 Good afternoon everybody. My name is Laura Coupe and I'm one of the co-founders of the Diversity National Security Network. And just to tell you a little bit about the Diversity National Security Network. We exist because we want to amplify the contributions of diverse foreign policy and national security experts and also to help them create opportunities in this space. So far we've profiled and highlighted about 160 national security experts from the Black, Latinx, and Asian American Pacific Islander community. And just also be on a lookout for a couple of lists coming out this next month. Again, we are really grateful for New America and having been such a great partner in highlighting our hashtag next GenNATSEC honorees. Yet to why we're here today. So three months to date, George Floyd was unfortunately murdered by police officers in Minneapolis. And many, many have highlighted this moment as leading to a national reckoning on systemic racism in our society and the many injustices that Black Americans in the United States face. And we've also been reminded that just a couple of days ago, another unarmed Black man, Jacob Blake in Wisconsin, was shot by police, highlighting again that racial justice issues are not going anywhere and that we'll need dedicated efforts and discussions around how to confront it. But like the title suggests, we wanted to highlight that George Floyd changed the world. Not only did we see protests here in the United States, but we saw them globally. And it highlighted again that the United States really has the opportunity to have very difficult discussions, including racism not only here in the United States, but also broadly. And also credit this moment for highlighting the misalignment of the American ideals that we preach overseas and what the realities are here domestically, particularly for Black Americans. And it will not be possible for the U.S. to build a coherent values-based foreign policy if we don't have honest discussions about race in our domestic and foreign policy. And that is why we wanted this community to identify ways in which we could talk about the impact of racism in our domestic and foreign policy in more sustainable ways so that we hopefully have changed not only for immediate, for the immediate, but also for the long term. And that's why we're so grateful for New America to have partnered with us to have this dialogue on a main stage. And today's panel that I'll introduce just in a couple of minutes will discuss the progress that we've made since May, but hopefully also help us identify ways in which we can progress and move towards collective change. And then we are also very eager to hear your thoughts and reflections during our town hall portion, which will be led by another fellow co-founder of the diverse national network, Asha Castleberry, and then we'll close with comments from Dr. Metsfin, who's also a board member of our organization. And just to give the floor to someone who's already led, or has already been leading in creating this lasting change that I just talked about, I'm going to quickly give Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins the floor, who she's the leader of women of color advancing peace and security, and they just started a pledge called standing up to racism and discrimination, which I want her to talk about because it's basically a call out to the foreign policy national security establishment to talk about racism and discrimination in more sustainable ways. Ambassador Jenkins. Thank you, Laura. And thank you to everyone who invited me here today to chat about this very, very important issue and on this momentous occasion today. As Laura said, I established a women of color advancing peace, security and conflict transformation in 2017 with the need and the importance for increasing divorce of voices of women of color and peace and security issues from policy and national security. And what we recognize very soon is just how important this is and nothing came more a slap in the face than what happens in Minneapolis with George Floyd. We recognize that this is really a moment that we need to seek real change, not just conversation but movement action. As a result, women of color advancing peace and security release a statement on June 9 that has over currently over 220 signatures. And we also released a similar statement with our chapter in the United Kingdom, which also has now about 80 signatures signatures that represent both organizations and individuals who commit to make change. Actually, the solidarity statement has 13 has 12 commitments. These commitments range from everything to ensuring that organizations have a body have a staff have a board have an advisory committee whatever they have that looks like America, that it actually has steps to deal with issues like microaggressions to deal with issues that people of color have to deal with in a workspace to recognize that there are differences and to recognize that until we deal with racism and discrimination in our organizations. Until we increase the voices of diverse people and policies and all the institutions that lead to foreign policy in America, that we will not make change will never make change. And we recognize that culture is a very difficult thing to make different and very difficult thing to change. And it's a part of who what we who we are. And so we have this entity now with many organizations that represent think tanks NGOs philanthropy and also such areas as peace and security of course national security. We even have media we have art we have human rights organization humanitarian organizations, all