tv Hoover Institution - Threats to Free and Open Societies CSPAN July 4, 2019 1:08am-2:38am EDT
george w. bush and first lady michelle obama discuss their work at the university of chicago institute of politics. watch this fourth of july on c-span. , former trump administration national security advisor hr mcmaster on the threats to free and open societies. he spoke at an event in the hoover institution from stanford, california. this is 90 minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is tom gilligan, i am the director of the hoover institution. welcome to our speaker series. this series features 11 panel discussions over the course of the year to so case -- to showcase. let me introduce the participants to the discussion countering threats to free and open societies. series. this series features 11 panel discussions over the course of the year to so case -- to showcase. let me introduce the discussions to the
countering threats to free and open societies. this research -- this creature onthis researcher focused non-western immigrants into the society and defending the rights of muslim women. for more than six years, mr. diamond talked about the rule of law and leads a program on democracy and mobile digital policy incubator. senior fellowis a at the hoover institution. 26th assistant to the president for national security affairs and served as an officer in the u.s. army for 34 years before retiring as a lieutenant general in june of 2018. the moderator for the panel is
neil ferguson. was a senior fellow at the center for european studies at harvard where he serves to where he served for 12 years as a professor. please welcome this group to the stage. [applause] mr. ferguson: good afternoon. thank you for the introduction and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for joining us on a beautiful afternoon where you could be out playing frisbee. i am excited to be moderating this distinguished panel. when you come to think of it, we have some amazing expertise here on the platform. we have a former national
security advisor who really was the mastermind behind the securityof national strategy in 2018. we will talk about his contribution to that. left, larry diamond whose recent role is the editor of major report of chinese influence operations. is ms.,y immediate left -- ms. ali, who has been the leading credit of fundamentalism and she also happens to be my wife. [laughter] but let me reassure you -- [applause] there will be no
softball questions. [laughter] begin with a quote. this is the first time we have appeared together on stage. we have put it off. i want to begin on a more serious note. i want to quote from one of the grandmasters of strategic and american foreign policy. henry kissinger, for a man who just turned 96, as an acute grasp of the issues we will be discussing this afternoon. he has written on artificial book, hence, ended his made the following observation. the pervasiveness of network munication and social and
military sectors has revolutionized policies. i am basing most rules and created as, it has state of nature, the escape of provided the motivating force for creating political order. is built into relations between powers and diplomacy and strategy. absent articulation of rules of international conduct, a crisis will arise from the inner dynamics of the system. frame thequotes, to subject. michael rogers, former head of the national security agency in u.s. cyber command set a couple of years ago, we are at a tipping point. nsai want to quote from
cryptographer robert morris senior in the famous rules of computer security. everyone has to be concerned about computer security these days. role one. own ae 1, do not computer. rule number two, do not turn it on. rule number three, do not use it. with that, i want to turn to hr master. i want to ask you about the national security strategy to begin with. because you really radically changed the u.s. posture on a range of issues, of which probably the most noteworthy was our stance toward china. interesting things to say about cyber warfare. i will briefly remind you of something you said. cyber attacks offer a low cost opportunity to seriously damage
critical infrastructure, cripple american businesses, we can our federal networks, -- weakn our our federaleaken networks. the u.s. will impose swift and costly consequences on actors who undertake malicious cyber activity. so let me begin with a question. can there be effective deterrence in cyberspace? mr. mcmaster: thank you. you asked what motivated this dramatic shape -- dramatic shift 2017.icy that you saw in highly readable, just-in-time for the beach. december 2018 was when we put everything in place. i think there was a sense that we were at the end of the beginning of a new era, but behind, largely because we were
not competing effectively against adversaries and rivals. the reasons we were behind was due in large measure to overconfidence in the 1990's associated with the triumph of the cold war, the collapse of the soviet union, a lopsided victory over the army in the gulf war, and some sustained 1990's. growth in the the first big.com boom in the boom in theg .com valley. this led to complacency. then we confronted difficulties in the 2000's. attacks, the 11 difficulty of war in iraq and afghanistan, and the 2008 financial crisis. that jolted the confidence in a way that we became passive and
did not engage competitively for reasons of pessimism, rather than over optimism. choice to a conscious really figure out how to reenter the competition from which we had been absent. cyber is one of those. succinctly, yes, i think you can deter certain attacks in cyberspace by two fundamental means. costs on theose cyber actor or make clear you thosepose cost far beyond which the cyber actor factored in at the outset of the decision to attack. those are cyber offense of capabilities, but also capabilities outside of cyberspace that you can bring to bear in physical space through sanctions, law enforcement
actions. when you have the authority to do so, lee terry action, as well. the other -- military action, as well. the other deterrence is denial. convincing potential adversaries that they cannot accomplish their objective through the use of that capability. that involves defense measures. making infrastructure more resilient. ensuring any systems can degrade gracefully, rather than fail catastrophically. there ramp somewhere attack on baltimore, this is a problem with us right now and we have to recognize our enthusiasm for technology which has made our lives so much easier has also made us more vulnerable and prone to catastrophic collapse.
