and i can't possibly predict what the outcome of a summit would be between president putin and president biden, and we should know because they've indicated that that summit is likely to occur in the next two months and so we'll know. so, i think generally, the
9:59 am
administration is on the right track and unlike many of the other policies here, they've done something which i would encourage them to do as well, which is, they acted a little bit unconventionally, if i had one critique for the biden foreign policy and it's something probably many countries around the world welcome compared to the last four years, is it's becoming very conventional and predictable. now, there are challenges that we're a big power and you want to move slowly and telegraph where you're going and there are advantages to that and not critical of conventionality. look for opportunities, and i think that's where the previous administration actually had its greatest success is when it acted unconventionally. >> what was the most unpredictable thing that president trump did that you thought helped in hindsight, but surprised you, but led to a
10:00 am
breakthrough? >> we can talk about north korea at greater length later, at a minimum president trump tested the proposition that the north korea advanced. if only the leaders would meet, all things were resolvable. we learned a lot. ... foreign policy disputes from half-century ago were preventing the success of u.s. government from taking action that could bring greater peace and stability in the middle east.
10:01 am
the abraham accords which were a classic foreign policy previous administration, combination of transactional, detached from the conventions and restrictions that previous presidents all compelled to abide by, to jennifer, just in middle east, i've worked on every republican presidential campaign since 1996, every single party platform called for relocation of u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem, everything one. and by the way democratic parfums by the way and no president did. that happened. things that shifted. those unconventional acts that have created in my view a more peaceful and stable potential for the middle east that even that narrative by the previous administration. >> you were sent by president obama three times to meet with prime minister netanyahu, and you see there been incidents
10:02 am
with iran -- twice in the last month coming up to u.s. warships in the persian gulf, the israelis clearly don't want to talk to move forward, negotiations for a nuclear deal. they don't believe it will work. do you feel the israelis are playing a positive or negative role right now with regards to iran, and how concerned are you about the iranian revolutionary guard corps going its own route against separating and really calling the shots in iran and perhaps provoking u.s. military into a conflict? >> first of all i want to follow-up on steve's good comments on russia because i do think there's bipartisan look at this. i do think it's fair to say, steve, president biden comes at putin a little more different than president trump did. that's a fair statement even though he's known him a long time. he has encounters within and affirmed you as to the
10:03 am
hostility. so it is a different personal approach i think that president biden will take. it's fair to say the initial step -- left of business historical, take a with respect to sell the wind and election offense and things like that. one of the things want to add to your point on having nader together and focused on, on russia, which i think president biden, biden and blanket are committed. this is really where they have come from in their careers and so there's a strong view with respect to importance of nato. i just wanted to mention, it's also the import share in the united states that yes contain russian aggression, absolutely but also to engage in steps in the united states where we
10:04 am
protect ourselves much better. that goes to the cyber issue where, in fact, i do think we have a lot of work to do. if you look at the current state of the cyber world we have shown solar wind is a good example of this, , we can protect our fedel networks at this point. we have difficulty protecting the very tools we have with our intelligence services, shadow broker showed that. we have an epidemic of ransomware in the united states. that's the really important building crisis. we have the build out here with thousands, millions and billions ultimately of centers and we don't have policies to build security from the start. this is a really important i think point for us to focus on german but also with respect to russia. and the second is russian corruption where i really do hope and a think you'll see that and again you all talk to sector hixson national nationr
10:05 am
sullivan today, i really think focusing on this transparency anticorruption effort, the peaceable adulation the past out of congress is important. now to the middle east. sorry about the diverse but i think those are important points. with respect, and and i do e israelis seems quite well as you pointed out. they were satisfied with the iranian nuclear deal. i have a different view than steve from history, i think the nuclear deal was working. it was not meant to be a transformational effort by the united states that transform some of every iran for all the maligned behavior. it was an arms-control deal and by every account it was working in terms of rolling back and freezing the iranian march towards comp more efforts towards a nuclear weapon. and to do think we need to get back to a basin which we can operate and started with some of
10:06 am
the additional problems including ballistic missiles and context of iran in the region. on israel, and again you read reports come in at any classic analysis exactly what the roots were of the latest attack on the bataan nuclear facility and power supply there. most people assume it's israel but the important point was this, is that right after that attack the iranians still came to the table for the proximity talks in vienna what you think indicates the president under, desire to reach some sort of deal from which we can move forward. the united states and israel i think a bad important talks, i can, the israeli team was just in washington this week to go over this and other issues. you and i different views on this.
10:07 am
in some way the pressure the israelis put on a rant incentivizes them to move on ideal. i do by the way think your point on the abraham accords is correct and something wished the biden administration wished to build. >> let me interrupt and jump in to a follow-up on the cyber issue. you've spent a lot of time on it, tom. steve, you at the state department when the solar winds hack was taking place. steve, do you think the biden administration's response to solar winds was strong enough? >> i think their punitive measures, which i would say i would hasten to point out national security adviser sullivan said would be seen and unseen. seems efficient and well conceived to send the message and to try to enforce a norm that is going to be necessary
10:08 am
for all countries to abide by. we're going to have an open internet globally. but i also want to say there's a lot more that needs to be done and i have high confidence this, president biden's administration is well underway to do that. they have an outstanding team in the white house working on the cyber issues to lead this effort. they are looking at the weaknesses in the system, the vulnerabilities that oftentimes are a side product of the free and open society that we choose to live in. i was listening to summon much smarter than me on these issues a few days ago, talked about how if we had to do it over again we might have made this a national infrastructure, that the internet and the nodes and the servers, system the, all that runs our daily interactions on the internet might even better done as a government initiative.
10:09 am
leaving aside the fact market drivers likely our wife so successful and why it's so ubiquitous, it does raise a very important vulnerability that the internet and cybersecurity are only as strong as the weakest link. i would reflect the state department we have 76,000 employees based intimacies, and consulates in nearly 200 locations around the world. each person in those embassies would have at least one device, a mobile device, maybe an ipad, maybe as well as a desktop or laptop, and every minute of every day they were under attack electronically by both state and other factors it is a formidable challenge, jennifer, and one that fundamentally we have to do better ourselves. i think, i appreciate the
10:10 am
support what president biden did in response to this, as i should hasten to add in case tom disinterested become as i agree with much on u.s.-russian relations. but at the end of the day we're going to get better on cyber, it's got to be as. we've got to be better, tom. and i know the administration is working hard on this. >> just to comment, steve is exactly right. we briefed the trump transition at the beginning of 2017. he's exactly right. we designed the internet without security in mind. it was basically seen as a, turned out to be a spectacular opportunity for the world but we have systematically consistently neglected the security side of this and we need to do a much better job on this. and we just went with the federal networks as i said. we are not anywhere near what you need to be in our federal
10:11 am
networks, needs to be a priority. we're still using passwords and don't have dual factor identification, basic things, no tech company in the country by the way would operate without a level, without deficiency in secret. with lots of things we can do. we can use the federal procurement system by the way to force change into the system as the biggest buyer of things in the world. i think we can have kind of intense efforts run trying to deal with ransomware but it's interesting, , steve, you're rit it has to start -- the will be a lot of discussions in the situation room about whether cyber attacks can be deterred and all, that's really important going forward. but we need start with nuts and bolts what we're really -- essentially we haven't really
10:12 am
spent anywhere near the time and attention and resources on the nuts and bolts of the united states networks. we need to start doing that. i agree with you that tina biden has brought in is really superb with nominations of chris, you know, steve, and gin easterly as cybersecurity directed white house and the head of cisa. it's a good team but the focus on the fundamental what we do here i think is really going to be a higher priority. >> we have only a few minutes left and i'd like to tell the audience that we will have in ten minutes will take your questions by want to spend the rest of her time talking about china at the potential flashpoint that taiwan poses. we've had two dozen warplanes buzzing taiwan in the last few weeks. there was a discussion on capitol hill.
10:13 am
it may be time, was asked by jack reed, senator jack reed whether it's time to abandon strategic ambiguity. i'd like to get both of your thoughts on that. is it time to issue a warning really to china that its number strategic ambiguity, we will defend taiwan if they are attacked? >> you can start, steve. >> thank you, jennifer. this debate about was it not to away with strategic ambiguity has been simmering for some time. people like bob blackwell have written very intelligently about this, richard haass has done the same, , others. here's what i would say about ambiguity. ambiguity works if the deterred is convincing. and clarity does that work if the determinant is -- way to do one of two things. we either have to make clear to
10:14 am
the chinese government that we won't defend taiwan and that we will do whatever it takes at that moment if they choose to move on taiwan, recognizing in my view today that it is a gamble as to whether or not we can defend taiwan sufficiently, despite that clarity. alternatively, we can keep policy of ambiguity but we need to make it much more clear to the chinese that they will be defeated if they seek to change the taiwan straits through coercion or the use of force. that means initiatives like the biden administration's efforts to advance even further the quad alignment they inherited. that means transforming the u.s.-south korea alliance.
10:15 am
i commend the biden administration for very quickly moving to solidify the u.s.-south korea relationship by agreeing to the cost-sharing formula and the special measures agreement. they did this in the first two weeks in office but that's never the issue. the issue is transforming the u.s. rok alliance of it as part of our indo-pacific strategy and our shared interests in the indo-pacific strategy. and here lies another challenge i think that is out there for this administration or any administration, is that many countries in indo-pacific are not clear they want to come down and, frankly, uncomfortable getting drawn into the middle. we've heard it from new zealand we further from the singaporeans class, two years ago at the shangri-la forum in singapore. the prime minister of singapore pleaded do not have to pick sides between them and we hear very much coming from seoul today as well.
10:16 am
our policy should not be pick a side. our policy should be to systematically build out the capabilities and relationships that create a convincing deterrent to china that says yes, competition is fine, but coercion or the attempt to subvert other countries or to change the status quo on the taiwan straits with the use of force, those will be deterred and we need to do better in order to get there. >> if we go to war over taiwan to protect super computer chips, there's been a lot of talk about that recently. >> i think it said it will defend taiwan in the case that there's an attempt to change the status quo by force. we're not going to go to war if there's a leverage i have, but -- buyout.
10:17 am
this only adds to the concerns that taiwan is remarkable success in producing the most sophisticated computer chips in the world today, and that production is almost, is exclusively located on the island of taiwan. but the concerns are bigger than that. it's not just about chip technology. it's about the basic march of freedom in the world, and self-determination within systems. we support a one-china policy but we do not support the subversion of taiwan's democracy as part of that. that is for the chinese people to sort through without the use of force. >> how is biden's approach to china different from president trump's? >> there's a lot of continuity, particularly in the end. i have to say the meeting i saw, parts of the meeting was on anchorage was very similar to three such meetings that
10:18 am
happened at the same level in previous administrations. one of the things that constantly frustrated, well, one of the self-inflicted wounds of the previous administration is the inability to work, to sort issues, the primary, , secondar, tertiary and focus intently on addressing the issues of primary concern. it was challenging at times to be, on the one hand, working ever more closely with the government of india in bolstering the quad and improving the participation in the naval exercises in the indian ocean, and then at the same can have different part of the government imposing punitive tariffs on indian products because they were being brought to the united states competition to the as industries. the incoherence of that made it very difficult to advance partnerships.