of these entities have signed a statement and are now working together. Working groups that represent the 12 organic the 12 commitments, and they are working together now to establish goals, commitment strategies metrics, and a time frame in which to achieve each one of these commitments. We've also established a separate commitment of separate committee and working group just to focus on our new and next generation to ensure that what we're doing now is going to be incorporated into our future leadership in America and abroad. We've also done a survey which we're going to be releasing the results in the next three weeks, which is going to let us see where organizations are now and where we will be in six months and where we will be a year from now. And we will continue these surveys to as a way to check and see if we're making progress. The organization and what we're doing is is being recognized, we're putting together our website which we're going to launch very soon it'll list all of this work that we're doing all the commitments all the organizations and individuals who are working with us. And we also, of course, recognize we would like to welcome others who have not yet signed the commitment. If you're interested in reading about it reading it learning more about it signing up in even more importantly, you can go to our website of course at wcaps.org or just send us an email at wcaps at wcaps.org. With that, I want to turn it back over to Laura. Thank you for inviting me and I look forward to a really productive conversation. Thank you so much, Bonnie. So now I'm going to go quickly and introduce our panelists and moderators because I know that's who you all really want to hear from. So in terms of our panel so first we'll introduce Michelle foreign boy who is the co founder and managing partner of West exec advisors, and she's the former co founder and CEO of the Center for American security. And then she serves on their board and in her most recent role in government, Michelle served as the undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012. Next is Alonzo Fulham Alonzo Fulham is executive vice president for defense and homeland for via tech corporation. She was the first African American to lead the largest bilateral aid program in the world in Afghanistan, the first African African American COO of USA ID, and was the first African American to service acting administrator for us ID. She was the first African American to serve by President Barack Obama in 2009. We've already heard from Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins who's the founder and executive director of W caps in her most recent role in government, Ambassador Jenkins served as special envoy and coordinator for threat coordination threat reduction programs in the Bureau of international security and non proliferation proliferation at the Department of State and the Obama administration. And our final panelist is Camille Stewart, who is an attorney and executive whose tech cyber and national security experience has landed her in roles at the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama administration, Deloitte and Google. Camille is a new America political reform and political reform program fellow and a co founder of the diversity national security network. And finally, the panel will be moderated by Anne Marie Slaughter, the current CEO of New America. And from 2009 to 2011, she served as a director of policy planning at the State Department, the first woman to hold that position. Anne Marie, I'm turning it over to you. Laura, thanks. And I, it's an honor for me to be able to do this. But I really want to say that this event is very important to the work that New America is doing and will continue to do our mission is renewing the quest of America by continuing the quest to live up to our highest ideals. And that in many ways is what this moment is about the, the complete exposure of the gap between who we are and who we say we are and who we want to be. And we believe the vast majority of Americans want to be a place where all people are created equal, but we are manifestly not. So the work that the diversity and national security network is doing that the women of color advancing peace and security are doing. And that is essential to closing this gap between who we say we are and who we actually are. So we're really honored to be able to host this, and particularly with this great panel. I, I'm going to with with, I hope, Ambassador Jenkins, you will allow me to call you Bonnie because I know everybody else well. I don't want to single you out as Ambassador Jenkins, it's really a pleasure to have these fellow panelists Alonzo and I were I when I was new director of policy planning he was the acting director of USA ID and we sat in many things together and it's wonderful to see him here and Michelle and I have been around the same table for longer than either of us probably want to admit. And Camille I know less well, but I've been really impressed both following your writings but also what what this this network of others are doing and we're fellow lawyers so we're always happy to have a lawyer. I wanted to start by saying that to yesterday, I was doing a podcast with Steve Walt, who is at the Kennedy School, and he's been surveying lots and lots of people about what would you tell a new president, assuming there's President in a number, what needs to change what's your top priority. And he said to me that a very large number of the foreign policy people he has been interviewing, say, we have to fix ourselves at home first. So this is striking. These