a book from the 1960's, the author wrote that men and women have expended a great deal of effort in trying to tame the natural environment but has created an artificial environment that is much more complex than the natural environment ever was. so i think we are on the right track in terms of recognizing this is a competitive domain. we have seen a lot of action taken to make it easier to use. offense of capabilities, as a part of deterrence. but there is a long way to go in terms of denial and the ability to impose costs. mr. ferguson: i want to pursue this a bit further because we want the opportunity to learn this from someone who was right there, in the room where it
happened, remaking american policy. recently written on the subject. a quote. iserrence and cyberspace more like crime governments can imperfectly correct. in the cold war, you had to deter the soviet union from firing a missile. but this is a different kind of deterrence. you are going to have cyber attacks. cyber warfare is a permanent state. it is a question of whether you can keep the level down so you do not suffer serious disruption. i think cyber actors are trying to avoid the imposition of cost on them. way where we have seen rivals, competitors such as russia, china, north korea and
iran try to accomplish objectives below the threshold that would elicit a certain response back against them. so we have to do a number of things. one is to develop a range of capabilities that can be applied against these actors. i think you've seen that in the last election, in the midterm election. more and more will be known over time. we acted more aggressively than we had in the past against those who are trying to disrupt our elections. there are other actions we can take that are not truly defensive, but in many ways, inoculate ourselves against the effects. about you can talk more information warfare, but we can do, we have to take a lot of important tasks like educating ourselves so we are less susceptible to manipulation by the actors. and we can figure out a way to
present credible information based on verifiable forces and be able to access that routinely in a way that blocks out some of the attacks at disinformation on propaganda. mr. ferguson: can we draw that distinction out a little more? there is a distinction between cyber warfare and information more. in some ways -- information war. in some ways, the u.s. spent more thinking about cyber warfare. do assumption we caniran certain things to iran. that was the focus. but what the russians did was different. can you help us understand? mr. mcmaster: it goes back to
the complacency problem. we believed there was an arc of history that guaranteed the free, open societies. it was our confidence that came under attack. confidence in who we are as a people, our common identity. boughtthe messaging and media traffic on social was aimed at dividing along lines of race. a distant second was immigration. gun control. whatever could be polarizing that could pull the society apart and pit us against each other, and then attack our election so that we do not have faith in our democratic process and institutions. we came late to the game. it was because we were
overconfident in the inherent strength of our society and system. mr. ferguson: i am glad you observed moments ago that we did up our game and although it did not get much coverage, the fact -- the way the administration hit back and disrupted communications. quicklyd say we learned from 2016. mr. mcmaster: one of the lessons overall, you cannot separate in cyberspace offenses and defensive. if you develop a cyber tool and of 96, has a shelf life hours before there is a countermeasure deployed against it. so you have a continuous interaction of opposites.
that is happening at electron speed internationally in this new form of competition. so what we had to do was align the authorities for those who are operating to defend us from these actors, to employ combinations of offensive and defensive capabilities. mr. ferguson: this is a good moment to turn from you to ms. ali and remind ourselves although there has not been a major influence terrorist in the united states for some time, it has not stop around the world. just to remind the audience, these are numbers from the u.s. national consortium for the study of terrorism and responses to terrorism. records recent report 10,900 terrorist attack's of all kinds around the world that killed more than 26,000 400
people. the top three perpetrators were islamic state, the taliban, and al-shabaab. overwhelmingly, the incidents around the world killed people in large numbers are driven were perpetrated by radical islamist groups. so i wanted to begin with a question about those groups. the ways in which they have used the technology developed in the mobilize,ganize, to and to build far bigger networks . talk a bit about that. how the networks currently operate. start, ii wanted to was listening intensely to my colleague, thinking, here we are, talking about operations. this is cyber. here are the people, advertisers
-- adversaries using it. in the 15 years i have been in the united states, the one thing , maybe since 19 -- 1989, the one thing we rarely talk about, ideas, ideologies, and granting principles. said the very core of our identity, i assumed the core of our identity are these classical, liberal ideas. that the united states is established upon. what we forget is that there are, in fact, people who organize, who have political and social frameworks that are radically different from ours. so when you think about islamism , it a political and social philosophy with a religious underpinning.
and when the agents or people , i believe in this ideology think you look at islam and you see a tree with two main branches. one branch is the use of violence to achieve the aims, to achieve what they think of as the utopian ideal, which is to establish a society on a local and regional level, be be a global level, to achieve an end goal that society is based on the rule of god. that is the interpretation. that is the organizing philosophy. think of it as a tree. one branch is the use of violence to reach that goal. that is called jihad. go, i asked people, raise your hand if you think you
know what the concept of jihad is. raise your hand. a lot of people, 80% to 90% will say they have heard about jihad and i am familiar with it. ifn i ask, raise your hand you have ever heard of the dawah.t of always a minority. that is the other main branch of islamist tree. what does it mean? philosophyrs in this that has underpinnings and effortn puts together an in engaging in campaigns, arguments, propaganda. promote thefort to ideas. the effort to persuade.