10:19 am
i think the biden administration has inherited a very good platform in the indo-pacific, but i think they huge upside potential to strengthen and deepen that, to regularize that and to maybe even make some of these relationships into more durable structures. it is the wheelhouse of the biden administration and the very capable people who leave its foreign policy, national security, and it's an area that is rich with opportunity for the biden administration. >> i agree with that. >> i i want to give tom, tom, i want -- was trying to run at a time and want to get to questions but china is so important want to give you a chance to respond. >> a couple things. i appreciate what steve said. there's been as a said there's bipartisan consensus in this country with respect to china and is moving to a much more
10:20 am
competitive phase. it's embedded now i think in u.s. politics and president biden his head were in a time of extreme competition and use very clear about the competition in his talk to congress on wednesday night. could have been clear. i think there are three or four differences which i would .2. the first is building out on some of the work the previous administration but really much more intensively on the out lie, and steve mentioned the base arrangement and cautioning arrangements in korea. the work i think could be done here on the trilateral, that's all i think front and center but critically i think is the domestic -- [inaudible] what president biden laid out in his talk on wednesday night with a number of allusions to china and the challenge china faces in terms of a fundamental, if you
10:21 am
will, kind of decision in the world about the future democracy in the building to deliver for its people. this domestic we know with take your focus on tiktok is critical that they united states identify those areas, those technologies are important to have leadership and ask decisive resources and focus to do that. that really is the critical difference here as we move our next evolution israel as we move forward. i'll so think with respect to defense when it have a focus on doctrines and resources. the last answer is is a much bigger focus on human rights. >> don't want to forget afghanistan. now for the next 100 days before the quickly go to questions, what do you think the next 100 days, the biggest challenge will be, and how will we avoid
10:22 am
afghanistan, the pullout from afghanistan ending the way the pullout from iraq did and us having to go back in? tom? >> i don't think the situations, we can have it all morning similar. i don't think the situations are at all comparable tween iraq and essentially what was a bush a deadline to december 31, 2011 at the situation and afghanistan. if. if you would have stepped back and started this conversation by asking the situational meetings. if you go to the president of the united states today and do a global threat assessment, look around the world and ask yourself wishing we apply our resources can you wouldn't have a significant military presence in afghanistan. so i think the challenges going forward are to execute the withdrawal safely over the time between now and september 11, 2001. that we need to develop and adjust the intelligence, focus
10:23 am
operations, bill verne has called it a sweet escape it was we have to anticipate, reconstitution of terror threats and then of course talk on the military over the horizon. i have a lot of confidence by the way we have capabilities in both those areas, both in the intelligence side and on the military side to be able to continue to protect the country. we will have strategic what if with respect to the reconstitution of terror threats particularly by al-qaeda and isis and blessing of the is where leverage on afghanistan i cite a military leverage it includes, include the fact that 80% of the afghan national budget comes from our assistance. that's a lot of leverage whatever group of people whose governing afghanistan court for. >> great. i'd like to turn a questions at her last eight minutes and i will start it up in it are then
10:24 am
who you are addressing a question two we will start with -- >> good morning and what a pleasure to sissy. i've a question that led to what time was just saying more broadly. the first 100 days of and focus on domestic tears of what happened on the sixth of january in poorly. but we're increasingly saying the ideology of the far right extremists be executed around the world in different kinds of ways and actually has challenge our imagination. so the threat landscape on the ideology of extremist groups has changed. so my question is what should the administration be doing as we think about the next ten years of millennials, gen z and gin out for being subjected to the kind of far right extremist ideology along with the resurgence of what will be the so-called islamic state type ideology? thanks.
10:25 am
>> tom, , you want to take a? >> that said the topic. a couple things here and it's nice to see you. one is as you said the islamic radical terror threat has not gone away but it has diminished. i think he can you cite bill burns tests we of the worldwide threat assessment briefing two weeks ago indicated that. over the course of the last decade or more we have diminished that threat, it hasn't gone away. it's been dispersed as i said earlier in my conversation with jennifer. we have the intelligence we need and the military, the military doctrine, , capabilities, techniques to deal with it. this issue though about right-wing extremism is obvious he front and center and the united states. i with you, it is a building issue around the world and one
10:26 am
that a think in the first instance needs to be called out. part of calling this out by the way i think is the construct if you will the president biden laid out in his speech and winston at which is this construct between democracy and authoritarian regimes, including the critical point about the building of democracy to deliver for his people. but this conversation is exactly right about the threat of right-wing extremism to the core democracies around the world here it's an important conversation one that needs to be front and center and is a president biden begin the conversation on wednesday night. >> and now i'd like to go to christopher painter who has a question. >> good to see you again, tom. back on the cyber issue, look, i agree with you defense is really important and we need to do that better but there's also the
10:27 am
other half of the question which is imposing costs and trying to a least shape as the beaver of her adversaries. we haven't done that very well frankly. we haven't done that very well with russia. what i see is a calibrated response from the biden administration both hitting them but also trying to engage in dialogue. the what of the we do that would actually shape putin's behavior? there's a lot of things people talked about about money closing of the things we haven't really gone to, what is a something where we can change his behavior or what we just have to continue to do with a very aggressive russia in cyberspace and outside of cyberspace for the foreseeable future? >> certainly, i think a number of the responses, chris, two russian cyber attacks in the united states has to be outside the cyber realm and that obvious is sanctions and it is i think, i think we can do a lot better
10:28 am
on the defensive side but it is basically doing our best to create the environment around putin in which us operates and that begins in europe as a talked about with respect having made a much more focused on the russians, the russia threat with u.s. leadership. it's kind of an all of the above assessment, don't you think, that we need to -- outside the cyber realm pressures on putin. and engage on rules of the road with putin. the other piece of this of course more broadly is the constructing of alliances around these technology issues, outside the construct, kind of the core lines of nato and the various lights as we have in the more general alliances we have in asia but around these technology issues i think is important step we can take. it was an important piece by
10:29 am
richard fontaine and jerry cohen in foreign affairs flash on the gratian of these kinds of alliances sigh think establish norms in the world can ask like-minded countries to join and to establish rules of the road which makes sense for us in the world. >> we have, let's see, we have time for just one more question. elizabeth economy. >> thanks so much, elizabeth economy. really fantastic remarks thanks to both of you. when we talk about allies and partners with often are focused on europe and asia sort of our traditional allies and partners but when you look what china brings to the table when we criticize them on south china sea or hong kong, 40, 50 countries from africa, sometimes from latin america, asia developing economies in the
10:30 am
middle east. how do we begin to reach out to these countries that are supporting china in fact? how do we begin to expand what we consider to be allies and partners so that we really begin to make some headway into this block the china has created? >> steve is most recent on the frontline of diplomacy and that they pick steve? >> steve, where come up against the end of this program. we have about one or two minutes left. >> thank you. elizabeth, thanks for the question and think you're absolutely right. it's part of the agenda we haven't talked about that it going to be very important to us deepening our influence. it's going to be resolving issues around refugees and immigration, around eight, restoration of the global economy. there's a huge opportunity for the united states for foreign aid to shape the recovery of the world from the covid pandemic. the pandemic that is very much upon us as has been said.
10:31 am
and also the climate issue may offer an opportunity. we need to work through international institutions like the organization for american states, , the african union, the arab league, you know, aside from all the instruments that we've used in europe over the last 30 years, i think the organization of security cooperation in europe offers us a huge opportunity to build up those relationships. it's a combination of our traditional uses of softer power, maybe not entirely soft power. it's going to be working through organizations with effective diplomacy to get aligned views on issues that challenge all of us. and lastly, i think it's going to be the united states modeling of behavior in the world that has a healthier and more palpable dimension of altruism.
10:32 am
i think it's the united states world to win over on the side of a rules-based international order, and i'm confident that opportunity can be really achieved. >> i would just underscore the climate point steve made as a real opportunity for u.s. leadership. i'm sorry, quite. >> i want to thank you both. rupp against the end of our program but what's extraordinary come how much bipartisan agreement we heard from both of you serving to make very different administrations and it gives us hope that the nation can come together on foreign policy and national security issues. nick, i will throw it back to. >> jennifer, thank you so much for your really good moderation of the topic that could have gone on for another one to two hours and i want to thank my good friend tom donilon and my good friend steve biegun. i agree with you, my take away from the last hour, and i listen very carefully as were badly
10:33 am
divided country, but republicans and democrats in foreign and defense policy on the major issues are thinking alike. i think there is a degree of bipartisanship. i hope we will see it. certainly if steve is right, what steve said the trump administration had revised the quad, he's exactly right and now you've seen president biden take it to the first head of government meeting. i think on china there's a recognition we have to compete with china. we have to contain russia. we have to rebuild nato, and this last conversation that you had very important about advancing our cyber capacity in the world and the appointments it'd been made at the national security council are so important. finally, jennifer, throughout this conversation the need for us to have self-confidence as a democracy that the democrat and republican issue, and to take on the authoritarian powers as a present has been suggesting and every opportunities had gives me
10:34 am
hope. despite our domestic difficulty we americans can be together on foreign policy. so steve, thank you very much. tom, thank you very much. and jennifer, thank you. now we are going have other people, up, and as tom and steve and jennifer say goodbye, you are soon going to see the faces of deputy secretary of defense kathleen hicks, and of my friend helene cooper of the "new york times", and i want to welcome them both here for the next hour. helene will have an interview with kathleen. i would ask them to both activate the video. there's havoline, and i'm sure kathy will come up on the screen just me. let me say what about tactics, tactics is universally admired in washington. universally recognized as one of our finest expert on american defense -- kat hicks -- given a long expansion of income, the henry a kissinger chair, at cis
10:35 am
at washington d.c.'s reformer, someone with deep knowledge and we're happy to have her here today and helene, we are very happy to have you here today. helene cooper has had a magnificent career with in your times. she and i first got to know each other when she was diplomatic correspondent of the times are not under secretary of state. she went on from there to be white house correspondent and now has been correspondent, has won many awards for her journalism. someone i deeply respect you so helene i want to turn this over to you for your on the record conversation with kat hicks, and it's great to have you with us. >> thank you, nic. and i can't see her. issue here yet? i don't see you on my screen. >> i am here. >> there you are. >> welcome. >> i was worried nick and i were going to have -- >> you can do the trick that's okay with me.