are foreign policy people and he's asking them what you would advise a new president about foreign policy, and they're saying, we have to start at home. I think that that really this is the core of how we engage the world is addressing both COVID I think many of the people he was interviewing are talking about the pandemic, but also systemic racism, the George Floyd moment which itself is powered by the disparity in infections and deaths among black and brown communities in this country it's not you know COVID's here and the moment of awakening after George Floyd's murder is here they are they are deeply connected. So I guess the place I would want to start and Alonzo I'll start with you and we'll sort of move around although not everybody has to answer every question because we also want to get to the audience's questions. How do you, how do you think about that question that you know you're you've you've been an international development all your life you've been outward looking, but right now that outward looking and inward problems are interrelated in such a deep way how do we address that as a national security community. We're on mute. You have to unmute. Yeah, there you go. I'm unmuted. Yeah you got we can hear you. Can you hear me now. Okay. I think, when you look at this question. You have to really think about the people that we have seen before us, you know the Ed Perkins, who went out to South Africa, during apartheid to be the first African American ambassador. You have to look at Terrence Toddman, what he went through, and the State Department. It is a different time for us. And it's a special time. When you look at the movement that's currently going on the country. It's with our young people. They are probably the most educated, they're young and they're informed, and one of the smartest populations in the world. It's important because I think the media savvy and capable of real disruption to the business community to the NGOs and to the foreign policy community. I think what we're trying to figure out now is what are the things that we need to do going forward. How do we really start to rebuild our institutions that allow for us to represent the best of what America had to offer. Before this administration, one of the things that we went out and propagated throughout the world was that the rule of law in our country stood for something our foreign policy stood for something. We were respected. And even as an African American going out knowing that we had problems at home, we knew we could depend on our institutions. So I think that's one of the things when they talk about we've got to repair our home. Before we can go out and talk to people again. Those are some of the things that we have to do. And I think at the State Department at DoD USA ID and CIA and all of our agencies. That's one of the things that we've got to reconstitute and create an environment that really is the environment that we think we want going forward and I think that's going to come from great appointments by this new by this new president. And hopefully some of the people on this line will be a part of that, because I think they can be integral and trying to rebuild and constitute the kind of institutions that represent the best of what America has to offer. Thank you. So, so Michelle, let me ask you to first unmute and then to comment on that I mean you you were you know number three at DoD and DoD is an interesting place. Obviously we have large numbers of service people of color. That gets much smaller as you get up to the toward the top of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or DoD but more broadly that Alonzo's point that we have to reflect who we are in the people we present to the world. So I would add to Alonzo's very good points. First of all, one of my favorite phrases from Joe Biden when he was Vice President was this notion of when people look to the US for leadership and credibility, it's not as much the example of our power as the power of our example. So if we are not living up to our values, if we are not being true, you know, as a democracy, if we're, you know, not dealing effectively with systemic racism and inequality and injustice, we're not dealing effectively with the pandemic. It's very hard for us to be the leader that other countries want to follow when we try to build coalitions for things like combating climate change or whatever the transnational or global threat may be. It's really, really important for us to have our house in order at home in order to be effective abroad in protecting our interests. But in addition, I think there's another issue and that we are, when we have a national security cadre that does not look like America, we are leaving a huge amount of talent on the table. And all of the business literature says that if the boards, if the executive leadership teams of organizations are more diverse, they make better decisions and they actually perform better, they outperform their competitors in measurable ways consistently. And just to give you a snapshot of how far we are from that goal of diversity and inclusion and national security. If you take a look at 2018 93 people running the federal government were white and 80% were men. In the State Department, black Americans represent about 15% of the total workforce but only 6% of the foreign service. In the intelligence community minority groups represent 25% of employees, only 13% of senior positions. When you look at the military 41 of the most senior commanders in the US military only two today are black. And my favorite and shocking one example is between the appointment