than less europe. more integration. you mentioned that today. and i would ask you. you mentioned fiscal union. what do you mean exactly when you say "fiscal union"? isn't it what a lot of germans mean when they say a transfer union? and are you going to be able to convince your own citizens to accept a transfer union? >> translator: the fiscal union is not a transfer union. what we mean when we talk about the beginning of a fiscal union is what we have already decided. that is to say stability and growth, a pact which now is going to be binding. so we talked a lot about reducing the debt. people want to put that in their constitution sometimes. but for the first time, the european commission has the right to come and check whether the member states have really translated the stability pact in their legislation. and if they have not done it, the european court of justice can sue them. it's a paradox, if you want. we have a stability and growth pact, which is like european legislation, if you want. for a

so has europe failed? i would say it is just too soon to know. could europe fail? of course it could. but must europe fail? absolutely not. thank you very much. >> well done, gentlemen. a very strong opening to the debate. and i think you've flushed something out which is important which is how this audience chooses to define the european experiment. is it the euro? is it a larger civilizational project? that's going to be up to you to decide when you pick up your second ballot at the end of tonight and for those of you voting online right now. our next phase of this debate is to have these debaters engage each other directly. neil, you were the first to speak, so i'm going to come to you. what have you heard from the opposing sid here that you just fundamentally disagree with, that you think they've got wrong from a to z, and then i'll have them rebutt. >> exactly as i predicted, he fell into the trap of contributing the peace to the process of european integration. he did it in an emotive way which has played well for him since 1968. it didn't work for me when i

europe. do you have or does the u.s. have any estimates or europe in terms of the oil and gas potential is if they were willing to exploit it? >> yes, senator. we work with country that is are interested. and as chairman murphy talked about, when he used the example of germany, it's a very -- it's a country by country. it's every member state in the eu has a very different perspective on different resources including shale. we had worked very closely with poland, with ukraine, with romania and we're working with other countries that are interested in pursuing that. we help identify what the shale resource is using their own resources and the u.s. geological survey to identify what the levels and what the commercialality is of those resources. >> so can you share with me or the committee what those resources? what are the estimates? can europe be more independent if it were only to, for example, do fracking? actually exploit their shale gas reserves. >> so again, there's always a difference be

spontaneous than europe. even though some of them, orlando, and san bernardino, being a good examples, have been no less deadly. there have been 395 jihadist related arrests in 2014. 687 in 2015. and 718 in 2016. numbers are much lower in the united states, where 18 individuals were arrested for terrorism related activities in 2014. 75 in 2015, which was banner year for us. and just 36 in 2016. unlike europe, the united states does not seem to possess extensive home grown militant organizations that provide support to individuals drawn to isis. jihadists propaganda continues to be easily accessible through various online platforms for the last ten years. now with the advent of numerous social media applications, a would be recruit can access realtime support and have a stronger sense they're part of a wider network. an important dynamic at play, is isis has employed what we call isis virtual entrepreneurs who use social media to connect people in the west, these are people in raqqah that are reaching out to a

and outside of europe. the united states and europe face many challenges and threats that unlike in the past are simultaneously dispersed among many geographic front lines and across multiple do mains, whether nonstate terrorist actors, threats of a more conventional nature, cyber threats, or nuclear threats. because we know we are stronger in confronting these challenges when we are working together, we will pursue even greater cooperation from and with the nations of europe, our best partners. history has shown that when we are united, we succeed in the face of shared challenges. as i remarked earlier, one of these challenges is russia. europe and the united states seek a normalized relationship with russia. however, russia has shown it seeks to define new post soviet global balance of power, one in which russia, by virtue of its nuclear arsenal, seeks to impose its will on others by force or partnering with regions who show a disregard for their own citizens. this is the case with bashar al assad's conti

they can be targeted in europe. they can be targeted from europe. and also if you don't succeed in being up to the task which is a long task, some talk about the generational challenge, the u.s. might have to cope with a very different europe and that's something to bear in mind on this side of the pond. >> belgium doesn't have the largest number of foreign tourist fighters not overall, not in europe. but they do have the largest number per capita and so as i think about this for what i want to say for one final comment i would say this. one thing that's unique in belgium and elsewhere in europe while we do have cases where religion, radical religion ideology plays a critical role that's not what we're seeing here. what we're shearing is that there is a religious piece but the recruitment of criminals, this zero to hero phenomenon is a huge problem. officials in brussels stress to me multiple times in multiple meetings that there's a religious component that the quote that people said over and over is salafism is mainstream in terrorist. each terror