10:36 am
i'll listen intently. >> it's a pleasure to be here with you. i am hoping since you agree to do this q&a with me that you forgive me for my chine or miss blinder few years ago with csis wish to talk to admiral mullen and i forgot i was traveling with matters of the time and you really cool about it. i'm really sorry again. before jump to afghanistan, which is as you can imagine one of the main things i like to talk about, i wanted to just start off with a more general question about your relationship with lloyd austin and something could give us an insight into have two of you are running the building. did the division of labor along the same lines past the defense
10:37 am
sectors where the secretary runs the day-to-day of the building or on the two of you approaching your jobs completely differently? >> first let me say thank you to nick for the kind introduction and the aspen strategy group,, and helene for interviewing me. i do remember but it does offer a because it will pay off today because you owe me one big. >> i do. >> let me just say i did come with prepared remarks. i can give those remarks at the beginning of the can jump right into the q&a. just want to pause and see what your preference is. >> i think he should start with your prepared remarks. i forgot about that. >> i'm happy to pick up on speeded then we'll come back to the question. >> fantastic. in any case it's great to be with all of you this morning. as much as i -- as you can tell for my repeated stand here, seeing you all in person in aspen would be far preferable to sitting here virtually as we all
10:38 am
are on zoom. plus asked us share some thoughts with you today about the department of defense initial priorities. i'm going to focus this comment on competition with china and highlight what the department is doing already to meet this challenge, especially in regard to innovation and modernization. this is niche i've worked on substantially over the years and as a recovering defense strategist and secretary of defense and coo to the question helene was can ask me, as deputy secretary of defense. as secretary austin maker early in his tenure, mission one for the u.s. military is to defend the nation. understanding why we are modernizing and what we are modernizing for begins with an appreciation for the challenges that imperil that mission. we have never had the luxury of being faced with only one threat since the day -- today so different. from covid-19 to climate change, from russia to iran and north
10:39 am
korea, from advanced technology and weapons to creeping authoritarianism and file extremism in many forms. our nation and our military must constantly be assessing risk across time and space. it is clear, however, the comprehensive challenge posed by the crc sets the pace are most success requirements. from the president's andrew nash is good strategic guidance to secretary austin message to the force, our administration has been clear eyed. beijing has economic, military and technological capability to challenge the international system and american interests within it. this is happening all along they continue a conflict from routine statecraft the views of sharp power, to the potential for sustained combat operations and an expanded and capable nuclear enterprise. as an example beijing continue
10:40 am
to leverage its maritime militia to press its unlawful maritime claims in south china sea. the prc's military capabilities are rapidly advancing in a number of areas. the pla continues to make progress strengthening its ability to conduct joint operations, the old readiness and building crazily sophisticated conventional forces such as long-range conventional missiles and integrated air defense systems. the prc as also advancing its base in cyber capabilities. as recently heard from the office of the dni, china present a prolific and effective cyber espionage threat and possesses substantial cyber attack capabilities. biden has data while there is going to be extreme competition between the united states and china, we do not need to have conflict -- has stated -- and advancing american interests int which has made the u.s. military
10:41 am
will often serve as a supporting player to diplomatic, economic, and other tools. central to the military value is demonstrating the will and capability to credibly deter prc aggression. this will best position us to avoid the conflict. in extremists where our vital interests -- will ensure the u.s. stability to fight and win. in the biden administration's first 100 days, the department of defense is moving out to transform the rhetoric of competition into reality. we are committed to leveraging the greatest strategic asset we have in deterring china, our network of partners and allies. the u.s. military, our defense relationship strength and interoperability. they generally, norms and respect for responsible international behavior across domains, and they deepened the agility of our collective global response.
10:42 am
this may depend on how we work with our friends to secure our common interests and common values. in a recent trip to the indo-pacific with secretary blinken, secretary austin highlighted a number of the collective issues that the u.s.-japanese alliance faces. and he underscored that are of lines remains resolute and resilient because of our shared values and history of shared sacrifice. additionally, secretary austin and i have moved quickly to overcome institutional inertia which exists within any large organization. we have instilled discipline processes and government structures throughout the defense enterprise. our fy fiscal year '22 budget will provide early insight into a strategic approach. the president budget request reinforces the investments needed to compete effectively. it will support defense research, development, test and evaluation funding. this will lead to greater
10:43 am
technology, that drive innovation and independent development of next-generation defense capabilities. where the nation securing needs are no longer being that, the budget provides the resources to stay that systems and approaches optimized for an earlier era. it won't set a sustainable shipbuilding plan to ensure our maritime capability out matches any competitor. the request will modernize our nuclear deterrent and invest in long-range fire capability. and it will leverage the pacific deterrent initiative and ensure that the united states builds the concept, capabilities and posture necessary to meet challenges posed by china. our global posture review and national defense strategy effort now underway will guide further changes. but even now we are consenting innovation at the department to develop new operational concept and capabilities. we are embarking on learning
10:44 am
marked by experimentation and rapid fielding. this will be focused around several key joint operational challenges vital to our success. there is no single point solution that sparks innovation. this means we are making department wide crosscutting adjustments related to culture, people, systems, and process. we are actively thinking about the strategic levers available to and sent innovation. for instance, dod must look to bridge the value gap, so-called for the gap between the innovation or creation of a new platform and the ultimate acquisition of it by the department. we can do that through discipline and coordinated joint experimentation. the department must -- unmatched infrastructure to serve both innovation and competition across the public and private sector. and we need to be sure that
10:45 am
dod's vast ecosystem of innovative organization is sufficiently integrated and optimized. this means being able to share best practices in key findings can focus on the most important national security challenges. and the department must continue to aggressively take steps to be a data centric organization. day that enables capabilities such as ai, machine learning, and various autonomous technologies. it is critical to war fighters seeking advantage on the battlefield, and it is critical to decision-makers. more transparent and credible data shines a light on the department's use of force, for instance. in so doing he will help us maintain our strategic focus rather than succumb to the death by a thousand cuts of daily crisis. to better leverage data will continue to implement the department's of data strategy we will give our data leaders a
10:46 am
seat at the table and invest in our data challenge, and we will develop enterprise analytic capabilities. final, as we develop new concepts and capabilities we must ensure they are protected from our adversaries. to that end the department is looking at different ways that we can work to show up vulnerabilities in our supply chain. even today prime dod contractors and qualified suppliers source components including critical components like microelectronics from our rifles. we also depend on adversarial sources for critical material. solving these problems take a comprehensive government strategy but there are number of actions we can take at dod. those include reducing our dependency on adversarial sources at increasing the diversity of domestic suppliers.
10:47 am
relatedly, the unity is working with other departments in the u.s. government that are members of the committee on foreign investment in the united states. we are ensuring the principles that guide decision-making continue to protect america's technological advantage. mainly we should construct objective standards and presumptions that cannot be overcome and less mitigation efforts can resolve national security concerns. doing this will increasingly preserve our capabilities. additionally we are working closely with congress, a real enduring bipartisan consensus has emerged around the multidimensional challenge that beijing presents, as nick comment at the end of the last session. democrats and republicans alike recognize that the department must prioritize the prc as a challenge to the united states. this cooperation with congress is critical to ensuring the
10:48 am
department receives the support required to deter aggression. that there be no doubt, china presents a real and enduring challenge to our department. our own inertia though can be significant barrier to meeting the moment. in highlighting some of the measures we have taken in just the first 100 days of the biden administration, i want to impress upon you the impaired secretary austin and i feel to adapt our strategy, capabilities for the future. thank you again for ally need the opportunity to speak today. helene, i look forward to the discussion. >> thank you, cat. this is fascinating. i would want to get into some of the china issues that you just mentioned because that such a big deal at the pentagon. let's jump first to afghanistan. >> sure. >> because it is such, it is very much the subject that is on
10:49 am
the mind of everybody in the building, ending america's longest war. we all heard about how president biden came to his decision. we heard a little bit about the over the horizon planning underway at the pentagon for trying to keep the place of becoming another launchpad for terror attacks on the united states and our allies. but how concerned are you about a scenario like we saw in saigon in 1975 when the south vietnamese government fell and wit helicopters evacuating americans from rooftops? do you anticipate that we will soon be seeing that in kabul? >> no, helene, i don't. i want to stress both president biden secretary austin emphasis on as safe, orderly, disciplined withdrawal process and that is our focus. we will have the ability for self defense for our that are
10:50 am
there, and we will execute on that as needed. what i want to jump kind to the premise of the question on the over the horizon and counterterrorism. it's not 2001. it's 2021 and over the intervening 20 years the united states has developed a wide range of tools that we didn't have. we have the national counterterrorism center with department of homeland security. we also have of course a whole new set, a suite of capabilities from space to cyberspace to unmanned systems and other approaches. we have new operations to quit better collaboration between cia, for example, and other actors, the ic in general and our partners and allies. there's just a completely different landscape in which we are operating. and as a doing almost every other part of the world, executing on our counterterrorism mission without having substantial forces on the
10:51 am
ground is the generally in which we approach counterterrorism. so in afghanistan we have achieved the goals went in for in 2001. we have demonstrated, we removed al-qaeda and demonstrated that we will not tolerate it being a safe haven for use against united states citizens and territory. and will continue to hold those vital interest and hotel than any other actors inside afghanistan responsible for living up to those expectations. >> but is that over the rice and planning dependent -- i assume, are you factor in the possible fall of kabul. >> was unlikely to get into operational details. i think it's fair to say we are thinking through all the contingency operations but we are working on the military side alongside political effort, a diplomacy centered effort that's very much focused, not just from the united states but around the
10:52 am
region and around the world on ensuring that afghanistan is able to protect, you know, the most critical interest for the international community. if you're asking if we are prepared for how the united states to protect its own citizens and its forces, the answer is of course we do the plan and were prepared to do so. >> no, i have no doubt that will be able to evacuate the embassies in plenty of time. i think i am more focused on just the ability of a naf to survive once the merkin forces are gone and just how much of your planning is assuming that the ansf collapses and kabul collapses? how much time to think with? >> i think asking a wholly different set of questions that are not if you will on .2 the president's overall message. and the message is we're protecting vital interest of the
10:53 am
american people by ensuring that afghanistan cannot be a safe haven for terrorism. that will continue to be true for terrorism. that is threatening to the united states at home. in terms of how the afghan peace process moves forward in the way which the afghan government, if you will, manages through, we have been very clear in our sport for negotiate a settlement and approach. it's not centra of the united states plans for itself both in terms of the over horizon capability enduring interest with inside afghanistan as relates to terrorism. >> so tomorrow is may 1. there's been a lot and this is my last afghanistan question before i want to move to china. there's been a lot of confusion about what happens in afghanistan after tomorrow, particularly when it comes to the u.s. providing air support to the ansf. does the u.s. plan to continue
10:54 am
to provide air support to the afghan security forces after tomorrow, if they come under attack from the taliban while we're going through this? i never heard the whole phrase military retrograde operation before but now i have some new lingo i can swing around. but during the withdrawal are going to continue to provide air support to the ansf if they come under attack from the taliban? >> so the united states again has an approach that is definitely protective of the orderly withdrawal of the u.s. we do have -- including afghans that we will be working with as we go through that process. so if your question is sort of may 1 question, the answer answer is yes, the united states does have with in its planning efforts that he will be working with coalition partners, those include nato allies and, of course, the afghans and we will
10:55 am
be able to provide support as we withdrawal including come to your point, if they come under attack during that withdrawal. >> thank you. that's clear. i'm sure you saw sort of the confusion earlier this week on that. okay. so let's move to china. china is expected to surpass the u.s. as the world's biggest economy i 2028. china is gaining on u.s. and military power as i'm sure you know. do you believe that a military conflict with china is inevitable? >> i don't. i don't believe it's inevitable and i think the key aspect of the united states ensuring it does not become inevitable is demonstrating the credibility and will on the military side where we sit at dod tooth for any such effort that would violate direct u.s. interest. that of course will be only -- overall nationals could approach. that is diplomacy led.