of Colin Powell, Colin Powell as the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the recent appointment of CQ Brown as the first black service chief with 31 years. Wow. I didn't realize it had been that long. So we have a problem. And I think one of the most important things we need to do in this moment is like hold up a mirror to ourselves as a community, and say, we are not where we need to be. Let me turn to you and you and Bonnie have both taken action to address this problem by creating organizations and by for one thing just putting a whole group of people together when I look at a meeting even on Twitter or I look at a W caps. But we've had other events in New America and you look around the audience and you say hey this does not look like a national security meeting in Washington but every single person in this meeting is not everyone but most are of color and they're all highly talented to Michelle's point that we're just leaving talent on the table. So when you look at it and you're also of a different generation. How do you see us fixing this problem. I mean you want to make clear who the people are but you know often just identifying them isn't enough how do you think about this. We really need to reimagine the systems and institutions that uphold our government right, many of them. Frankly, all of them were not created with people of color in mind. And so even some of the logistics about how we get folks into government organizations are broken. Our security clearance process doesn't allow for people of immigrant backgrounds to easily flow through that process we need to reevaluate how we're engaging diaspora communities. And think about how we build systems and institutions that achieve the goals that we are, we set out to achieve the ideals we set out for this nation. So think about ways that we engage different communities and open up the breadth of talent. And so some of that is creating platforms to demonstrate and display the talent which is a lot of the work that diversity and national security network has done. Some of that is grooming new talent which is a lot of the work that W caps is doing, but we cannot ignore the fact that the system is not built for for everyone and should be. We cannot ignore the fact that to Alonzo and Michelle's point, we are not as effective we do not show up on the world stage, effectively, or as our best selves we are not as innovative, we are not as representative of what we hope to be if we are not bringing the lived experiences of the American people, we are not bringing our best, our most diverse workforce to bear on these really challenging and complex problems that are ever evolving. So that's a very important point about the clearances and the ways you get into government, all of us have had clearance process which I do think is very broken but your point as a nation that reflects the world. You can't get the people who don't, you know, who are more newly American in that won't work. So Bonnie, I mean, you, you saw this when you were in the State Department, you now run caps you were before that at the Ford Foundation right you pushed it you sort of seen what a philanthropist can do. How do, so we same question but we've got the list, we got the talent, we change some of the systems how do we push to actually make this change I mean I'm reminded of, you know, binders of women. I mean, there has to be a real commitment I mean it's one thing to say we want change and it's nothing to actually big change. I think it's, it's too easy to go back to the status quo. It's too easy to be in a moment and say we need to do this we need to do this and then after time goes by. Things go back to the way they are one because as I said culture is hard to change. And it's hard to change behavior and it's hard to change what people do. Unless there's a continuous push to make it happen it won't happen. It's also related to the fact that the decision makers are not the people who are the ones who are often demanding most of the change. Because of the decision makers the one that the ones who are what we call the gatekeepers are often not the people of color. And they're often not the women. And so it's easier for them to go back to the status quo because it's comfortable for them. It's a privilege situation for them. And so unless you make them either one extremely uncomfortable in a way that's public, or really help them understand why it's and everyone's benefit. It's not just the people who are saying change but for everyone that change needs to happen. It won't happen so it has to be consistent. It cannot stop you know you have to keep making the case keep making the point this time we're in right now everyone's talking about it. It's the point that everyone's trying to make. But where will we be a year from now, where will we be six months and that's what we have to think about in order to make that change and all the stuff we're trying to do. It has to be sustained, and you have to have people who are saying this is what I'm trying to. And Mary, can I add one more point to that I think I agree with everything that's being said but I also think that if we roll the tape back 20 years, we were probably having the same conversations. I think what we have to think about as we go forward we've got to be much more judicious and systematic about the change that we want to bring about. In the 90s Larry Eagle burger who's a beloved former Secretary of State of the State Department was being beat up in the press about the fact of lack of women and people of color and foreign policy. He turned around and made an edict that