or less of europe? it's certainly an important question. there are lots of responses. the french government has taken a very interesting position, i think, when it comes to everything from military bases and military solidarity to rethinking the economic bases of varying regulatory agendas. if you had any comments or thoughts on that. >> when you ask the question to french diplomat, immediately the answer is better, you hope. you know, really. i have to learn my job. so better, you hope. no, again, the problem that we have been facing is obviously the fact that a lot of our citizens, not only in the uk, a lot of our citizens are disenchanted versus -- considering -- i think david said was on the front line of globalization. for my generation, your hope was something which really we couldn't question. you know, it was the way they -- the war that devastated the continent and pros pearity and security. it was all these elements. obviously for a lot of europeans and especially -- it's not anymore the case.

relations with europe. after that health and human services secretary alex azar at a senate hearing on the cost of prescription drugs. >>> next a senate foreign relations subcommittee on foreign relations in europe including the nato alliance. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >>> good morning. this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee is called to order. i'm happy to welcome assistant secretary wess mitchell to discuss u.s. foreign policy in europe. um secretary, really appreciate you you coming and looking forward to our back and forth. i would ask my written opening remarks be put into the record. i'm accountant, i like data. there are two relatively big issues brought to the floor in the last 18 months. one relates to our nato partners meeting their 2 percent commitment. the short fall in 2016 was about $100 billion. in 2017 according to testimony they increased spending by 14.4 billion, slated to go up more, so now the shortfall is about 98 billion. from 2019 to 2024 another shortfall will b

and for europe we focus on iran. iran has a fairly active missile program, largely consisting of liquid propellant missiles. they are doing interesting experiments on solid propel ants. today they have scud and old soviet missile. shahad 3. liquid missile, technology probably received from north korea. this is north korea nodong missile. they have recently test add solid missile with a range of 200 to 20,000 kilometers, somewhere in that range. some people are suggesting we may see a liquid propellant missile in the range of 3,000 kilometers in the not too distant future. so today the threat is really quite -- the missile threat from iran is localized to the middle east. obviously israel is very concerned about it because they are within range. turkey could be concerned about it but turkey is a friend of iran, which is one reason they resisted nato attempts until very recently and agreed to deploy a radar which you'll see on future maps right about here in turkey. in the next, say, several years, five years, missile

thanks from europe. it is important to keep in mind that simply because we had a solid six year period in the previous administration that i would characterize as the perception of engagement but the reality of disengagement. in this administration and our first year and a half, we have a very strong track record. i think we have exactly the opposite. we are very engaged right now. look at our stance. look at what we are doing with iran. i think we may not agree with our allies on the tactics on every one of these things but we are in close dialogue. we are committed to finding a joint way forward. >> i suspect one of the issues we raised is putin asking to make decisions about ukraine without ukraine at the table. that has been the approach they have taken in the past. in your role, i expect you to have strong views on this. how would you advise the president on this issue of ukraine and specifically the sanctions and what is going on on the eastern border? >> i will not engage in too many hypotheticals

there is a debt crisis in europe that is threatening america. we have the best performing of the developed world economies, but it's not doing good enough. one of the major threats to that would be the crisis in europe. i support what the administration and federal reserve have done to deal with that, and that includes support for the imf. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee on international monetary policy and trade for three minutes. the gentleman from california, mr. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, it's good to have you here today. it's been a while since we've seen you. senator bernard has been very informative and helpful to us. there's just a concern today. i know you recall when we went through our crisis that europe was very cautious in staying over there and that was an american problem. we're very cautious in that way too. the imf has been very good in giving technical advice an direction on what they should do to resolve their exposure to the european crisis, but we're concerned that it's not tr

pass, europe sent -- americas estrangement from europe was happening. what he had witnessed in 1919 was something far more profound than the intrigues of diplomacy or the foibles of european statesmen. it was in his words, the collision of civilizations that had crawled 300 years apart. looking at the chasm he had perceived between the old world and the new, he became an exponent of what we call now american exceptionalism. hoover, for all of his misgivings about europe never ceased being a humanitarian when suffering in the old world beckoned. when world war ii broke out in 1939, it organize private relief agencies in the u.s. to raise money and final assistance to the distressed civilian populations of war-ravaged finland and poland. in 1940 and 41, as the war in europe expanded, he intended to replicate his world war i success by creating a new relief commission. by the imperiled civilians of five small european democracies overrun by nazi germany. fearing that such a net -- a humanitarian intervention would benefit the nazi occupiers, winston church