10:56 am
so there are lots of other areas in which the united states and china will contest the rules of the national road in the economic sphere and other spheres. also opportunities for cooperation that help to build, away from conflict. but in military realm i think what we can do is, first, sure we understand installation patterns and try to avoid unnecessary escalations. but at the same time, secondly, demonstrate that will and credibility to deter aggression that violates -- >> on the point of escalation patterns, what is the biggest trigger? do you worry more about taiwan being the trigger, or do you worry more about south china sea islands, which is to remember joe dunford famously got angry at us because we overheard him talking to harry harris and then causing would you go to war over
10:57 am
those islands? he got mad. but on a serious note, should we be more worried about taiwan being -- where, what concerns you more? >> there's no priority to that question because of a depends on at any given point in time where the chinese have in their own minds when they might try to take advantage. so that's why so critical the united states be really clear about our interest, whether it's around japan, whether it's around south china sea come to you . and/or taiwan or elsewhere. i don't have an answer that is i worry about one or the other. we watched diligently daily all of these spaces per we think and kind about china we worry about china today and making sure we can signal correctly today. we worry about it five years down the road where there s ships and cubicles and perhaps
10:58 am
intent from chinese. we will watch that and we worry about on the ten-twenty-year trajectory where for example, their nuclear weapon capability and others grow, start to shift the landscape to different kinds of military approaches from the u.s. >> it's so weird listening to you talk about this because i remember when i first started in 2014 chuck hagel, ash carter, and we took fairly regular trips to china, defense secretary trips. they were always filled with tension, but we went and there was more, far more engagement. and then we shifted to the trump administration and -- [inaudible] neither did -- i've already forgotten the guy who is between -- shanahan. and then the sort of high-level engagement occurred only on the outskirts -- shangri-la meeting
10:59 am
and we seem to be going down this trajectory. there's nothing plan now. how are you doing military to military engagement with china? where do you see that? you want to restore to a more traditional type of what it actually are talking in a real way, or -- >> sure. absolutely. the united states and ten have every reason to be speaking to each other across a range of issues, including military issues, cyber, et cetera, which start to bleed out of dod into other areas. we absolutely, this administration and inside the pentagon are looking forward to those engagements. it's not a one-way street. we don't make all those decisions and this conversation with the chinese are ongoing about how best to set up those engagements. i will just add, even the bridge to bridge level if you will, that is vital in terms of de-escalation the building so
11:00 am
our ability to talk that you may recall the agreement the navy came to with the pla yen, all of those sorts -- channels of communication are vital to us, understanding we're in competition but again the president said competition does that not necessarily equate to military conflict and in interest of both the united states and china to prevent that. .. we are trying to get that set up now and it is not because we are trying to prevented but again, please recognize it is the chinese that have their own views about engagement with the u.s. and you remember the alaska, anchorage engagement that was already occurred as well so we are lining up behind that in doc does not make or should not be the first out of
11:01 am
the gate we had the president and we have had the national secretary of state and we are working now on dod. >> turning to russia and ukraine, i have one question i would like to ask on that. russia withdrew a few thousand troops from the ukrainian border last week but there are still thousands of their. what do you make of putin's maneuvering on the border? do you think he is basically just trying to mess with biden and send a message on, you knows on his border and he can show us that he can match troops or is there, is there a more -- is he actually thinking about going into today's north crimean water issue? >> i think the key from our perspective is we are watching every think that happens day today, as you say and there have been withdrawals there but we are monitoring routinely and we are not underestimating but we
11:02 am
are trying to gasp at the instincts or day-to-day desires that president putin may have so we are watching it very carefully and we have been very clear about our commitment overall to ukraine sovereignty and being able to protect itself and we are very hopeful that these lines that you are indicating show that there was an exercise underway and that the russians may want to be signaling certain things beyond just their exercise but there is not actually a decision made and i will just make a second military action beyond what they already do in the gray zone in eastern we have but only about ten and left tried to keep my eye on the clock at the same time. i wanted to turn to mourn mystic issues in the building but before i do that i guess this isn't the building. i wanted to ask you about jedi,
11:03 am
federal court ruled earlier that amazon has a valid case to challenge the microsoft, no thanks to trump's meddling. now, the capability which already has been on hold for two years could be delayed again. are you going to continue delayed moving on jedi until this sort itself out in court? >> as you might imagine i can't comment on the court case and i will not comment on specifically what dod will do but i will say, as my comments indicated, it is absolutely vital that we are able to move forward on a data centric approach and the department we must have ourselves a care in cyberspace and the department, whether, for example solar winds relatively well compared to other parts of the government but that is just the latest wake-up call and we have every reason to think that we have adversaries who are trying to get into our systems
11:04 am
every day so for all those reasons moving to a cloud architecture is going to be vital to how we innovate in this department and we will have to assess where we are with the guard to the ongoing litigation around jedi and determine what the best path forward is for the department. >> okay. so, back to my first question about you, how are you divvying up and are the two of you, i mean the idea that we have a female deputy secretary is almost as exciting as the idea that we've got a black defense secretary. it's just how aware are you of sort of the groundbreaking roles that you both are in right now and is that, is any of that affecting how you are approaching -- this is a stupid question but i'm trying to get at is that how affecting you approach your job? how do the two of you view this
11:05 am
opportunity that you both have right now as a big historic burst up and do you let that influence how you do your job? >> let me first say back to the question you asked before i started my remarks that it is a relatively traditional -- it's always varied from one team to the next but relatively traditional model and so let me answer on that. are responsible these, i will be honest with you, i don't think about -- it's implicit, i think, probably in what i do and that i've grown up through a national security structure where women were widely underrepresented and that we have a lot of challenges still today inside the department civilian workforce and probably more prominent in the workforce challenges that relate to gender and other aspects of diversity so, that is
11:06 am
implicit in what i do and i don't do it from a conscious basis, if you will, in terms of being the first beam of that but he secretary and i certainly take that as a great honor, privilege and incredible response ability but it is more around that responsibility is more around being the deputy secretary at the time when -- and supporting a secretary who is historic in terms of his role but also at a time when the department needs are so substantial and we are ready to reform this department. >> well then, on the issue because there are two issues that the department came into office and secretary austin was in three days of walking instability at with extremism and sexual assault. let's start with sexual assault. i know that something you have focused on as well and your time
11:07 am
there. has the time come to take the handling of these sexual assault cases in the military out of the military chain of command? >> where we are right now we are looking at all potential solutions that move the needle. you know that independent review commission has come in with a point on that which is to take it out of the chain of command and the secretary is reviewing that input in talking to obviously -- has a bill as well and will be other legislative viewpoints and then we have a very deliberate of process here inside the pentagon where commander viewpoints and certainly the viewpoints the leadership of the military department will be important in forming the secretary's decision so what i would say that i thank you can count on is we believe accountability has to be a part of the solution set. prevention is readily important but we're not leaving accountability off the table. we know that there is a lack of
11:08 am
trust and faith in the institutions to deliver and we can see that in of course, diver views and we can see it in our data in terms up what we hear back on sexual harassment and sexual assault. and we will be a solution oriented and deliberative. if we think a solution can deliver on increasing trust and increasing accountability and most importantly decreasing incidence of sexual harassment and sexual assault we will be interested in that solution. >> have you been surprised that it's a problem? >> no. >> okay, yeah. could you expand on that? >> i'm a woman in the modern american workplace but i burst in national security and i understand the challenges and i talked to victims and it's not surprising. it is disheartening and i think it's disheartening for everyone in the system and i think if you talk to the military leadership they would say the same thing. the question is how do we move
11:09 am
the needle? no one is satisfied with where we are. >> we have been writing about this and calling the pentagon out in the pentagon has been grappling with this for years now and we've done your after year after year and we been doing the same stories over and over again and every year the new initiation comes and it says we will grapple and wrestle with this so why is this so hard? >> that's a whole conversation and i think it's tied into a set of behaviors and culture that are challenging and you mention, for example, extremism and we also have prevention challenges even and we have suicide rates going up and there's a whole set of issues that make us have to wonder and understand leadership, culture prevention activities and how we think about readiness as a force in a holistic sense. sexual assault and sexual harassment are one major and important manifestation of that but there are others so i think
11:10 am
the reason it is hard is back to those root cause problems so we definitely will pay attention to sexual harassment, sexual assault and we will pay attention to extremism but we will also pay attention to suicide and mental health and other factors, if you will, that all seem to point to general challenges on leadership. we have an amazing -- and the department of defense but this is clearly, these are signs and signals that we have challenges, that we have got to deal with. i thank you have reached a point in time where between the fort hood report and movement in terms of the viewpoints on capitol hill and new leadership in the department we are ready to take these challenges on. agnostic on the solution set that we arrived at as long as it delivers. >> okay. on extremism then, you say you weren't surprised that the
11:11 am
sexual assault issue was such a big deal and that continues at the depth of the building or in the building at military bases around the world. what about, i remember ungenerous six covering the capital riots and watching there were many number of marine flags out there and there were many number of military, you know how many military and former military enlistees and servicemembers took part in the riot and this is the riot. the pentagon sort of has reacted in, you know, the number of generals and officers that i talked to about this and it's been interesting look at their reactions and we did not realize it was such a big problem. is this something we all sort of you was there within the military and how do you go forward from january 6? >> i think the first issue is
11:12 am
what i just talked about which is thinking about that connectivity of leadership to the soldier sailor, airman, based guardian that they are overseen on civilian side, same thing. we oversee the total force of a very large civilian federal workforce as well as contract workforce. and there's a real question, i think, about the degree to which we have like the rest of society hide all things that in terms of personal space and social media being a very prominent example of this where there are real indications that come to display like generate six and other incidences whether you are talking about extremism like we saw at fort hood or at the navy yard which is a different, you know a different motivation but
11:13 am
the point being violence playing out in the workplace or violence plain out that plague society from our workforce so not surprising in the sense that it's refractive of larger society and very disturbing that it's a higher% of that about our society and we know that from the intelligence reporting that military and former military are highly desired recruits. they are being actively recruited into extremism. again, showing them being all kinds of types and flavors but the approach is that grow counter to the oath of office that we take as civilians and military so as i said before we know the vast majority of people who get up every day either put on the uniform or come in as silly as our contractors and our mission focused around supporting the united states of america and but we live within a society in a technological news in which, as we saw back with al
11:14 am
qaeda all the way till today where the flash and the bank of radicalization is both difficult to detect and much quicker than it used to be. with timothy mcveigh of the 1990s put into the system today with social media as it is you can imagine how much more difficult if you looked, for instance, at terrorism how much difficult that is to do it. it is a real concern for us. we are getting accurate insider threat programs that have already been underway and we are looking at things like secret clearance, reform approaches and thinking through our monitoring just as the intelligence community does, monitoring of our unclassified systems, for example to make sure they're not being misused for these purposes and all the while we are keeping right at the center and of course, the right of americans to free speech and the fact that this is not reinforcing time
11:15 am
again and this is not about politics but this is about supporting the oath of office people take in ensuring we are looking glass at her teammates and ensure they are healthy and mentally healthy and not succumbing to recommit practices whether from a foreign power or a counterintelligence perspective or it's from a radicalizing webpage. >> just listening to talk it's such a hard issue and it is clear because you have to balance the right to free speech and you have to balance all these things but it just seems like it will be such a huge hill to climb and this is my last question before we lose you to q and a. we've got the primary and the pentagon and the american military still have a predominantly white general office core particularly when we get to the top four star level. do you think this predominately
11:16 am
white cadre of white guys and when i say i mean when i say white i mean white in men or male are actually going to, any real way, look for ways to open up their ranks to more women and minorities and pay attention they should to a black secretary and a female deputy? >> bottom line, i do. i think they have it all the conversations we have internally i think they have shown incredible commitment to the challenge set and i think they see this challenge and i think having cash in their group and this includes a secretary night when you look at general brown asking me as a male who spoke out very eloquently in early last summer around issues of diversity equity and inclusion in his own personal experience so those conversations are deeply meaningful and meaningful at a personal level whether your entry-level recruit or your
11:17 am
sitting at the top of the pyramid as a four-star and i think they have a very energized to make sure that we can tackle extreme is a problem as well as this ti challenge inside services. two-point then you had in the president and vice president and secretary and i and i'm confident we will make progress here. >> well, we all wish you the best on this. it will be fascinating to cover. i'm so interested in what you and secretary austin are trying to do on these two really big issues and, you know, we wish you all the best of luck and am looking forward to writing lots and lots of stories about this. nick, i will turn this over to you because i thank you are handling the q&a. >> unless he has gone out for coffee. there you are.