said everybody, every office in the State Department had to have a woman and a person of color, and their front office. We had to send the message to the whole building we didn't need legislation. We didn't need a bunch of people trying to figure out how they're going to rewrite the rules of support when he wanted to he said do it. Okay, the only problem with that was once Larry Eagle burger left, then all the minions or the carriers of racism went back to the system as it was. So we have to figure out a way to lay out a process that says that it becomes institutionalized. So we get processes in place and all of these panels and all these these processes that promote and move people through the system that actually stand the test of time once those individuals go away. And until we started dressing those issues because we can always beat up on the politicals, but it's the people within the system, the director general the Foreign Service, your head of HR, your chief diversity officer with some things that people are pushing for. We've got to start attacking the problem which is rewarding bad behavior for people who are not doing the things that need to be done to move the system forward. And until you address that, we're going to be back in this conversation 10 years from now. So I'm hoping that the new administration once they get in that there's some real systemic things that are put in place to stop this bad behavior and stop encouraging and there's some other things we could talk about but I don't want to hog the mic but go ahead. So I think this, I think that's very important. I mean, Michelle said it 31 years, I mean many of us are old enough we've been in these conversations for too long. And frankly, this is also why the deeply that this moment after George Floyd and obviously the violence to police brutality against black men against people of color continues we've just seen this but but it's gotten more sustained attention than ever before in my lifetime and our job is to capture the energy of this moment and the generational and demographic change in the United States and make it real. Two things, though, Bonnie said something I want to highlight because it's so important you talked about the gatekeepers. So when I got to watching the first time ever in 2009 I'm about 50, and I realized pretty quickly that the place is run by 32 year olds. Right there the special assistance there that mean obviously there's lots of power but that the folks who are, you know, in there deciding who's in the meeting who who's it's not exactly who gets hired but who gets suggested. There's a whole lot of folks in key places that you might not necessarily recognize our key places, particularly people coming in were very important on the outside, and we've got to make sure they have the right commitment. And the example I would give a Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton's chief of staff and she was fierce about hiring and over and over again, you know assistant secretary would come to her and say I've got this perfect person I want to hire them as a DAS. And she'd say, you know, let me see your slate if there weren't people of color on it, you know, she would say no, and she really pushed through a bunch of appointments and those folks are now poised to be assistant secretaries themselves this time round so that that piece of it I do think is is is critical as well as as you know adopting those kinds of policies. Michelle I want to shift ground a little bit because again, we've got this double sided issue of people and policies right who's around the table makes a really big difference in what is decided and that's what we're all saying right that until we diversify the who we're not going to get a lot of change on the what. At the same time, if you're thinking about and I know you are thinking about what is US policy, what is our defense policy, what is our grand strategy, how do we articulate our priorities in the world are as you know values based foreign policy great power competition, even things I know you've written a lot about how do we weave the diversity of who we are and the goals we seek into the policy. No it's a great question but again I think it starts with having a diverse team around the table, because not only gender diversity but diversity of ethnic background but also I love Camille's phrase diversity of lived experience right. I mean, and because what happens is that brings all of that experience to the table with them. And you know we watched this in President Obama situation room where you certainly had a more diverse group wasn't perfect but more diverse than probably be any previous set of people that set around that table in the past. And what I saw time and time again when we were wrestling with a hard problem is that diversity work to help the president so someone comes in with the dissenting view, someone questions this the assumption that you know group think is starting to form around. Someone else says have we what have you thought about this or what about that just that diversity perspective that consistently I think helped the president better understand the risks the pros the cons make better decisions. So I think it starts there but that same diversity also brings diversity of expertise so for example, you know if we're talking about how to make peace negotiations in Afghanistan successful well there happens to be a body of literature that says if you include women in the peace negotiation teams in a serious way. All of the studies show that those the settlements that come out of those negotiations will be more sustainable and