but he had a great sense in his -- thatfe that europe the united states was not going to go to europe and make it a wonderful place. ofhad a sense of the limits what american power can do as a government. that does not mean you should avoid humanitarian work. he would and did support that. that was not a government action. >> kind of like get back on your feet, and we are gone. want us --e did not he even said in 1917, that it was a necessity. , but hei am a quaker did not want the united states inenter world war i alliances with anyone. he thought the european powers would try to manipulate us into their systems of all alliances. it is interesting, woodrow wilson referred to the ouratriots in the war as associated powers. he did not like to use the word the allies. we were associated with them. had a desire for american detachment from what is perceived as old europe. hoover stall of close the kind of rivalries and tensions that occurred after the war, and so -- he was really annoyed at many of them. the overriding purpose he had was to save the children, save the people, give beyond

one outcome in central europe was a massive political clamp down in eastern europe. gone were are the nice coalition governments or attempts at free elections or anything like this. these were simply stamped out. foreign minister mazerik mysteriously fell out of his window. we now have evidence he was murdered and many others were arrested and killed as well. and terror swept over central europe between 1948 and '56 in czechoslovakia alone, over 100,000 people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, executed. 422 concentration camps were opened up in czechoslovakia, and around 12,000 people a year were sent for example to work in the uranium mines. so stalin dropped any pretense of holding free elections and the countries of central/eastern europe were firmly behind the iron curtain where they'd remain until the collapse of communism. now the allies had to decide what to do with germany. and given stalin's behavior, they now started to turn away any -- again, any thought of compromise with stalin was really going out the window at this point. in january 1947, the britis

so they're going to hold europe together. in addition to that, they have an overwhelming economic interest. germany, which is the pivotal country, has a nirvana economic situation in europe, in the euro. germany is the largest surplus trading country and it bases it's whole economy on an export-led growth model. in the old days, when they had their own deutsche mark, it was rise and they would choke off competitors and frustrate the germans. now, the germans have the world's largest trade surplus and a weak currency which, for them, is the perfect outcome and every german knows it and they'll continue it and virtually at any price would be worth paying for them to keep that situation together. if you went to a new deutschemark it would explode up in value and the whole german economic progress, which has been so impressive in these last few years, would collapse. so the bottom line is both germany and europe as a whole has a huge, huge interest in holding the eurozone together. so my conclusion, and it's, i think, supported b

and it is the same in europe. yes, he's doing all of that, but i'm convinced that with other things that are going on, most notably the refugee crisis in europe and the wider terrorism that's spinning out of these ungoverned spaces in europe, on europe's periphery, even if russia weren't there that these anxieties would boost far right parties. so, again, liberal also need to get better at governing, at winning elections, at persuading people, and, of course, the west should combat russia's influence-peddling operation. but that won't answer this deeper question. >> other questions? down front here. >> i'm david forte with the madison program. most of the organized illiberal groups tend to be on the right, and you have characterized the response of liberals as being silly or irrelevant such as what happened on campus. but maybe what has been happening is that we have had generations of illiberal leftists who have actually gained control of the leaders of power within the bureaucracy, within independent agencies, a

as supreme commander he led armies in the liberation of europe. there for the second time in a generation american boys had joined in the cause of freedom. ♪ they went home, their country sought to help them resume a peaceful life. schools opened their doors to millions of veterans. ever since it began, the united states has seen a constant growth of education. a high school diploma is now almost taken for granted. every year 2.5 million students enroll in the universities and professional schools. many of the young men who had fought in north africa and normandy went back to the farms. they went back to working the earth in the quiet rhythm of the seasons. they reaffirmed their spiritual values, different faiths living side by side in mutual respect, in the belief many are the ways to god. ♪ americans have a keen sense of fraternity. should a neighbor's livelihood be jeopardized, they are quick to lend their labor and their time to help rebuild. this tradition stems from the days of the pioneers. it's this same trait that moved the american p

its major funders come from europe, the united states and europe. it is hard to go against the will of your funders. the e.u. -- i should have said this earlier -- what was so striking in the e.u. response initially to the crisis was that the e.u. did not want international help. the first reason why there was not an international response quite honestly was because the european union did not go to the united nations and ask for help. it did not want outside interference because potentially it didn't want to be told -- there's different logics to this. but one reason is they didn't want the u.n. to tell it what to do. but when the e.u. failed itself to address the problem, it sort of got the rest of the world off of the hook because it said we can manage it. we couldn't manage it. the rest of the world looks at the e.u. and says, okay, it's your problem. it certainly was the posture of the russians who looked at this and said, wait, this is the west's problem. they sort of say that openly. you broke the middle east, so you should deal with the fallo