11:18 am
>> so, that was a great conversation. thank you very much. i'm not handling the q&a and i will be done by dashcam who will be live on the screen within one moment and she will get the questions and thank you for being with us. >> absolutely. >> you very much, very much for your questions. our first question today is coming from one of our new rising leaders. >> hello, i'm a reporter and thank you so much for being with us today and i was fascinated by your remarks on china and one interesting thing in the first hundred days has been a series of attacks on u.s. organizations that analysts have said may have roots in china. curious about your thoughts on the biggest cyber threats coming from china and your strategy from the dod perspective for handling them. >> sure. as i said earlier i think that we are or should assume, i
11:19 am
think, is the safest way to put it in a good undergirding assumption processes that would we would be under pretty much constant attacks from a variety of state and nonstate actors. in cyberspace and in dod. china is most capable of those. you know, as the russians have proven their not so bad either and i'm not trying to replace them to try harder here but the chinese having credible long-term capability. how do we think about that and of course we think about on the defense side making sure that you do networks are defended and that has to be with all kinds of upgrading approaches and routine cultural shifts often called cyber hygiene that we should be undertaking and weight monitor that very carefully and we have benchmarks that we are moving against to make sure we are improving there. one thing as the deputy secretary and i can do other than setting the standards and
11:20 am
holding people accountable is helping to provide the resources for those capabilities and so that is something i very much focused on. also, and i would just ahead it into their upgrading our system's overall of that storyline. beyond the defensive side we obviously also need to demonstrate that there are costs for cyber attacks and president biden has most recently demonstrated that, i think, with russia in terms of his response to solar winds and that is -- we need to continually hold cyber actors accountable when they are undertaking activity that threat moves us. last thing i will say is the defense industrial base i stated this in my opening remarks that we have a lot of vulnerabilities in the industrial base and cyber is one set of those. that's a big priority for the apartment is trying to both be able to assess and understand those threats to our industrial
11:21 am
base and i mentioned my electronics for example is one area and make sure we have strategies designed to protect those, whether that is about diversifying or increasing and then diversifying u.s. fire bases or other approaches that can help to protect us. >> thank you. our next question is from court of the pentagon course correspondence. >> courtney? okay. we will move on to leslie thomas, please. leslie. >> hello, thank you very much. you framed president biden's policy of the use of afghanistan as a launchpad against the united states and citizens.
11:22 am
we don't want to be on the force but we did look at the soviet withdrawal and u.s. disengagement along time ago and what happened there could obviously happen again and it's on everyone's mind. in a world in which most of us receive notifications that three people are on civil society assassination list last week in which a woman was whipped and these activities that are or not approved by the taliban and are there sticks as well as the carrots that they referred to, 80% of the budget that we may or may want not provide to government that does these things and how can this be used constructively? >> i think leslie you bring that up just right particularly with those comments but there are mostly nonmilitary approaches that make sense in 90% of the cases in the world where we are trying to shape the behavior of
11:23 am
the country. when it comes to human rights, for instance, that is an area where we use a lot of different tools whether it is economic sanctions, whether it is approaching, you know, current status these are tears of status for countries with regard to privilege in the international community and whether it is government support and funding, as you alluded to, those are all sticks, if you will that the united states has at its advantage. because the a administration has prioritized u.s. global leadership and is manifested that by working closely with allies and partners that gives us much more leverage but those tools then we would have if we were not it or if we had chosen american first approach that ignored the interests and values that are allies and partners bring to bear. because you brought it up a little bit in the context of
11:24 am
women's rights i want to say that we very care very deeply about the rights of women inside afghanistan and inside saudi arabia and inside other parts of the world but this is not about it's on the ground but this is about how the united states conducts foreign policy to advance the human rights interests and using all the tools at its disposal. >> our next question is from jane harman the president of the wilson center. jane, thank you. >> i'm trying. have you got me? okay. here i am. good morning everyone. excellent conversation. as you know i spent nine terms in congress and i was a member of the policy board for a decade before madeleine albright, henry kissinger and i and two others were removed a month before the jump administration ended. my question is about your good
11:25 am
goal of modernization and innovation in the military. it is a good goal and i strongly support it. however, it has a huge effect on congress in one of the things you said the defense industrial base is vulnerable, no question, but it is also vulnerable to losing jobs and what worries me is simple. number one the people in those jobs highly trained rocket scientists and so forth but number two if you move to modernization you will threaten a lot of the activities in various congressional districts and what is your strategy? one thing i will add, i worked in the '90s and we were doing these technologies and helping two more in the commercial sector so that they could keep people employed so how are you thinking about a management plan for congress? >> yes, very very good question
11:26 am
and you're absolutely right that this is at the heart of how, if we want to modernize and move forward we have to do it in close cooperation. this is very much, i would say the dod part of the build back better message and theme which is it is not particularly that we are divesting but it is that we are developing a u.s., both manufacturing and stem oriented workforce workspace for the systems and approaches we need in the future. we need systems and approaches in the future and we're not divesting to do nothing but we are divesting to shift and so as you point out, jane, anything from transition assistance where we have done that since and for those who don't follow that when we close the dates we provide assistance in and around civic community for transitioning and those of been incredibly popular
11:27 am
and successful in terms of taking areas where the community thought they really needed that installation in order to thrive and survive and now they can use that with transition and use that for commercial approaches. we can use those kinds of ideas and i'm not saying exactly the same but basic approaches of incentivizing transition to new capabilities and new technologies and new approaches. we absolutely need to protect our critical workforce skills. you can look at anything from shipyards and the aerospace engineers that we have, bible interests for us. we talked a lot internally, at least with the secretary and i about how having a sustainable approach. moving away from focusing on went to that platform we are building and more about how sustainable is that? are we ensuring an industrial base. is there a workforce there for the kinds of capabilities we
11:28 am
need in the future. those are the sorts of initiatives and the issues that you describe that we are trying to make sure we have in place, particularly as he moved to looking at the fy 23 cycle which is the year essentially that we are approaching in terms of our planning. this will be centerpiece to how we think about the changes we may need to see. >> thank you. our last question today is coming from patrick tucker whose defense one technology editor. >> hello. i'm not sure there we go. [laughter] good to see you, doctor hicks. there are reports that indicate in the most recent budget there was disagreement between the pentagon and white house and so i wondered if you could characterize that discussion a little bit but moreover, when you look across the broad spectrum of pentagon is spending right now from nuclear weapons, modernization, modernization across all services where in the
11:29 am
pentagon make cuts while also meeting all these modernization priorities? things. >> sure. i would not characterize it that way but i would say the characterization that the secretary and the president came to agreed viewpoint that was not difficult, if you will, for them to arrive at on where the department should be and how it made sense within the overall budget. that is the first thing. how do we take a cut and obviously the shift overall in terms of off tempo and use of force around the world is central to how we can transition more towards looking at challenges like china in the future and improving the toolkit and other parts of the national security sector beyond defense so we are not always answering verse with military capability or military forces and that the pressure rises in particular, as you know, those accounts for us.
11:30 am
you know, and making sure also that we are not trying to replace back on these one-for-one looking at capabilities we are, as you well no, we are in an era where, you know, platforms will always matter but it is the software and the quick turn and the munitions and those pieces that make such a critical difference in our capability set and that is a different funding picture, i think i would say. when the most fascinating things i found is that the only thing people know really about our defense budget is the top line and everyone is are going over it. the an idea what is in the budget and that tells you everything you need to know about the debate in washington. defense budget is too high, or it's too low and it's neither of those things i think and unless you want understand what's in it. when we roll this budget out i am confident that we will have
11:31 am
areas, first of all a risk that we would be able to identify and talk through but i'm also confident that we are putting forward a really high quality budget that does the things i talk about in my prepared comments in terms of preparing us for the competition with china. >> thanks. if i may sneak and one more quick question, please doctor hicks. we have questions in the q&a box about myanmar so could you talk to us about that, please. >> i don't know what the question is. >> it's just your thoughts on any actions or that the united states may take with regards to myanmar. >> i will plead outside my area of response believe here at the deputy secretary so i will sidestep that. >> okay, perfect. i think we're not ready ready to turn it over to anya who will introduce. thank you very much, doctor hicks. >> thank you. >> hello everyone. thank you so much cap for doing a master class in walking us
11:32 am
through the many issues of the pentagon facing right now from china to russia to the ongoing cyber attacks in the critical internal transformation that you are leading so we are very excited to have you in this seat and thank you so much for joining us and also thank you for an insightful and thoughtful question. without further ado we are now moving to our next and final session. i know we have jake sullivan, national security adviser joining us and he is just in the process of getting in our green room behind the scenes and we have jerry's dive from the wall street here to interview him. while we are getting jake online let me just do a little bit of an introduction. many of you, of course, are familiar with jake sullivan and is the currently assistant to the president for national security affairs after having
11:33 am
already a distinguished career in government previously and served as the national security advisor for vice president joe biden and before that he was the director of policy planning at the u.s. department of state and the deputy chief of staff to secretary of state hillary clinton. of course, as many of you know and many of you worked with him he also was a senior policy advisor for secretary clinton 2016 presidential campaign. jake clerked for justice steven breyer on the supreme court and the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit so he's really an underachiever and all of us who known him for a long time also note that he is incredibly kind and approachable person. let me pause here, right, before i introduced jerry and make sure that we have jake. spirit can you hear me? >> hey, yes, i can pretty welcome.
11:34 am
thank you for being with us today. jake, you have an enormous portfolio, of course. you are serving a president who is made really bold promises about transforming our foreign policy. we have heard already that you weren't able to be on of course but we heard earlier in the sessions and tom that there was a remarkable agreement between them on the challenges that the u.s. faces and how to handle them. cat hicks focuses on china's capabilities, competing effectively with china and said actually that the u.s. military would still be a supporting player to the diplomatic and other tools there and you have iran where we understand in direct talks are underway in the president has said he will be tough on dictators and has already launched two rounds of sanctions against the russians saying we would find ways to work together and of course as the administration is talking about ending the wars in
11:35 am
afghanistan and iraq we had president with us and asked him a couple months ago and of course that's not the outcome he would have preferred now but we look for to hearing from you on all of those issues. here to talk to you about each of these issues is jerry stipe who is the distinguished journalist and the executive washington editor of "the wall street journal" where he writes the weekly capital journal column and also reported from the middle east earlier in his career and has covered the white house and his one world war journalistic awards then we can mention here. without further ado, jerry and jake, i will let you take away. >> thank you. jake, good you be with you again almost. i want to make sure that i am on here. >> i can see you, jerry. >> excellence.