be implemented over time. You know if in Alonzo's world there's now all kinds of studies that show if you empower women and girls in the approach you take to development. You're going to have much more success in lifting whole communities out of poverty so my point is it's the diversity of people around the table that are going to bring you that diversity of expertise and experience that's going to make your policy. More effective because you're attending to a much, you know, broader range of what works. You know, experience on what actually works. So Camille if you want to jump in. Yeah, I was going to say we're all we're all we're back to the square one again though to be able to do those kind of things you have to be in the room. And you've got to have policymakers who are who are convinced that they want to make sure that that room that they're representing looks like America. I look at my experience in Afghanistan, although I was the aid mission director there. Ron Newman was one of our finest ambassadors that we've ever had in the United States, made sure as the aid director that I was a part of the national security conversation. And there were things that I brought to that conversation that people were shocked and amazed. Oh my God, how's an aid guy know that. It's not an eight guys that we are all a part of the national security of this country so we have to have the commitment of individuals to look around that room and say, Hey, we don't have people that really represent the best of what America has to offer I want all voices in the room so that I can make a good decision. They always say there's no bad policy it's bad input, and the input comes from the people around that table. Yeah, I was going to ask Camille, if you think about a meeting of the diversity and national security network and you think about talking about any particular issue on the table whether you're talking about climate change you're talking about us China relations, but whatever. Do you have a sense and this may be generational again as much as as gender and ethnic and racial diversity. Do you have a sense that you get different answers that there's a there's a mo a divergence I'm not talking about completely different between what you all are talking about and what's coming out even of a Democratic White House or a White House that would be much more closely politically aligned. Definitely. Yeah, the diaspora backgrounds generational differences, I think, you know, folks tend to be a bit more critical and have a lot more interwoven experiences. A lot of the mid career the early senior career folks who are engaged in diversity and national security network have had experiences in industry have had experiences in government have had experiences and research, and they bring those things together in a way that is a little bit different from the traditional I spent my entire life in government or I spent my entire life in industry. I want to mention, you know, integrating technology and how that has expanded and changed our lives folks with immigrant backgrounds and things like that. The discussion is enriched in a way that often amazes me much more if that was brought to the rooms into the White House. Why we, we are seeing that the nuanced discussions, the ability to talk firsthand about how the communities in the places that we are in going and engaging will respond to that outcome, how we even just word that to promote better advocacy or reception of a policy or proposal comes out, not only because we've got these folks in the room but because they feel included, they feel empowered to actually engage in the discussion. And so part of what we need to talk about in these diversity discussions the inclusion piece right. Let's not just have people on the slate. Let's make sure that they feel included enough empowered enough to actually lend their experiences to the dialogue. That might not change the outcome every time, but to the extent that they feel like it is a consideration as we you know figure out the plans as we execute that will enrich the discussion, not just having folks in the room but making sure they're empowered enough to speak. So that's such an important point and it goes back, it also goes back to numbers though because certainly as a woman I know and there's a lot of research on this. You need three women in the room before we'll start saying what we think. And then we're not really going to say everything that we think but we're going to be a lot closer if you're the only woman in the room and you all know this also as a person of color. You, you know, you often outman the man outman the men in the sense that you, you're not included there's not a there's not enough real space for you to be who you are and all of us, you know have a gap between our personal and our professional selves but inclusion is very different than diversity in that in that sense. So Bonnie I'm going to ask you that same question about W caps but but I'm going to put it a little even more pointedly because you and I were the State Department the same time and again you you've had a lot of experience. Do you. So we were in the State Department when Secretary Clinton was really pushing the elevation of development. Right. She went in saying 3ds defense diplomacy and development. And it was my experience in the State Department that many of the senior women she appointed and many of the women period were much more on board with that vision than many of the men. That's a stereotype and Alonzo here has been a development professional all his life, but I just I wonder, you know, do you think if we had a far more diverse group of people in the State Department. 