we do not have the luxury of saying that's europe's problem, europe fixes it or that's your problem, you fix it. we are so in this together. iran is another example. whether that's price of oil instability in the middle east will have a direct impact potentially on the american economy. so where foreign policy intersects with economic issues i think will have real and p application. clearly russia has become a touch point in the election with governor romney noting that russia was the greatest geopolitical soul and i think even people saw secretary powell's interview, lots of head scratching on that one. i think it speaks to again, that is a different of opinion from the bush administration to the

the jewish immigrants are more of the dp's from europe. displaced people living in camps in europe. a lot more went to israel, some state in europe, some came to america. the establishing of the state of israel was a momentous occasion for jewish americans in 1948 who were still horrified by what had happened during the holocaust. carried a lot of meeting -- meaning for them a safe refuge, a jewish home. during the 1950's, we experienced the red scare. this was a frightening time for many jewish people, many who had been involved in communism before. a lot of ideas were percolating about how to improve america, and how to make things work well for everybody. communism was one of those ideas that people had. one of the news stories was that trial of julius and ethel rosenberg, who were a jewish couple. we know now that julia was a -- julius was a spy, and we are not sure of ethel's involvement. they were executed as spies. at the time, people did not really believe they were spies. they thought it was more anti-semitic than anything. certainly, there were to the wayc aspects that ame

focus on europe, focus on asia. the national security council of 1968 -- which is incorporated after korea, about 1951 that will dominate our policy. even in the reagan era there is still a consensus about containing the soviet union. it is on the methodology. there is also, there are signs of dissolution of the soviet union. it kind of reduces some of the impetus. arguably, you know, the containment grand strategy is a bipartisan policy arguably from about the late 1940's until the wall goes down. a consistent bipartisan approach to foreign policy which is pretty amazing considering the state we find each other in today. that would be my take on it. alex: a slightly, slightly different point but interesting to see the popular responses in europe over those decades and perceptions of the soviet union. there was a very strong movement in large parts of europe in the 1980's a reassessment of the cold war, the americans were put into the light of being much more the aggressors that if stalin hadn't been so bad, you kno

all of europe. yeah. just say that they see it as united states kind of meddling. their sphere of influence that they earned with their soldiers killed. yeah now that's a great question, which we should pick up does the marshall plan reach into eastern europe. does it medal in the soviet sphere of influence? does it option to invite country exactly gives the opera marshall speech and the initial invitation to come come and talk about marshall aid. so everyone's invited. everybody's invited this it is a policy against no individual state they say it has no ideological objectives. so the open invitation is indeed to the eastern european states. what do the europeans leaders do remember? a couple of them the checks and others rsvp for it yeah, we'll see you there. yeah. there's initial interest. of course, there's terrible economic hardship in crisis. so some eastern european states. it's very tempted by this. the soviets say no stalin says sorry you can't do it precisely because he's afraid that this

the alliance between europe and america will be strong if europe is strong. if we can genuinely protect our own interests in a dialog where we see ourselves as equals. it is a new situation. we have to come to the conclusions. we need to learn, and decide for ourselves. to propose solutions to our partners as well, not just wait for them to define a roadmap we can follow. being allies does not mean to be followers, it does not mean to be aligned, it means to work together and fulfill common goals that we have set for ourselves. it does not mean to cut our long ties and friendship with long-standing allies like the u.s.. to conclude as you see this agenda of sovereignty is not opposed to a transatlantic friendship. i've even said the contrary. i think president mike home as always said that the u.s. is and always will remain a large partner. a partner that we need and with whom we share the same values. i think we will stay transatlantic and we will become more european. it is not a but but it's in and. it goes together. take the example of european the sense.

deficits in europe. the problem with this prime minister is he can only offer more of the same. all he offers is more austerity, it's not working in britain. it's not working in europe. it's a failed plan from a failing prime minister. >> five minutes and absolutely no plan. nothing positive to say. i thought it was a -- it's a good joke. it is a good joke about sarkozy. we all have our faults. but i'd rather have a reputation for being loyal to my friends than knifing my brother. the honorable gentlemen started with nato. he asked some serious questions. he asked for a clear indication of the draw down. we're going down to 9,000 troops by the end of this year. clearly we need to set out a pathway with between now and the end of 2014. i want it to be based on the conditions on the ground and how well the transition is going in the three provinces we're responsible for. and we'll keep the house updated on how -- we don't want the great cliff edge at the end. he asked what would be left at the end of 2014.