11:36 am
you very much. as i thought about this conversation today it occurred to me that i might ask whether after the 100 day mark and this is the 100th day mark you could articulate a biden doctrine and foreign policy and then it occurred to me that we know what the biden doctrine is the president has told us its foreign policy for the middle class. the question really is what does that mean? what is that foreign policy for the middle class mean and what is different about it from what we have seen over the years? >> well, first of all jerry great to be with you and anya you're overly generous introduction i thank you for that but especially thank you for your leadership of the aspen strategy forum and all the work that you've done to pull together just an incredible group of speakers, leaders, thinkers to grapple with a very difficult set of issues. when you are walking through the set of challenges that we are up against i was sort of providing
11:37 am
back on 100 sleep is nights because there is a big world out there and a number of significant challenges for us to grapple with that we will get a chance to talk about. with respect to the foreign policy to the middle class i would just start with a kind of basic proposition that president biden measures and the efficacy of everything that we are doing in our foreign policy and our conduct abroad in our relationships and our engagement in our choices about military deployment based on whether or not it is going to make life better, safer, easier for working families in the united states. that is a kind of obvious statement but it bears restating which is why from his perspective that he wants everyone to be quite explicit about the centrality of working and middle-class families and to the decisions that he is making in our foreign policy so that is kinda basic level. in addition to that then, as we
11:38 am
think about the challenges of china or as we think about how we rack and stack significant threats that metric has actual, real-world consequences and it means that climate in covid and cyber all have to be significant priorities in our foreign policy because of their direct impact on people here, significant and direct impact of people here in the united states and then when it comes to u.s. china relationship our focus in the academic domain and in the technology domain and in the diplomatic domain demands ensuring that we are holding china accountable to play by the rules so that american workers, american businesses, american families are not undermined or harmed by china's practices or conduct and so that has an impact on how we approach u.s. china policy which i am sure we will get into further as his conversation goes on so foreign
11:39 am
policy for the metaclass is a concept that i would not call it a biden doctrine. you know, i would say it is an important element of the approach that the president has laid out and what i have just described is my best effort to distill and practice how it impacts the decision-making that the president is pursuing in the foreign policy domain. >> as you said turn it central to that so let's go there next. it is, china is a competitor and it is a mark aggressive competitor and i think we see what kind is doing on technology transfer and technology trapped and traded in the south china sea and on taiwan and on internal dissent and i guess the question is why? why do you think we are looking at a more aggressive china, a
11:40 am
more aggressive posture that preceded your entry into office in this administration. already think that is the case now and what did you take away from the alaskan meeting that helped you perhaps answer that question? >> our assessment is that the chinese government has made a few determinations over the last five years or so and those determinations are guiding foreign policy. first, that the hyden -- hide biden should be a more aggressive posture in terms of their military deployment and their intimidation and coercion of neighbors in the end of pacific so they made that determination, in part because they felt that the capabilities had grown and in part, because it had lessened so second, they made a determination to shift increasingly in the direction of state control in their economy and that was the determination
11:41 am
driven by a sense of a political model and autocratic political model that emphasizes control and centralization and then third they made a determination to take aggressive action in their or within their the sovereign territory of china and to try to exercise that control and we saw that crushing of dissent in hong kong and you see it in their agree just activities and in other places as well and so those are choices china has made and it is up to the united states and other members of the international community including our allies and partners to determine how we respond to that and the goal is not to contain china and not to start a new cold war and not to get into conflict but the president said it is to compete vigorously and to push back in
11:42 am
service of our values and what we believe to be universal values and that is the policy that we are conducting now. >> and why specifically become so aggressive on taiwan right now and what you do in response? how do you respond firmly without being provocative on taiwan? >> look, i can't give you a authoritative account of what is driving the pla decision-making or president xi's decision-making on encouraging into the air defense i dedication and i want to say broadly is as president of china has made the taiwan issue and the need to increase pressure on taiwan essential feature of the foreign policy. i think he regards it as critical to chinese prestige and
11:43 am
stability over the long term. and the american position on this is straightforward. we believe in the one china policy that is a full implementation of the taiwan relations act and the six assurances. and that we stand -- you know, we continue in the footsteps of the bipartisan consensus in u.s. china policy going back decades, democratic administrations and republican administrations. we oppose unilateral changes to the status quo. we would like to see stability and cross state relations and no effort to unilaterally change the status quo. we have mitigated that to china and we have affirm that with taiwan and we have affirmed that with our partners including when prime minister -- was here in washington for a summit with the president and that is how we will continue to approach the
11:44 am
taiwan issue going forward in the steadiness and clarity and resolve with respect to our view that there should be no unilateral changes to the status quo. >> do you a need at the moment to do more in a concrete sense to help taiwan exist aggression from china? >> i need to continue the taiwan obligations act to provide defensive assistance to taiwan so they have the tools and capabilities they need for the self-defense perspective and i believe that we also need to elevate our concerns with other countries in the end of pacific so that not just the united states but others are speaking out about the need for stability and cross state relations and i believe that we need to continue to deepen our people to people ties to taiwan in terms of economics and education and the
11:45 am
work between two fellow democracies. i mean, taiwan's performance on is downright remarkable and deserves to be studied and they deserve to be consulted with on that issue. taiwan's approach to issues like this information and dealing with the challenge of social media is quite remarkable and we have a lot to learn from that as well. taiwan is a vibrant democracy and so across a number of different issue areas the united states should be standing up and supporting of taiwan and not to try to escalate or alter the status quo across the street but rather to do what two fellow democracies do which is try to work together to solve significant problems. >> to areas where engagement with china is inevitable and when one is already happened or climate change and trade. let me ask you about those two in turn quickly. on climate change there has been a conversation and there is
11:46 am
engagement in the question i have is whether you believe china is serious about engaging and asking china in unison with us are we being used by the chinese as some of your republican friends insist? >> let me say take the second part of that first. which i don't like to get away with doing as little as possible on this like many other countries would get away with doing as little as possible. probably so we can't come at this issue thinking well, you know, it's all going to work out fine and that is number one. number two is we are not in the business of treating cooperation with china on climate change as if china is doing a favor to the united states. we do not see it that way. action on climate change is a fundamental responsibly of every significant country in the world and we think action on climate change is fundamentally in the interest of every significant country in the world, including china.
11:47 am
it's no favor to us we will not trade something else off against it and we will not concede in other domains in order to elicit cooperation on climate change. this are choices want to make on the country and what they do or don't do we will take action accordingly. i don't accept a critique that somehow suggests we are holding hostage the rest of our policy climate and it's a massive party for the united states as well as should be and it is not at odds with, in any way, our capacity or intention to counter china in the area where we believe we have to do so. on the question of whether there are really prepared to cooperate in a big weight and the jury is very much out. frankly, we have made clear that the president lay this out in detail but the summit that the major summit on climate control here in the white house last week that the 2020 are the
11:48 am
critical decades to take action and this is an objective look at china's plan to date suggests that their main lines of effort are really backloaded as opposed to frontloaded and secretary carey has been working closely with them and i don't want to opine further on the nature of that because we need intensive diplomacy and that is best conducted behind closed doors but if the jury is out because of the way that they have designed their pledge to put less emphasis on the near term and more on the long-term and obviously we have asked every country to really look at the next decade as the critical decade. >> when do you envision engaging with the chinese on trade and what should we think the future is for those tariffs the present from imposing china? >> we are first of all, i think, five weeks into having a u.s. trade representative.
11:49 am
of course, 100 days into the administration by ambassador type was only confirmed a little more than one month ago and our commerce secretary was confirmed around the same time and they are still filling out their teams and, of course, we are in the priority when business right now of waking major of accidents in the united states first but the american recovery plan and then threw trying to advance the market jobs plan and the american family in congress so that is where our effort and priority while ambassador ty, secretary ron mondo and secretary yellen while the rest of our team engage with allies and partners on the world with a common understanding of the economic challenge by trade and then by common strategy for how to deal with that so it will take time before we are engaged directly with china in a negotiation over trade issues and because we want to finalize a pattern of deep consultation
11:50 am
with other countries before we do so and complete a deep study with the deep impacts of the terrorist that are currently on the books and it's not just tariffs but it's questions related to technology controls and issues related to other traded tools and remedies that we have available to us. we are working on all of that and i don't have a particular timeframe to lay out for you only to tell you that we still need or we are or we have patience and we are going to be systematic and how we approach this with the full priority being increasing our position of strength here at home. >> what other newly aggressive actor or continuously aggressive actor on the real stage of vladimir putin and russia, will there be an early summer summit between president biden and
11:51 am
president putin? >> we are actively discussing that issue and i come in fact, spoke my counterpart russian nationals a good advisor this morning and we are trying to make plans to make plans for summer summit but no date has been fixed in a location has been fixed but is actively under discussion. president biden has indicated in his conversation publicly that he believes such a summit would be valuable in establishing better understandings between our two countries and the possibility of getting this relationship on a more stable and productive path. >> and the president has made clear that ukraine and this is an obvious point would be to the top of the list on the agenda for such a meeting and again, i will ask you to put yourself in the mind of a foreign leader, what was president putin up to on the border of ukraine over the last few weeks, moving in and moving out and what is a signal to be sent to ukraine what is a signal that is meant
11:52 am
to be sent to you? >> this is one of those cases, jerry, where i will very directly not answer the question because -- and the reason why is obviously first i think they're all multiple reasons but secondly i think meet laying out why putin is doing what putin is doing is or would not be helpful to the engagement that we have going with the russians and we have taken note of the fact that they have pulled in a significant amount of the forces back off the border and return them to their bases and it's a constructive step and i want to leave it at that because our goal here, particularly when it comes to ukraine, is to be vigilant in public and unabashedly in the same that we support and stand up for ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity but had to use high-level private diplomatic
11:53 am
channels to communicate with the russians about how we manage the situation going forward, alongside consultations with the germans, the french and other key actors in diplomacy around ukraine. >> so, to use the joe biden like phrase i think the president started the single thing he has ukraine's back so how do you show that and how do you show that to the ukrainians and that publicly and what steps are involved and reassuring the ukraine government at this point pat joe biden has their back? >> i think there are three main category is do this in the first is that we have an ongoing security relationship with ukraine where we provide defensive articles to them and some forms of training. second is an economic relationship in which we work with the imf and others to try to bring about civic and economic reform within ukraine but also help them measure and economic stability that will end
11:54 am
up providing benefits to the ukrainian people and then third is diplomatic. it's not just our direct engagement with ukraine people but our engagement across europe to have a range of countries standing together with us in defense of the grants opportunity and territory and we believe we can do all of these things and be resolute and firm while, at the same time, very much supporting resolution of the conflict, diplomatic progress, de-escalation and all in service of openly producing an outcome from the minsk process that finally, fully resolved what is an ongoing conflict in eastern ukraine. >> is there conversation underway about the potential for sending ukraine's additional defensive military equipment and the equipment they could observe quickly in the event of a crisis. >> i said we have an ongoing security relationship and there
11:55 am
is not a discussion of doing something out of scribe but in astride the united states has fielded requests from the ukrainians in the past and supply them and we will field the questions in the future and be willing to provide certain types of material and so that is an ongoing dialogue that we had between our security teams and their security teams but also jerry, i want to take a step back on the broader issue because what we have seen over the course of the first hundred days of the u.s., russia relationship, i think, has been president biden basically being very clear from the outset what he intended to do and then following through on doing it. i think there is noting that he basically said look, first we will stand up in defense of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our partners and we
11:56 am
will be firm about that and he has done that with respect to ukraine and will continue to do so. second he said, if russia takes ample actions against the united states and our intelligence communities determine that they are responsible we will respond and he did that and third, he said we will work with russia where it's in our interest to do so and in the first 15 days we extended the new start treaty on nuclear weapons by five years without qualification and then for the said overall, overall his goal with russia is to put this relationship on a more stable, predictable effect of putting and he believes engagement level is crucial on that looks were to meeting with putin in person. for me, this is a hallmark of president biden's overall approach to foreign policy and its principal and paramedic and rooted in personal engagement with leaders and it is its three
11:57 am
dimensional and not just all one thing or the other but it's trying to manage a complex and difficult relationship in a way that stays true to american interests. i know that was not direct your question but it if you think for the audience understanding how he is approached russia in the first 100 days tells you a fair amount about how he is looking at u.s. foreign policy over the course of the next four years. >> j, can you hear me and see me? >> jake, i think your muted. >> alright, i'm here. i put myself on mute and cannot unmute. yes, i could hear and see you.