that is where cyber comes in. when it comes to jihad, we are focusing on that and the big companies are focusing on the jihadi aspect, where are they plotting a terrorist attack on where will it be, what medium will they use? that is under the branch of jihad. , youhen it comes to dawah have to ask yourself, how are they using cyber to raise awareness, to recruit people to their cause? how are they using cyber to organize, strategize, change tactics? how are they using cyber to raise money? warfare, how are they propagating conspiracy theories. -- one conspiracy theory is the united states is out to get all muslims.
say i put me, i will this under the realm of information warfare and disinformation. i think everything hr said is true. we are used to fighting these operational wars. cost and you impose defense by denial. that works on the operational level. question remains, are we really engaged in terms of ideological confrontations? at are we not really wasting the opportunity to use the internet, comee cyber to promote a to ideology?
and and a system of ideas? that is where we fail. mr. ferguson: there is a book related to this, have very different islamic state was from al qaeda. al qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks partly because it was so cut off and closed as a tiny network that it pretty much was undetected by our security forces. islamic state is different. it is a very open, rapidly changing network that uses social media, all kinds of different platforms to disseminate the ideology. you look at the work that has been done by people in national security in the u.s.. it is mind blowing how big this is and how sophisticated. so is it right to say that islamic state might have been
defeated on the ground in syria, but it is still very much alive in cyberspace? ms. ali: think of islamic state as only one branch of these global phenomenon of islamist. al qaeda is just another brand of islamist. becauseqaeda failed they put all their money in the jihadist branch. they thought, we are going to shock the world into submitting to our ideal, and they were obliterated. almost obliterated. obviously, they adopt, like we do. mistakesn from their and they have always gone back refocus the other branch, persuading, getting into the minds of human beings to persuade them to come to our viewpoint. in a way to do that is through schools, families, neighborhoods, communities, and through the internet.
they are making use of all the various tools that are available to all of us. , we in the united states, the academics, we try to draw these lines of distinction state, al qaeda, islamic muslim brotherhood, and other organizations. but that is not how it works. islamism, they have their disagreements on tactics, how to get to the end goal. but they agree on the end goal. so a lot of communication takes place. a lot of collaboration, exchange of money, commitment, all of it happens, much of it happens to cyber. but the most important thing is while we focus on brands like
islamic state, we are missing the big picture. reconfigurations and reunions between the islamic state and muslim brotherhood. al qaeda and some shiite , you will read some are killing each other. that is the case, but only part of the story. a lot of the communication takes place through cyber, the internet. but when the government hr described makes it very difficult for them to use cyber, they turned back to the old methods of >> one question i specifically want to ask you about non-violent extremism is how important the internet is in the process of radicalization.
, theyeople go online often have ideas. when you are 15 or 16, you may turn to religion. places have put a lot of money into putting their own infrastructure in place that has displaced the local, get along islam. so you are a young person, you -- four inn the u k the u.k., you are think about the difference in right and wrong. you go to the mosque and you listen to a ceremony. they tell you about this worldview that is so coherent swords andr with its the hereafter and the sacrifices you have to make. because it is so complex, many think that they give references. it's like, at the end of my talk, i say why don't you go to the hoover institution website
or a classical liberal website. they do the same thing, and that is what you see happening on cyber. people are coming on thinking now they will get more information and they get sucked in. but cyber is only part of the story. >> i'm going to come back to a bigger question i want to ask about the open society and its enemies. it is in the title of our event. larry.to turn now to about islam,d let's talk about china. your report talked quite a bit , but itchnology theft struck me that it said relatively little about china's online activity. i would like to ask you to talk a little bit about that.
i wonder if we ain't seen tohing yet, because compared the russians, the chinese have not begun information warfare. should we be bracing ourselves for that? you for that question. i want to begin since we are talking about china by noting that 30 years ago today, the chinese communist party state ordered the pla into tiananmen square and use a massive and brutal military force to theress what is certainly wet important philosophy don't not how people died in tiananmen square. it was a seminal moment in the marked by thena
brilliant coeditor of my report. he wrote in a superb article in the wall street journal on saturday may really decisive now, anday from reform increasingly aggressive state of the people's republic of china has begun. before we talk about the cyber element in china, we need to talk, generally, about what they are doing. has as ain the world dedicated and institutionalized. that whole complicated chart in it has a more dedicated infrastructure to
propaganda and its promotion of influence around the world than the people's republic of china. we just said, you don't have to be doing this online in order to have tremendous impact. got -- they have gathered all of their communications channels. join a global television, the newsonal radio, agency and every thing else. the something to call the voice of china. this is increasingly centrally directed as part of a massive campaign to propagate their narrative around the world to to buys other narratives up newspapers and inserts in tospapers and radio stations
propagate a dominant line. and one of the most disturbing is thatur report found if you look at the chinese australia, in in the united states, in canada, majorrope, in the democracies, forget about africa, it is now predominantly parroting a pro-beijing line. democracies, we have lost freedom and pluralism. but we have a state party propaganda and direct intimidation within our voiceses of alternative to the point where i was just informed yesterday of a city councilmember, i will name the city, but let's say it's in california.