the ship had to turn back to europe. joseph joseph, who was on the ship with his wife and their daughter, this is their trunk, was head of the passenger committee. the captain of the ship, who was not jewish, organized in order to bouy spirits of the customers as they were headed back to europe. people were terrified what would happen to them when they had to get off the ship again. this particular family made their way to america the following year. they got off the ship in great britain and came to the lindell via the following year. the lindell via the following year. and came to philadelphia the following year. in 1997, we got a call from an auction house. the auctioneer, barry fossberg, had this steamer trunk put on consignment, and he noticed a sticker that said st. louis. he knew about the journey of the st. louis, so he called us and asked if we were interested in the trunk. and, he very generously purchased it from the consignor and donated it to the museum. and so it is one of our special artifacts here. by 194

but when you look at the press in europe, everybody in europe talks about this crisis in a different perspective. and we need a europe with the mobility of workers. it also means that we need transfer possibilities so that everybody can have portable pensions, for instance. if you work in five different countries, you need to be able to take your pension with you. and also we have to harmonize the retirement age. in some countries it's 55. in germany it's 67. we have a lot to do. that is to say the social dimension is one of the aspects. but it's far from being the only one. but what we have to create is of course as students you are more together than our workers, for instance. but we need more of a european public. we have to know that we all belong to the same area, for instance. >> translator: thank you. now i have a question about the relations between germany and the others. what about the image of germany abroad? from france is going to ask the question. >> translator: no, you can speak without microphone. i can hear you well. you have a good voice. >> translator: many in euro

western europe. i think if you feel over eight or nine months that that set of actions is a pause, then i don't know how you would care it with anything else in recent political history. by november, over the first eight or nine months, you have the u.s. well positioned on nato, germany, u.s./e.c. relationships. to compare that with today, i think we have a world where trump is ambivalent about alliances. i think the generals will generally hold him in line. trump prefers transactional policies. strong leaders of an authoritarian nature may be easier for him to deal with. one of the questions going back to the wilsonian period, i wonder whether we might be moving back to a period more like 1900 or the 1920s where you have maneuvering of great powers if this system doesn't continue. fourth point, prudence and respect. bush and baker were not triumphant. bush was reserved when the berlin wall came down as the most obvious example of this. they both tried to listen and understand the perspectives. an im

how did the war end in europe? >> well, the war ended with the germans basically deciding hitler having killed himself more than a week earlier that there was no profit in dragging it out with the russians in berlin. the russian murdering civilians, killing german soldiers by the hundreds of thousands. so the germans decided that trying to make peace with the western allies, the americans in particular, was their best bet, that they were going to get a better deal from the western allies than from the soviets. so, eisenhower had his forward headquarters in the french champagne town in northeastern france. the germans sent a dealt gas station. there was a lot of collaborativor about what the conditions would be for a conversation and were told in no uncertain terms that uncondition -- unconal unconditional surrender render be the only way the war would end. so -- it was 2:00 in the morning may 7, 1945, and the articles of sur rendersurrender was boiled down to barely 200 words and the ceremony with cameras rolling l

what a europe. in washington, george c. marshall made known the principles of the plan that was to bear his name. >> the situation is critical. but there is no doubt whatever in my mind that if we decide to do this thing, we can do it successfully. >> a plan whereby europe could help itself by using american dollars as a catalyst between its own seriously degraded currency. in europe, the response was immediate. statesmen met to examine the plan, among them russia's mr. molotov. but when mr. molotov became aware of the vast scope of the plan, out he stormed. in moscow, mr. molotov's attitude was fully supported. russia though powerful was still too war-ravaged to give help herself. in these postwar conditions, only one country, the united states had the available resources. this scheme was a generous, heartfelt response to crying human need, and in europe, it was welcomed as such. but for the soviets, the creed was revolution first, rehabilitation afterwards. if people were starving it was the fault of capitalism. turn to c

his experiences in europe affected hoover in another way. when he arrived in the states in september 1919, he was not a contented man. every day, at the peace conference in paris, he had witnessed a depressing display of national rivalries, vengeful mess and greed. he had seen as well that sometimes violent attempts by communists and other radicals to construct a new social order in europe on the principles of marxist socialism, and increasingly, he had seen america in contrast. hoover returned to his native land with two dominant convictions. the first was that the ideology of socialism has tested before his eyes in