11:58 am
>> good, i think we lost jerry for a moment and i apologize but we will just filibuster here and continue to ask you questions. before we get jerry back, i certainly just want to ask you a question about nato. i have been impressed by what the president, secretary blinking and you have done to strengthen it. in general, to build up the power of our alliances as we seek to contain russia and compete with china. could you talk about both your east-west strategy and your alliances? >> sure. first, nick, great to see you and i'm hoping at some point here it will be responsible for all our problems and for solving them. second, the president has committed actually to going to brussels in june for a nato summit and the central question at that summit is what does the
11:59 am
next ten years at nato look like? we have a strategic concept where we are a decade on from that and it is time to look at this tragic concept for the next decade and that is about a reinforcing the basic foundations of nato, starting with article five starting with collective defense and interoperability and burden sharing and all the principles that have guided nato through the decades but then it's also about retooling the alliance for the challenges that appear and that includes a much more effective approach, alliance wide on cyber where, you know, we face considerable threats from both russia and china and it means having nato think about partnerships and not just on the periphery of europe or in the middle east or in south asia but in endo pacific as well. you know, not to extend the formal alliance but rather to conceive security and much more holistic global way and it means begin about security challenges
12:00 pm
that don't fall in the military domain at all, whether it is disinformation or it is corruption is the foreign-policy weapon and how nato, as an alliance, begins to conceive of the nature of security beyond the very tight, effective military cooperation and engagement that is been the hallmark and the kind of fundamental identity of nato in the past. that is what we are working towards. ... the decision to in the american military presence there, it was
12:01 pm
a coordinator decision with all of our nato allies that we were in together, will be out together and we are currently working hand in hand on a military drawdown that is combined with a common strategy around our continuing diplomatic development, humanitarian, intelligence and security partnership with the afghan government going forward. so that will also be high on the agenda come june even as a lookout to the future to great power challenges and other nontraditional threats. >> jake, it's been equally interesting to see your focus, the president focus, the administration focused on our indo-pacific allies and partners. steve mr. with us. steve pointed out president trump revived the quad engine to give the trump administration credit for that. president biden is taken it to place that's never been before i head of government summit.
12:02 pm
do you believe the quad can be an effective limit on china's behavior in the indo-pacific? >> first of all absolutely credit where credit is due. the quad was invented actually in the bush administration in the wake of the asian tsunami. it continued under the obama administration but really was boosted and elevated in a significant way under the trump administration, at the notion of free and open indo-pacific. it was up on that that we built the first leaders level summit that took place a few weeks ago. we believe that the quad is an incredible platform for four highly capable democracies to deal with a range of challenges from covid to climate to disaster relief to maritime security. and to help set the rules of the
12:03 pm
road on everything from cyber,, emerging technology, to freedom of navigation. what i would say about the china piece of it is what was so interesting but the summit is yes, of course, they talked about china and the challenge posed by china but in a way what makes the quad so effective is that the quad is not fundamentally about china. it's about this affirmative agenda that is four capable democracies can set. and the outcome of that, not the point of it but the outcome of it, is to create a better context in atmosphere for managing china's behavior, activities, aggression in effective ways. i know that sounds a lot like -- it's really important that we think about these kinds of partnerships whether it's u.s.-eu or quad our nato. it's not being funny millet and at another but rather aimed at
12:04 pm
at three of the international system that is rooted in rules-based, values-based, humane approaches. and if we do that work then our collective capacity to deal with china to deal with russia will be much greater. that's how we think about it and that to me is the difference between the two dimensional we are just going at this as a country and three-dimensional approach where the practical result of it will be that we are in a better position to manage the challenges and the competition that we face from china. >> thank you so much, jake. we have jerry back. i think he lost power briefly, and in your absence we talked about nato and we've covered the quad. we will let you take back over from here. >> thank you. i wonder why i was lost but actually a gale force winds knocked the power out ever so briefly here. so really, fingers crossed.
12:05 pm
he stole my question on the quad so wanted to ask that would. there is a broader question, jake, about both the china and russia relationship. this is something you and i talked about in the past, which is how great is the danger here, particularly on the chinese side, that they store to believe that narrative that they tell themselves, which is that the west of the u.s. in particular are in a state of decline and inevitable a long decline and, therefore, the field is more open to them cracks and they miss chicot as result of that. that can be true for the russians or the chinese or others as far as that's concerned. how great a danger is that, in your my? >> i think you put your finger on what is one of the fundamental dynamics facing the world today, which is the question that china is asking, rush is asking but, frankly, so as the rest of the world. is the united states in particular but the west in general on the way down? you heard from president biden
12:06 pm
on wednesday night in his address to the nation his laser focus on the issue of whether democracies can deliver in the time of profound change and the people, whether they can deliver economically, where they can deliver political cohesion, whether they can deliver against everything from covid-19 the technological change. and his aunts to the question is the absolutely can if we put in the work, and this next decade will be decisive as historians look back to providing a positive answer to the question, can democracies deliver? he's really focus on that as one of his central organizing principles of his presidency. that's why foreign policy is domestic policy and domestic policy is foreign policy. because our capacity to reinforce the fundamental sources of american strength, our infrastructure, our innovation, our democracy
12:07 pm
itself, will be decisive in how we shape the perceptions of both competitors and adversaries on the one end and allies and partners on the other hand. we are often a good start in the first 100 days. china is taking note of the fact that our projected growth rate now after the american recovery plant is 6.5% this year. they are taking note of the far-reaching investments in infrastructure and innovation and r&d and education and american families the president has laid out. they're taking note of the fact we've been able to reinvigorate our alliances and elevate new groupings like the quad, and i think it is making them think twice about how comfortable they can be simply sitting back and assuming the united states is on its way down to the last point i would make on this is that in beijing, in capital cape indo-pacific, europe and the rest of this, there is a
12:08 pm
residual understanding that one of the great capacities of the united states, that we exercise repeatedly in the past is the capacity for renewal regeneration, and that we can come back, we were flat on our backs on covid a year ago, and now we are on a very positive trajectory here at home and are turning to try to end this been dimming around the world. and so much else. my view is this houthis central strategic question facing us and our success depends on the kinds of investments that we can make an collegians he can make during the united states and it's why as national security adviser i concern myself so much with the work of the national economic council and domestic policy council, not because i'm inviting you to other business but because it's our business, too, in national security.