who was told by an official of the chinese consulate that if he met with a representative of the thean representative office chinese oversee community would mobilize their power to defeat this person in the next election. this is happening in the united states of america. not in some asian semi-democracy or latin america. so we have a very serious problem. and you can look at what they are doing to penetrate media, the universities of the united states. not just the confucius institutes where the chinese communist party ministry of education is writing the curriculum and appointing the instructors to teach chinese language in the united states, something i find it inexplicable to let happen.
simplye could and very by adding a new national defense education act that provides for federal government funding of chinese language instruction, which is an important national security objective. engaged, wehat we engaged in late 1990's in a bipartisan act of unilateral disarmament. jesse helms wanted to shrink the international affairs budget. the clinton administration was not ready to fight it and had a number of other priorities. it was basically give me your .eft arm or your right arm so the clinton administration surrendered and close down the agency which was our instrument forfighting congress --
fighting terrorist propaganda. that got merged into the state to a new bureau of public diplomacy that is had, on average, about one undersecretary every 18 months. and it has never been effective. recently, a bipartisan initiative, we have seen the creation, and undersecretary pompeo, a serious effort to stand up the global engagement center to wage this battle of ideas. it must have a digital counter narrative and tempter messaging component, but that is not enough. a lot of the way that people get news and information is not digitally, it is the old-fashioned way by reading newspapers, listening to the radio, and so on and so forth. let's say we are talking about a closed society in iran or north korea.
how are we going to get through there? in north korea, it will not be through digital means. a large swath of the classic can of liberal ideas, put it on thumb drives, and infiltrate quite a large number of them at very low cost into the people's republic of china come into north korea and into non-permissive societies. these are not even expensive initiatives, but we are not thinking creatively enough. even now, when we are getting more serious, i don't think we are matched and resolved from the era that we are in. >> there is a structural problem. the chinese have an authoritarian system. , a goldenat firewall shield for online serving.
camera theygreat can point at anybody they want to take down. it seems to me that it has become very asymmetrical. even if we do as you are saying, fundamentally, we live in a society and it is hard to do to them what they can do to us. x is absolutely true. we note that in the report. that is why we stress and the report -- that is absolutely true, we note that in the report. that is why we stress that the trump administration is moreously pursuing reciprocity in the relationship. we can't just sit back passively and say we will wait this battle our one arm tied behind back.
that means that if our media or television companies, this is my own opinion. i could not sell us to my working group, but i feel it very strongly. if we cannot get our cable television channels to be into broadcast, whether english or chinese, why should china global television have access to our cable television airwaves? that is not obvious to me. if our scholars and journalists are increasingly being threatened with a visa denials that they say or write something , why should they continue to have unfettered access to our systems? we will never eliminate the asymmetry, but i think we can narrow it.
the other thing, it is asymmetrical in both directions because we have an intrinsic advantage they do not have. i feel this very deeply, the truth is on our side of if we can mobilize at. broadcasted and penetrate it and counter the lying narratives against it. john f. kennedy's founding director of the u.s. information agency had a very good line. he said the truth is the best propaganda. exposed,tually can be but we need to expose them -- ies can eventually be exposed, but we need to expose them. what are people going to decide about the relative value of the two system when they get a rounded exposure to the united
states? with all of our divisions, our wars, our flaws. and see 2 million people of the muslim minority, the uighur ethnicity, sitting in concentration camps. because of their ethnicity. most people don't know that, and we need to make sure they do. and we have evidence to show them. i'm starting to think about echoes of the cold war. >> that is your word, not mine. thehat you are citing kennedy administration's efforts to counter soviet propaganda that you have taken us back there. there is a sense that we are moving towards cold war to -- 2. and we will have to do just the kind of things that larry is talking about. we will have to have a coherent
sense of the need to combat the other side's propaganda. when you were in government, how did you think about this, and has your view changed? you know that we are uses ofl about historical analogies to that analogies. -- historical analogies. everybodyat recognizes is that what is fundamentally different about this competition is that we are intertwined with the people's republic of china. this is part of a global economic system, which you know -- far better than i do. whereas we must compete, we may have to compete as different ways.
larry's comment is that we do have the truth on our side. it could deal with not only the tiananmen square massacre but any kind of movement. our colleague has a great essay in foreign policy today about that, about the repression of historical memory within china. so i think we can mobilize, in some ways, history. to say now that the chinese people really like to be oppressed by the authoritarian regime. or what i would characterize as bigotry masquerading as cultural sayitivity among those who the chinese are just deferential , sort of a confucian thing,
that they can be preyed upon by their own government. and of course, taiwan is an example to counter that. so i think we have to compete in different ways. perspective,ogical but also, an economic perspective. see opportunities now. i think what you will see following a concerted effort to call china out on unfair trade in thenomic practices form of december 20 of last year. 60 nations simultaneously called out the chinese hacking organization for their industrial espionage activities. multipleome up with
indictments. step, can i quote gwyneth paltrow here with a cautious decoupling? a decoupling of our economies such that companies are no longer going to accept the risk of operating in china for short-term profits because the intellectual property is then stolen and transferred to the state and used by come in many cases, state owned enterprises to overproduce at low cost and dump goods into those economies. what is going to happen economically, commercially, will in some ways mirror the internet. there is now a divergence and our college has made this comment as well.