and because europe had undergone a revolution -- not europe, but bolshevik undergone a revolution and other parts of europe were on the brink of some kind of socialist revolution, there is growing concern among this anticipated wave of immigrants will be subversives. this was reinforced by actual events. the most famous of which was the bombing of the home of the attorney general of the united mitchell, anmer event that launched the career of j edgar hoover. here you see evidence of the bombing. a newspaper story, a political cartoon from the same year. another cartoon on the same theme. let's keep the bomb throwers out. you know from what we are reading that this was also a period of nasty and bloody race riots, including a particularly nasty one in the city of chicago that claimed something like 38 lives. however, there were race riots in other cities as well, used st. louis -- east st. louis. racial tension in 1919. on top of everything else, the klan undergoes a revival. not just in the south but throughout the u.s. grewange of the klan tremendously in the early 1920's. the klan,

or toured europe itself. americans helped relieve the suffering of wartime populations, in return creating a proprietary feeling toward european culture. americans developed a vision of them self as protectors, not just as starving children or democratic values abroad but of western situation itself. the sense was only heightened after the second world war when the u.s. intervened again and in a much greater way than european reconstruction. thanks. [applause] i am happy to take questions, if you have them. i know i have covered a lot here. >> a microphone is ready to go for you. go ahead and grab this one right here. and the gentleman, if you can see me back here. >> hello. as you know, to this day, the tower flies the american flag every july 4. when that library burned, it was just gutted. the shell of the library survived, all the inscriptions. it is one of the most fantastic first world war monuments in europe in my opinion. dr. proctor: absolutely. the library today is fantastic if you get a chance to v

this had a huge impact in europe. the impact was inevitable because what the united states had done in entering the war was completely shift the balance of forces in europe to from what had been at most a stale mat though she stalemate and possibly favoring germany, to a situation where germany was completely overwhelmed by american economic and ultimately demographic power, added to that of france and britain. so, the american role in the war completely changed the balance but when america then decided it was not going to participate anymore, the balance it had -- that had been created was then removed. the americans were pulled out of the equation, now you had once again an unstable balance on the continent and a treaty that reflected one balance, now had to be carried out in a different balance. the withdrawal of the united states essentially -- we can talk about all of the economic and military aspects of that, but the bottom line was, the versailles treaty which was so discredited by historians was never meant to

russia is part of europe. and i think this is very important whatever happens on this part of the horizon, a big part of the world. clearly the history of president putin and other leaders, they have common values. history, literature, culture, mind set. and we have to take that into consideration. second, we have our geography. it's impossible to have peace and stability in europe today if you are not in a situation to negotiate with russia. and for different reasons, largely due to aggression and the nato expansion, we created a situation where we pushed our borders to a maximum place at the east, but we didn't manage to decrease the border. i think our we should find a common way to build peace and security for the whole continent. which means, having a dialogue on cyber aggressiveness, obviously, on any aggression, on our critical countries, i would say, in this very sensitive area where you have ukraine. we need a political discussion with russia about that. otherwise, it will be our willingness to protec

we had never had an army in europe. at the beginning of world war i, the united states was tied for the 13th largest military in the world, tied with serbia and greece. by the end of world war i, we had 4 million men in uniform, having on from 200,000, to 4 million. them, 2 million service personnel, were in europe at the end of world war i. just the logistics of that are astounding. real life, when world war i a rocket, the combatants were not even concerned about america's role. yet today, we think of america as an indispensable power in world politics. but other beginning of world war i, we were an afterthought. it was woodrow wilson who achieve that transition. in botheard president political parties say, in my lifetime, that the united states doesn't go to war to build an empire or acquire territory. -lego to war for principal- -- for the principle, for the right. it was woodrow wilson to enunciate that proposition. love that 20 years early to the beginnings of the spanish-american war, which was about taking over

equipment in europe. and i think it is in your interest -- it is in the american interest, and it's in our interest that we have -- we find a good balance between good competition, between competition that enhances technology, making sure that there is no protectionism in the arms market, but at the same time, that europe itself also keeps up with the technological developments, and will be able to provide proper equipment, proper european equipment. that, by the way, might be used in the u.s., as well. so i'm not advocating european arms for europe. what i'm advocating is that it is important that the european armaments industry stays part of the alliness armament industry. >> just before i post it on to the remaining members of the panel, may be useful that some of the numbers bandied about, about reductions and the kind of withdrawal -- i know the u.s. military doesn't like to talk about in terms of withdrawal from europe. they talk about in terms of rebalancing of its commitment to europe, and they're