12:09 pm
sorry for long and somewhat animated answer to question but i think it's a really profoundly important subject. >> thank you for that. let me touch on a couple other areas and then we'll opened up to audience questions. you won't be surprised i'm going to ask about iran. how could i not? twofold question. are the arena is negotiating in good faith in your estimation on the return to jcpoa? are they showing willingness to talk about extending the life the agreement, expanding it to include ballistic missiles and to include behavior beyond iran's borders in the region? >> so i'm not going to characterize the substance of negotiations at this point because they're in i would say sort of an unclear place in vienna, meaning that we have seen willingness of all sites including the iranians to talk seriously about sanctions relief and nuclear restrictions, and
12:10 pm
pathway back into the jcpoa. but it is still uncertain as to whether this will culminate in a deal in the unit in the coming weeks. so while the diplomacy is ongoing and underway i don't want to get into the specifics of what's on the table and what is being negotiated and discussed. on the question of whether the negotiating in good faith, i guess good faith is always in the eye of the beholder. with the iranians have come in a serious way to a serious discussions about details and the teams are working through those details now. and so this is not just one side or the other giving the runaround. run right. it's real negotiation, albeit indirect which is more efficient of course. whether it will result in a positive outcome or not remains to be determined. >> final quick question from me. afghanistan. we know the president's decision
12:11 pm
troop levels. what i'm curious about is how you would characterize the capability and capacity the u.s. will still have post-september in afghanistan to deter terrorism and extremist activity, intelligence, special operations over the ricin projection forces. how will that capability be in the wake of troop withdrawal? >> well, as members of the administration testified both an open session and behind closed doors unveiled it will be the same capability, but we believe it will be a sufficient capability, meaning that between what we can do in terms of maintaining and intelligence picture for the reemergence of a terrorist threat to the as homeland homeland in afghanistan, then what we can maintain in military posture in the region to be able to respond if the threat does reemerge, we think that we can disrupt and suppress the threat
12:12 pm
so that it does not become an acute threat to the united states or to american interests. that will include a number of arrangements with countries in the region. i don't want to go into specifics on that. it will include continued provision of security assistance to the afghan national security forces directly and it will include close cooperation and consultation with other partners who have been involved in the fight in an capstan to stand -- in afghanistan who have their own capabilities that we will continue to rely upon. we believe we will be effectively posturing to deal with this on a forward basis and that actually we position -- will put us in in a better pn overall to the threat of terrorism writ large over the world which the present . it has become more dispersed and distributed across africa, the middle east and south asia from
12:13 pm
where it's to 20 years ago when the united states went into afghanistan in the first place. >> jake, thank you very much. i appreciate the chance. i think anya will step in and deal with audience questions which i think they're already many. >> thank you so much, gerry. and jake, thanks for the tour de force around the world. we have a number of people submitting questions big we want to get you out of here on time but i'm going to take moderator's prerogative and ask you the same thing jennifer griffin asked tom donilon and stevie can display. you have been there for 100 days. you could have had a lot of sleepless nights which we empathize with what is been free the most poignant or important or difficult day? >> wow. that's a hard question. i think -- i don't have -- you
12:14 pm
know, it's funny, i was with a group of my team yesterday and seven post a different version of this question which was, kind of the high low. what was your best -- what's been the best moment and the worst? honest i couldn't come up with the best and i couldn't come up with the worst. as to some kind of tragic sensibility where we are, doing our thing here. i guess poignant, the thing that has hit the hardest emotionally, and this isn't a possibly but also in an epic way, was the president's speech in wednesday night and listening to him from the dais come lay things out the way he did, , the culmination of 100 days of work. that kind of washed over me and kind of a profound and emotional
12:15 pm
way. i am very proud of what we did with the quad summit. i thought that was just a significant moment that really set us up for success going forward. we've had a difficult days with the taxon airbases and erect -- attacks -- led to the loss of life of americans, not servicemembers by contractors. we had to choose the president had to choose to take military action in response to that. not weighed heavily. and then managing these great power relationships both china and russia are kind of, require constant focus and attention. but fortunately i think i'm giving you a very lame answer to question about what is the most poignant moment was. i promise at the 200 day mark i will have one. >> it's a great answer you have lot of a competent under your bill for just 100 days in. we hope from all of us to get a
12:16 pm
little more sleep. without further ado let me turn first to catherine was one of our rising leaders and she works in the tech industry. catherine, please. >> hi. thanks for taking the time. i am catherine. i've been working on tech issues at facebook a party that was like enough to work for steve hadley. my question is that digital sovereignty. sovereign today has required a a digital dimension and we see that with china. also seems like the eu has its own digital sovereignty agenda in certain ways like with gdpr, it's great that it is empowering individuals to decide how a a company uses its data but some voices in the eu are calling for boulder antitrust policies while other critics interpret this as erecting trade barriers against a large -- [inaudible] outcomes of this are really
12:17 pm
encouraging, the giving eu ambitions how will the u.s. work effectively with the eu on a potential multilateral tech policy framework when our approaches to data governments arcana different and also at the time when we don't have a federal framework ourselves and we're trying to build stronger alliances to counter china? and how much does the eu dependence on china in the market inhibit progress on cooperation? thanks. >> thanks. that's a big set of questions, and as he could manage of the interagency process in u.s. government i'm going to give a bit of a process answer to it because there's a huge number of complex questions implicated in what you just laid out. some differences of opinion between the u.s. and europe on forms of digital regulation but a lot of commonalities as well including on questions related to the need for effective
12:18 pm
antitrust and pro-competition rules, even if the details will have to work through. so the way we're looking at this is building into the g7 as you mentioned to try to align around a set of principles and then attack g7.com for positive step in that direction. second, the president will do a summit in brussels with the president's european union, the president of the commission, president of the council. and from that summit our goal is to structure an effective dialogue on the whole range of trade and technology issues that will allow us to get onto the same page. both resolve disputes among us within developed a strategy around our highest priority issues as it relates to reform at the international system and in certain cases how to deal with the challenges posed by
12:19 pm
nonmarket economies like china. so that's what we intend. those are going to be some tough conversations, in some cases some tough to glaciations where we tried to come to a give-and-take on certain issues in the technology space. but our convergence dramatically outweighs our differences and i think if we can manage of those differences and resolve and effectively, through a structured dialogue, then our partnership together will put us in a position to enhance the rules of the road in the digital space globally for the benefit of all of our citizens. >> thank you, jake. actually from aspen strategy group, munich is working on a project together that covers tech in europe and what we can do together some glad you guys are focusing on it. chemical next to joe knisley -- so can we go next to joe
12:20 pm
knisley? joe, are you there? >> yes. hi, jake. i would like to ask you about covid. the biden administration has done a great job on vaccinations but we're not there yet. and yet at the same time we're facing real emergencies in india, brazil, and other countries. the administration has announced that it will export $60 billion, 16 million doses astrazeneca vaccine when we deem it safe. but the emergency in india and brazil is now. is it plausible or possible that we could start exporting some of our own vaccines, such as the johnson & johnson or the moderna or the visor even before we finished our full vaccinations at home -- pfizer?
12:21 pm
the argument for that is it would be good for us in the long run, good for our alliances, good for our soft power, but opposes political problems. what are the prospects for doing something like that? >> joe, it's great to see you. i should not have anticipated anything less than a very direct, very, very, very hard question to answer. but first of all, astrazeneca doses are doses that we acquired and paid for for the purpose of using here. we of course determine were unlikely to have astrazeneca as part of the next. so soon as they are ready we will send them. resident hasn't made a determination of sending additional doses at this moment, but he is very focused and hurting in his speech and winston that specifically refer to the need to become an important source of vaccines for
12:22 pm
the world. and so in fact, when i finish this conversation here in the next little while i am going almost immediately into a meeting which were now hold it on a regular basis for how to formulate our global strategy, had advance the provision of vaccine, the production first and then provision of vaccines to the rest of the world. we'll have more to say on that subject in the not-too-distant future. i wish i could give you a better answer than that but that's where things stand right now. we are working through what our options are and we're trying to do that expeditiously so that as soon as humanly possible we will be in in a position to say we got more to offer the world. >> that will be great. we look forward to that. our assistant secretary for africa and also ambassador to south africa, up next.
12:23 pm
>> thank you very much, on you. it's a great pleasure. i'm going to ask you, jake, africa policy and a follows on joe. i promise you i would ask you it before joe spoke, that first let me just say thank you for your leadership and to make things i think were critical for u.s.-africa and that was the decision to approve -- of the wto as well as the very strong and positive message that president biden gave to the summit at the beginning of the administration. i think those really were strong signals. now the question i think cyber climate and covid is exactly right anchors, there could be a lot that happens with u.s.-africa policy on those areas, principal, pragmatic and personal engagement is exactly what the continent needs. i'd like to ask you what is your vision for use africa policy, but following on jail but again as i said i was going to ask
12:24 pm
this anyway, i think that really covid recovery in africa, we need to have so much advantage of there. the fact that u.s. government is the largest foreign aid contributor in the world, 75% of her for aid to africa goes to the health sector, building on the strong capacity that we build of their through the pepfar program, given the leading role of our private sector, particularly with vaccine development and testing development, it's just a lot we can do and china is dangling out there and getting great events and even vaccines that are not very effective. i want to push you again on the point that joe raised about u.s. leadership on covid, and right now some are positioned actually hurting our company scope for instance, when we say we now can't be exported to other countries will. there's recently that comes up and i know in africa they say
12:25 pm
america's use taking care of itself it's always inches leaving as last one. i think a composition is hurting us and we have so much capability actually in this country to take strategic, i shouldn't say bandage, but we have a strategic role to play in the world to solve problems that will do just what joe said, which is still soft power. that's long-winded to say congratulations and all the work you all are already doing. what's your vision for african specifically how can we leverage the covid recovery global approach? >> thanks, jendayi. let me say in answer to what i think is a very compelling presentation, both the challenge and opportunity, we fully recognized that there is an urgent need for the united states to step up to the plate to deliver for the world to end
12:26 pm
this pandemic and can help the world recover from this pandemic. vaccines are part of that, and our 60 million astrazeneca is a step but billions of doses ultimately are needed and that's going to be manufactured, logistics and getting shot in arms. the united states over the coming weeks will be collaborating a fuller strategy from we intend to be at the vanguard of helping africa and the rest of the world both get vaccinated and then bounce back. another piece of the bouncing back of course is economic. the united states is fully committed to thinking about the kinds of investments required not just to build a back better in the united states but to build back matter worldwide, climate, health, digital, gender equity. these are all areas where we are going to look to work with
12:27 pm
like-minded partners to mobilize both public and private capital not just for debt but equity investments and we will have more to say on that subject in the coming months as well. so between the kinds of economic, big economic moves we can make, and what we can do on the public health front, this is going to be a paramount focus of our foreign policy of the course of the next year. and with the aim of ending the pandemic, not in 2024, but in 2022, and will do everything in our power as we go forward to be able to accomplish that. >> great. let's hope we can get there. jake, i have a question for you from paul from u.s. news and world report. >> thank thank you, thanks h for taking my question. does the president believe he has the authority to order all military members to take the
12:28 pm
vaccine while it's still under emergency authorization? and does he have any political concerns about ordering something that appears to be so unpopular among some members of the uniformed force? thank you. >> i'm just going to leave it at that, something the department of defense is looking at in consultation with the interagency process, and donate anything to add on that subject here today. >> great. sounds good. we want to be respectful of it on some go to make this the last question and it's from bob who of course was senior official at the u.s. state department. hey, bob. >> hi. how are you? think that much. hello, jake. >> hi, bob. >> on china you mentioned very early on that china wanted to be preeminent in technology on various sorts. the u.s. has certainly the
12:29 pm
capability of advancing quite dramatically in areas like 5g, quantum computing, ai. one of the traditions of american policy is cooperation between the government and the private sector on these things that are dual use. they can be commercial use and they can be of military use. are there some plans to push the president for us to be preeminent and create a lot more domestic jobs? are there any plans for is there a program whereby we can boost or step up our collaboration between the government and the private sector to leap ahead of china in these several areas? one come in a strategic importance and two, economically important in creating a lot of jobs at home. is this a high priority and if what are the next steps and what can be done about it? >> thanks, bob. great question, and the edges
12:30 pm
emphatically yes. in fact, a central proposition of the american jobs plan is significant public investment in key areas, clean energy, biotechnology, advanced electronics, semiconductors with the goal of mobilizing private sector innovation, private-sector job creation, and that foundation of basic research creating whole new industries alongside millions of good paying jobs, that's with the american jobs plan is all about. as one example, as part of the american jobs plan is focused on the semiconductor industry, there's also a bill moving through the congress now in a bipartisan basis called the chips act, and what the chips act says is the united states come is prepared to step up, not to pick winners and losers, but to make investment in the fabrication, manufacturing
12:31 pm
capacity semiconductors, chips here in the united states, and if the government will put skin in the game and the private sector will put skin in the game and the result will be a combination of good paying union jobs in america plus the security that comes from having the resilient supply chain of these chips. and that is a central part of what we're trying to to accomplish with the economic strategy, the biden administration picnic is back to the point i was make me for about foreign policy being domestic policy and vice versa. it's why i work in the economic economic ounces so essential to the success of her national work queue skagit. >> jake, thank you so much but we will leave it there and let's go back to your important work. thank you for sharing with us some of the vast array of issues that are on your plate. for all of you out there in the
12:32 pm
odd as we wish we could be in person and we have an investment for you. we are hard at work working on the 2021 the 2021 aspen security for him. regretfully we decided that in august it is just too soon for so many of us to be safely together in as been so the security for alma will be virtually from the third 25 august but then where planning and in person event in november, and we have a great line up already for those two events for the minister of india, the prime minister of singapore, several u.s. level officials and senior officials that we look forward to seeing all of you there. thank you for joining us and enjoy the rest of your day and your weekend. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
12:33 pm
♪ >> president biden will be in philadelphia today to mark the 50th anniversary of amtrak but you will also talk latest jobs plan which includes money for real infrastructure. live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> booktv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors of the weekend.
12:34 pm
>> watch booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> transportation secretary pete buttigieg testified on the present fiscal year 2022 budget request. he talked about the administrations transportation priorities along with president biden's american jobs plan and answered questions from the house appropriations subcommittee. >> the hearing will come to order. good afternoon and welcome to the first fiscal year 2022 budget hearing for the

18 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on