there is a divergence towards two separate systems. to match that carefully and try to mitigate the downside of that. but we are entering a fundamentally new phase in the relationship between the united states and like-minded countries. >> it is interesting. i think europeans increasingly share that view. weekend europe over the at a conference of transatlantic participants. this conference have been going on for many years back to the 1950's. it was quite interesting to see how attitudes had shifted. but at the conference, the view was that donald trump could never be elected and prints it could never happen. it -- breit could never happen. 2018, it was what an utter nightmare.
and 2019, it was i guess we will have to get used to this. last weekend, they are now so on board with the top administration's policy on china, there is almost no daylight between the europeans and the united states. same have not seen the attitudes in transformations towards islamic extremism. in that sense, the europeans don't seem at all interested in the way the europeans are thinking about this problem. and i'm particularly struck by what you said. if there is going to be a cultural fight to combat non-violent extremism, europeans won't be on the right side. there ise see is that a hope that the new vision of saudi arabia, if only we give
them a chance, if only we collaborate with the oil-rich countries of the middle east, if only we diverge our attention , theirom spending money populations will somehow come to live by the principles of freedom and equality. that is an old thing. talk about this, that sentiment in the west has been very, very strong. we defeated the soviet union not only on military grounds, but in the battlefield of ideas.
that whole thing does not work, they gave up, we won. everybody's going to come to our way of thinking and doing things. at the same time, that overconfidence that went along with an insecurity about our .asic principles . we are in the grip of a terrible, terrible nonsensically idea. you hear phrases about toxic mastronardi and white privilege. -- masculinityt and white privilege. you dig into it and you find out that the history of this country is all about this.
we are fighting to bring down statues of these people. on one hand, there is overconfidence, that everyone will become like us. but when it comes to propagating our principles, we are inhibited because our principles are evil, white privilege, and all that nonsense. at some point, we have to come to a place where we shed this identity politics. were talking about how our adversaries can come in and exploit our weaknesses and where we are polarized. amplify racial polarization, between men and women, between children and lgbtq,ties, transgender, eukaryotic.
on based on it these lines and we lose sight of our friendly principles. so it is very easy to persuade .he population the basic and supposed of classic liberalism are superior to the basic principles of medical islamists. student,y easy for a we can prove it if only we propagated. everybody was going to become like us by actually promoting the ideas. not just the material goods. smartphones,ars, many cassettes come all true. -- mini-cassettes, all
true. can we sell these ideas? if we can't, we will become like them and i see that happening in europe. to the audience, , you have shortly written about a democratic recession. take a step back and consider , the feel picture that there is a fundamental disadvantage as far as democracy was concerned. partly because of our internal .ivisions and if there are ways of combating.
this decidellenge how to turn the tide back in favor of democracy. me to are really asking summarize a whole book i have just published. on the theme.y but me just say these bullet points. first of all, if you look at the data from freedom house or the economist magazine or most other ratings agencies, we have been in a 10-12 year stagnation and increasingly slide in terms of freedom and democracy. it has been getting worse for a lot of reasons. rising income inequality is a part of the divisions we have inflicted on ourselves. , and iigration crisis think the lack of sensitivity
and in many ways i would say liberal and well-intentioned government leaders, but .onetheless ineffective i think angela merkel was very naive and the way she handled this. election of donald trump shows that you've got to have your ear to the ground in terms of people's concerns. so there have been a lot of drivers of democratic dysfunction, polarization. and then you have got the big factor i think many have not been paying attention to until recently. i would say the summer 2017 national security strategy that h.r. mcmaster led the drafting of was a big factor in helping to educate americans and the world that we are in a new era. it is an era of return to great power competition. we have got resourceful, dedicated, and to some extent narratively if not ideologically
adversariesritarian who are trying to dirty up, sully, discredit, and reversed the very idea of freedom and democracy. we really just have to push back. war,'t use the term cold but i think there are a striking number of parallels between where we were at the peak of the cold war, particularly around 1960, and where we are now. around 1960, we got back a sense of purpose and self-confidence in waging this ideological struggle. it is a struggle for freedom, for the open society, for the equal worth of every human being
and against all of the sources of a liberal ideas, whether they are radical islamist, whether they come in the kremlin version of a white christian conservative nationalist europeans stand against the rest of the world, or whether they if not, is form of him, but the chinese model of authoritarian capitalism. i just want to close with two points, one which builds on what my colleague said. there are a number of reasons to be more hopeful about the opportunity we have. not the inevitability, but the opportunity we have. if you look at the public opinion data, particularly from sub-saharan africa, you find that even though the barometer is now 20 years old, and though there has been modest erosion in