and europe. but even in advance of that, we have been working very hard to explain to our european counterparts that once a company makes a commitment or an industry makes a commitment to one of these enforceable codes of conduct, that in the united states, that has the force of law. it is an agreement that's binding on the companies. it is an agreement that is enforceable by the federal trade commission under the statute we propose we would also seek to have those agreements enforceable by state attorneys general. we certainly think that one of the critical privacy protection questions, particularly in the commercial context, is to find a way to reduce the barriers that we have today between the united states and europe in the way that services that use personal information are governed. i want to just close with a final word from the president that's in the introduction to the consumer privacy bill of rights that we released. he said, one thing should be clear, even though we live in a world in

the achievement of more united europe, including eastern europe, as well as western europe, is one of the most monumental achievements of my lifetime and i wouldn't say it's under threat. it's facing numerous challenges from russia, from the debt crisis, from immigration, from brexit and i would say from the president elect of the united states. so all of these things are conspired to make europe more interesting, let's put it this way. the period this panel will be looking at, that of the reagan administration, was particularly pivotal in the evolution of europe, even those areas where nothing might seem to happen, such as eastern europe after the questioning solidarity and up until 1989, there was a lot going on beneath the surface. eastern europe was becoming prerevolutionary and it took a spark to ignite this revolutionary tender. western europe was more obvious. it was a period in which decisions were made about the creation of a common europe, single european currency, single european market. and ultimately toward political union that were historic. it was a period of some diver

bite end of 1949, we have a stalemate in europe. the united states is propping up western europe economically and militarily. the soviet union is propping up eastern europe and both countries are suspicious of each other and both have the atomic bomb. we are an awful lot alike and we don't want to push that much mother with both countries possessing nuclear weapons. so what happens then when we have this stalemate in europe, it mean that is the cold war will spread into a different area and we are headed into asia now. who is this fellow? chairman mao. >> i lived down the street from this and it's a big street in cambodia and i live a block away from it. isn't that cool? >> how many years ago was that? when you lived there. >> december. a year ago. >> really? recent. here's the situation in china. after the war is over, there is a civil war that engulfs china. between the forces, the nationalists and the communists. a civil war. long story short, by the end of 1949, mao and the communists drive the nationalists out over to the islan

i have always fought for europe. i have sometimes suffered with europe and agonized over europe. i have been through thick and thin with the european union and never have i lost my love for the european union. as we all know, there is no love without disappointment, or very rarely. love for europe, i mean what i say, because the european union has achieved so much in this divided world. inward and outward peace, prosperity. not for all but still for many. in 2018 we should consider what it means to have the european year of cultural heritage and celebrate our cultural diversity. these three principles, freedom, equality of opportunity and rule of law have to remain the foundation of our ever stronger and ever more united and more democratic union. for the people of europe, what they are looking for is not new treaties, new institutions. there are means to an end. new institutions, new treaties are perhaps of interest to us in brussels. elsewhere people don't care to whom. i'm only interested in institutional reform if it gives us a more efficient union. one day there will be trea

western europe to hold back the soviet expansion. congress passes the national security act in 1947. this is an amazing piece of legislation. it's got lots of different facets to it. creates a national security agency. we're going to revamp our military. we're going to coordinate our various branches of the military. but what i wanted to talk about specifically today is it created the cia. what does that stand for? >> central intelligence agency. >> if yes self stalin is bent up on getting free and countries around the world, we need to know that. how do we know that? we need to start sending out secret agents, folks who are going out there to gather intelligence. i'm not talking about james bond, we're talking about we're going to be sending out individuals working for our government, eyes and ears. what's going on in this country. are they susceptible to influence? and, of course, if we think that the soviet union is going to undermine and overthrow free and democratic countries, maybe those guys might have an opportunity to underm

in may, 1945, the war in europe came to an end. this had been the price of europe's unpreparedness. but in may, 1945, our hard-won peace seemed at last secured. a few days before, allied forces from the west had joined hands with the russians from the east. their statesmen met cordially at yalta and pakistan and agreed the countries they occupied should be truly liberated and freely elected governments should be set up as soon as possible. within a few months, the countries of western europe and scandinavia were free and independent. for the countries occupied by russia, stalin had other ideas. throughout eastern europe, elections were held. but the russians had placed the communists in key government positions and in the secret police. within a short time, the non-communist leaders had been liquidated. russia had swallowed up eight european countries without firing another shot other than those of the execution squads. great britain and the united states protested that these countries had ben: worst -- had ced by force and russia had broken her treaty. russia ignored the protest. s