public support for democracy, it remains overwhelming. africards of people in and even northern africa say they would like to have a democratic system of government often, the political science skeptics say that if you peel it back, there is not much there. they say they want independent courts. they say they want checks and balances. they say they want their presidents to not be able to serve more than two terms. and they say in various responses, more or less, that they want to be secure in their rights and they want an open society. that is not sound shallow to me. see, it is more equivocal in latin america and in parts of asia, but we have got a lot of stuff to work with. people don't want to live in an authoritarian surveillance state where they have no freedom, no
privacy and can be sent to a concentration camp at any point. if we can't make that work for us in this next round of global competition, we are doing something deeply wrong or ill-conceived. i -- almost and worthy of a round of applause. [applause] i want to invite you now if you have questions to take advantage of microphones that are standing right there on either side of the auditorium. i want to remind you a question is a short thing with a question mark at the end of it. >> [laughter] and if you decide to give a speech, burly men will appear from the side of the auditorium and escort you up. >> thank you so much for your
courage and bravery at being the voice of women in the islamic world. you are really hero and i am so happy. [applause] ayaan: thank you. >> my question as a matter of fact i am looking for advice from you for women like me or for me as a matter of fact because i am in a critical situation. i would like to ask you because this is the point i will start to do something about my life. , advisor togo gerald mcmullen from carnegie askhere, and i never get to the question but i could tell her, share with her my idea about what issues have done or should do in afghanistan. veryhen she encouraged me strongly to speak out, speak up
and all those things. and i have lived 35 years in fear of islam and political correctness and all of those things because i experience the revival of islam. what it is doing with societies. then she encouraged me very much and told me one thing. she told me people in islam [indiscernible] , and shehear from you said these people take 10 years to understand what you are saying and i don't think it means my accent. but i have tried to really talk to a this, but i am coming crashing point. i feel i am hitting my head to the wall because i feel i am betrayed by a society of intellectuals that were supposed
me, my new beautiful country of u.s. that should support me, but i feel that everywhere that i go is this political correctness and many other things. it is easy -- i can show you what is happening. niall: you have got to get to the question. >> my question is that i speak up against islam, i am thinking islam is imperialistic and pedophile ideology and we should tell the truth, not going with the line of the peaceful religion and so on. but i am crushed because people say they don't say they kill you -- niall: we need a question, we really do. [applause] down, and i ams
crashing. and i want to ask you honestly, give me advice what should i do? should i stop working there? i will be very short and said yes. maybe at this stage it is better to stop talking about islam and start talking about freedom. we are here to talk about how we can use online and cyber and all of that. it is not technologically impossible to connect a lot of people and see afghani women, women from afghanistan and i know a number of them are attracted to the ideas of freedom and equality and raising their children, especially their sons, to be different, to embrace these ideas. that is where to go. let's stop talking -- or let's talk less about what it is that
has driven us out of the ideology of radical islam and talk about what has driven us to the principles of freedom. [applause] please keep it brief or others won't have a chance. >> wonderful insights. you don't read this in the new york times these days. thank you. i was trying to think of a difficult question and come up with one good i would like to get perspectives from hr, from inside the government and then from ayaan, the outside. brotherhood, it is kind of -- it is obvious why they drive this violence, jihad if you will. sorry for using the word. we have failed to declare them a terrorist organization in the united states. i read that we tried but it is
not happening. why is that? why have we failed to declare the muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization even though -- >> [indiscernible] should we identify it ourselves? sometimes we try too hard to disconnect the dots because these groups are overlapping and mutually reinforcing but we also have to be cognizant that not all of these groups are the same especially in both muslim brotherhood which has different chapters, philosophies. some of them are actually active and useful disappearance of political processes. if you were to make a blanket designation against all of the brotherhood's and get -- organizations, is it to drive them underground in a way that sets conditions for a post mubarak egypt? there has to be a distinction
made between those who advocate for violence against innocence to were those who advocate be able to determine with sharia law the nature of the government with the exclusion of other parties. that is the way to think about it. there is not a silver bullet solution to the problem of islamist groups, that want to restrict freedom, but i don't think they blanket designation of the muslim brotherhood does it for you. hr.n: i agree with everything he said is true. but we could go one step further -- like wete them are confronting china and what they are doing, it doesn't hurt to say muslim brotherhood, with all of your branches and chapters, we know what you are the answer.ere is it is not a terrorist organization, but having them come to the white house and in
our institutions of education and information i think in that sense that is a mistake. i think a way to think about this is to really make sure we ought to understand terrorists are using a permuted -- perverted definition of islam. eidy we ought to say mubarak to everybody. who are the victims? other muslims. we have to not play into the terrorist hands who try this conspiracy theory that is really the zionist crusader against them. it is a fight between all civilized people of all religions against those who are perverting islam. [applause] well said.
niall: question from the right-hand microphone. >> did the mubarak government of? --he will of rights bill of rights? do foreign governments enjoy a bill of rights when it comes to an ownership of media and of newspapers, television stations, etc.? no.i think the answer is i think we have blocked chinese interests from buying radio stations in the united states. you know what they did? they bought the largest wattage radio station in north america in tijuana and from there started broadcasting over the border to southern california. in any case, i do not think that foreign governments have, and i don't think any court has established or suggested that foreign governments have, protection of freedom of speech
or freedom of ownership inside the united states. particularly when they are pursuing ideological objectives to our bill ofe rights. it would be perverse to suggest otherwise. niall: lady in the black dress. >> i am to be in a room -- so great to be with your courageous presence. thank you so much. islamists,lked about russia and china as the greatest tyrannical threat but i believe we are surrounded by people who think the greatest threats to their lives are plastic straws, single-sex restrooms and trump's personality. what are the organizations we can support? where are the sparks of light that people in this room can get behind when they leave here to fight the battle you are describing today? [applause]
that's an easy one, the hoover institution. >> [laughter] the last bastion of free thinking and the principles of open society in american academia. what we do in open and free societies is we have our internal disputes. we have conservatives versus republicans versus immigrants and others, and sometimes we use an exaggerated language to describe and analyze these differences, when really it is not that exaggerated. islam,ng china, radical is very different from the adversity republicans and democrats accuse one another of. as a relative newcomer i think we really need to mind our language and sober up a bit
and maybe that will one day get us to the quaint idea of bipartisan cooperation. external not confuse enemies that wish us harm, existential harm without domestic -- niall: one peculiarity of 1989 has been about eastern europe rather than beijing. i think in the absence of external threats, we fell upon ourselves. we divided ourselves more deeply than had been true when there was a clear external threat. seems to me one hopeful prospect of our wakening up to these different threats is we begin to see a return to bipartisanship on precisely these issues. what is the one thing democrats
do not criticize president trump for is standing up to china because of fact they were almost quicker than republicans to endorse the imposition of terrorists -- tariffs. this may be one of the unintended promising consequences of this discussion we are having. the lady at the microphone on the right. >> thank you for the brilliant conversation. it is a big discussion nowadays whether more technologies, blockchain, ai, artificial intelligence, military robotics, can really contribute to inclusion, decentralization of power, and helping open societies further. i believe how do you see this process going on and how that -- maybe they can even be used against the free society. what is your opinion? niall: you were involved in organizing this. what is your take?
hr: any technological development will have tremendous possibilities associated with it as also dangerous. we learned from the internet which many people saw as unmitigated good, that it can be used for nefarious purposes and within social media. i think what is important is to understand the implications of these technologies for our own security and the preservation of our way of life. if there are dangers, putting in place mitigating measures from the beginning but also accentuate the positive the blockchain, which has been an powered -- i think people in a way that has led to economic in wayso formalize land that can't be corrupted and also enables, enables may be a flattening of financial transactions in a way that is more democratic. there are positive aspects of that technology but as you know
it encryption is the great example of a benefit in terms of privacy, but also a disadvantage in terms of how it can empower terrorist organizations to coordinate efforts broadly without detection. niall: it was on this stage last year that someone observed may be ai was communist and crypto or blockchain was libertarian. i thought long and hard about that, but it does seem as if artificial intelligence is going to be the basis of this new cold war, china may have certain advantages precisely because there are no constraints of individual privacy when it comes to the chinese platforms mining big data. the gentleman in the big t-shirt. >> this question is mostly for niall and ayaan.
more -- not lost much popularity and in ayaan's country, your skepticism is chic. -- euro skepticism is chic. i am wondering about moving to the continent and what the young american like me can do to ensure the collapse of brussels. [applause] do you want to take that question? i want to point to the remarks larry made earlier which is in a free society the leadership, the people we elect, they have to hold their years to the ground and listen to the concerns of the people. the european union was a project that started in my view very positive and started with a great deal of good intentions. but over time, people who live in europe are feeling they are not being heard, that their
concerns are not taken seriously, that there are people , from bureaucratic level, making decisions that have far-reaching consequences for people in their neighborhoods, in their schools and day-to-day lives and not being listened to. when i served in the parliament in the evidence, i felt that was a constant thing. we would go as members of parliament to our constituencies in ary to persuade them certain direction area and listen to them, they would persuade us and we would start to get a majority for certain legislation. we will be told they would become prospect because it is against e.u. laws. people would ask, who are they? are we ruled from beta -- from belgium or the hague? -- numeraleuropean from belgium you will have a lot of disaffection. an expression of the
dissatisfaction of not listening and in a free democratic society if the leadership stops listening constituencies, it is not a democracy anymore. niall: it must be said if you wanted to do advertisement for how to leave the european union, follow british politics the way it has been followed the last three years. it has had the opposite effect on most continental europeans. the gentleman at the other mic. >> it was partially answered about china's right to broadcast, but how do we decide what discourse is appropriate for a free and open society? where do we draw the line and who decides? niall: larry? on theyou always err side of the freedom of speech.