it was different in the central and eastern europe. in the last stages of communism, ronald reagan, margaret thatcher, and john paul ii regarded -- were regarded as heroes in our part of the world. attentionot pay much .o european politicians they were no inspiration to us and we did not expect much from them. they were not advocating the good of western values and did not stand firmly and explicitly against communism. regret that the west did not use the fall of communism to make decisive steps forward. proved to communism be a crucial moment in a positive direction only for us or mostly for us in the former eastern bloc. operation,es of irrationality, we were forced to go through. we enjoyed freedom and the democracy and used it to fundamentally change our societies. felt refreshing relief when communism disappeared. together with --, we came to believe we were--to approach the end of ideology, the end of conflict of vision. theas naively supposed western liberal system will prevail over the world and will last forever, which proved

you said we need to dare more europe and we need to give more powers to europe. what is your long-term vision of europe? are we going in the direction of the united states of america? how do you see the future of europe if a young man or a young woman were to ask you today what would you were look like in 20 years' time. what would be your answer? >> translator: i actually think that we are a model in and of itself. a very unique model. the united states of america so quickly will not be a sort of role model to follow. but i think what we really need is a very clear commitment among ourselves that we wish to coordinate our policies as closely as possible. as regards the relationship between the nation state and europe, we will have very difficult debates ahead of us, because particularly in germany, there are very strict rules that are laid down and also monitored. but the federal and constitutional court as to the very structure of a nation state. i would say to young people in a few year's time, you will be able to change residence as students do these days. qu

it is also a problem in europe. our vision of russia is not the between western europe and eastern europe. >> i work with private equity in the technology sector. thank you for your insights in the american attitudes. for a lot of reasons i wind up talking with a number of people who are part of the 60 million americans who voted for trump and i think it would be helpful for you to speak not to the grid. dupont circle, -- not speak to circle,p here in dupont but speak to a group in allentown. what would you say to them? graduate withnts thousands of dollars in european -- in debt. the number and cause of bankruptcy in the u.s. is medical bankruptcy. europeans do not understand what that means. americans take one week of vacation, europeans take two or three months. all of that is rise to what the president has focused on, which is not that the soviet threat is gone, that rather that we have been ripped off. that europeans have outsmarted us. we are paying for their defense and they get two months vacation and we get

europe will be within target range. and on present trends a direct threat to american shores is likely to mature if that is the right word early in the next century. ad weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. and you have a highly toxic compound. as a cia has pointed out of the nations that have or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction many are led by megalomaniacs and strong men of proven inhumanity. or by week unstable or illegitimate governments in some instances the potential capabilities at the command of these unpredictable figures. either equal to or even more destructive than the soviet threat to the west in the 1960s it is that serious. indeed it is more serious than that we in the west may have to deal with a number of possible adversaries each with different characteristics in some cases their mentalities differ from ours even more than those of our old cold war enemy. so the potential for misunderstanding is great, and we was therefore be very clear in our own minds about our strategic intentions. a

market to europe and to asia had an impact on price in europe. and even led to the ability of countries and companies in europe to renegotiate contracts to the last two years with gas prices for the first time. and i will say that as i say to my european friends and colleagues when i travel there and they complain about natural gas exports that the best way to do that is to have companies in europe negotiate contracts with american companies or operators or distributors here in the united states already gas is contracted for india, japan and others. that's probably a better way to do it than think about the governmental control of it. >> i do think and i hope you will point out the curious position that europe continues to be in. which is to ask vociferously and aggressively for u.s. shale gas and be totally unwilling to develop their own resources. they seem very happy to receive the resource from the united states while very unhappy to develop their own resources. i get it that they have -- they have the ability to make sovereign decisions abou

experiment in europe. they were happy to see it fail. many predicted by the end of the 19th century united states and all the trouble republics would would make their way back to monarchy. they would be restored to monarchy because of this crisis. in my book, i told the story about many of my antecedents in south carolina who were promoting the idea of monarchy in america in the south. we are tired of this "mobocracy" they said. they've elected abraham lincoln. they wanted to be restored to a monarchical order under britain. the south carolinians were telling a british journalist, isn't there some prince that can come over here? can't we be repatriated? some of this was propaganda, but they were seriously in rebellion not just against lincoln and the republican party but the idea of extreme democracy, as they called it. in louisiana, they wanted to go back to the french empire. also, to the question why did it matter, there was a geopolitical contest here that had grave consequences for the entire euro-ame