i am not in favor of censoring chinese speech, russian speech and so on, but i think giving the access -- them access to airwaves and buying a radio station is a different thing. if they want to spend half $1 million to insert a large amount of posts, that is their right. i am not worried about that. i don't think many people are reading in washington. >> [laughter] err oni would always say the side of freedom of speech. we have, i don't need i think to get into it here, i think niall could give a real dissertation a this, we got a problem -- problem of freedom of speech on college campuses. if we can't ridge the polarization -- bridge the polarization in a university campus and look at all points of
view with something of an open mind and a willingness to debate, we are in real trouble as an open society, liberal society. we have got to turn the question back on ourselves in the university environment. niall: we need to bear in mind as the network platforms, be it facebook, be it google, youtube, twitter, come under increasing tossure from the woke left restrict hate speech, we run the risk there is systematic censorship practiced in the most important part of our sphere. the bias should be in clear , and of free speech although they are not bound by the first amendment, first movement rights online, it means hate also we will hear arguments from the chinese government and the muslim brotherhood but that is what a free society is like.
there should be truly an open society and not least on university campuses. i think we have got time for one more question, and then i am going to have to disappoint the microphones because there is only four minutes left and there amok.o small boys running one of us has to get back. chineseconcerns influence in africa. the west has a long history of ignoring global trends that are happening, and while they sleep, things happen. i do a lot of business in ip and watched china for many years confiscate western ip and now we have seen the trade imbalance grow and grow and there is no addressing of that. trump is trying. but we are missing the growing influence of china in africa. it is imperialism. they are confiscating resources, influencing governments like the
congo. what does the panel think, how big a threat is that and what if anything can the west due to reverse that? niall: i am going to ask each of you to respond. you get one minute each and we will end with the one african on the panel. but let's start with hr. the new vanguard of the chinese communist party is a party official in a suit carrying a duffel bag of cash. what they are using is corruption and working with corrupt governments in particular to co-opt those governments and once they are there and create issues of dependency under the rubric of theyne belt, one road, change it to a course of relationship in which the country is used as you alluded to as a place from which to extract what china needs, but also to get this country to align with china's foreign policy.
there is push back significantly across the wall now. the curtain has been pulled back. you have small countries like sri lanka and the maldives who have changed governments because of the exposure of the corruption of their own government officials. it is in ecuador as well as malaysia, an important case with 1mdb but also chinese influence. there is a problem but also opportunity in the context of competing effectively. the first step is to pull the curtain back on chinese activity and expose it to sunlight. niall: use hook echo -- eloquently about the african positive attitude. that? a undermining larry: xi jinping sees democracy and the model of democracy in an open society and the rule of law as a threat to the china model. they have an increasingly global
sense of this. this is where the truth is on our side and we need public diplomacy to pull back the , andin wider, more vividly in the view of many more ordinary people. what is going on can only be described as gross neocolonialism. most of the bri is coming through loans that are exploited at -- china calls it, i think this is, if it is aid, it is a perverse kind. the classic instance of the sri lankan port, you get yourself $8 million -- $8 billion in debt and the chinese neo-colonialists say we can write that down if you give us your strategic port for 99 years. in australia you have experience with this yourselves. i think we just have to aggressively expose this.
but it can't be all negative. we have got a lot of work to do to revive maybe with a different kind of logic that re-energize western aid flows and capital flows, capital investment and infrastructure development in africa, if we don't want china being by default the major actor here. the facts are on our side, the natural inclination of africans is on our side, and we need to organize our effort and story. ayaan: i want to use my one minute. [laughter] to say something about free speech and intellectual honesty because we are in a university campus and we know there are problems going on here. i want to give you a demonstration. my colleague hr has set a few things about the muslim brotherhood.
view. a different i have a great deal of respect for him and affection for him, but the fact i disagree with him i think the problems we are seeing a manifestation of violence, subject to vacation of -- women, islamion of is being perverted by bad people using it for other things. it is possible to sit on the same stage as grown-ups and disagree and share material with one another. we can do this, demonstrate this, then i think we have things going. [applause] thank you. [laughter] [applause] niall: it remains to me to thank my colleagues for their brilliant contributions, but to point out something very like tiananmen square might be going
on in an african country, sudan in khartoum and china backed by russia blocked a bit at the united nations security council to condemn the killing of civilians in that country. ladies and gentlemen, that is where we are in 2019. it may not be a cold war, but it doesn't feel like these. -- like peace. [applause] thank you, what a wonderful discussion. thank you for coming and i hope you can all stay with us. we will have a reception in the pavilion and if you can't stay, i will look forward to seeing you at our next event. good evening. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
announcer 1: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning we talk with terry jeffrey of cnn on whether the american dream is still attainable. and then brett cohen's of the center for american progress action fund will join us to talk about the youth vote in campaign 2020. be sure to watch "washington journal" thursday morning. join the discussion. this independence day we're live with former vice president joe biden and jill biden for their campaign stop in marshalltown, iowa.
and then president trump at the lincoln memorial for the fourth july celebration and then george w. bush and michel obama discuss their works. >> there has been discussion about an appearance before congress. any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. it contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we chose those words carefully nd the work speaks for itself. i would not provide information beyond that which is already public. >> former special counsel robert mueller is set to appear before
the house and senate committees on wednesday july 79:00 eastern. his report into russian interference in the 2016 election will air live on c-span 3, online at c-span .org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> next supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg on her life, work, and focus on gender equality. her discussion with two former law clerks was followed by a panel discussion on her legal philosophy. from georgetown university law school, this runs an hour and 45 minutes.