5050 men and women and look like America, would we would we privilege development more. Um, I, you know, I think that's a great question and I think it's totally fair to answer and ask it and I think it's totally fair for you to have your perception that it would be a little bit more balanced. I would say yes, and you know I think there are different ways in which we look at things and look at issues. I know in my conversation with many of the women in my organization. And there's always a balance of this much more of a desire for a balance between the 3ds. You know, and we have a significant number of women and young and young women and season to a very understand the importance of this three understand why you need to have the balance of the three and having only one which I think we, many people believe we have much more of the defense than the other two right now. The importance of that and having a balance for policy overall. And so, yes, I think that is a valid perception based on what I hear, based on the conversations that we have, based on the understanding of what each one of those these brain to the table. I would say I mean I would even venture and here I am going into on territory I may not be what should be going into, but I would venture to say that you see a lot fewer people of color, a lot fewer women for example that State Department. You see, and you see that I think in other places. And I all and I don't want to say it's a cause and effect, but there certainly is a lot more of a focus now on the military side and the defense side and the role that it plays. And defense is important for the other two are important as well. So I would say I certainly hear that conversation, and that balance a lot more in my conversations. Thanks. I did I often used to laugh that if you call the national security meeting in Washington it would be 8090% men and their men main to women if you call the development meeting it would flip. That's again, not entirely true and Alonzo I want to push on this because even when I say that I'm very aware that I'm that I'm perilously close to essentialism right I'm women like soft stuff like development and like hard stuff like guns. So if you're interested in Africa, people white people are interested in Europe, so we don't want to go there either so you know, I think your arguments are good I think the bigger issue is that I think this conversation had been coming. General Zinni had the first op-ed back in the 90 and in early 2000s about the fact that we need to bring soft power into play. And I think it was the first time in our government after that that we started thinking about a coherent policy to address our national interest. And then we were organizing if you ask General portrays what his thoughts are and the other generals who've been in the theater in the theater where we were really fighting the war. It was bringing our national interest into play and using all of our assets equally to ensure that we were able to implement policy in an effective way. The problem began when when the administration's change, everyone decides that let's go back to the game as it was played before. And that's lack of vision. And I think that's one of the things that we have to look at I was hoping that Tony was going to be on the line today because I think we also have to take a look at the 1947 National Security Act, we have to turn it on its head. This is not your father's old automobile anymore. We've got a typical a new generation of foreign service officers that are going to have to address problems that are so much different than we addressed 30 or 40 years ago. And then the Security Council is going to have to be reorganized. You need to have somebody from public diplomacy on the Security Council why communication is everything and when we lost us is that was one of the biggest losses that we had in our national security apparatus. The Chinese is spending four or $5 billion on public diplomacy on on on blogging, all of the assets that we use to communicate today, they're invested heavily in it and they have people that are doing it effectively. And we have a department within the State Department that's addressing so those kind of things in economic and trade, all those things are going to become into full play in the future and having somebody deliver the message to the Economic Bureau about what's happening in those particular areas or public diplomacy, I think is a failure of our policy and it's something we're going to have to take a look at. So Michelle, I'll ask you Michelle at least it was Tony's co founder of West exactly. And Tony's a good friend that's not a criticism but I think it's something that we have to have a conversation about that the traditionalist don't want to change things. And the world has changed in and I think with leadership like Michelle and others I think we can have that conversation and really think about making that change because in the, in the previous administration with with secretary. She did think about Secretary Clinton thought about the fact that we needed to address this issue, but we weren't able to do it. But I was going to ask Michelle just to address the response and particularly the idea that we, we might need to revise the National Security Act that we really might need to think about our security much more broadly too broadly and it's nothing right then it's everything and there's nothing that you're at the core of this because you are a DoD person who sees much more broadly. Yeah, I, I, I don't know if we need to revise the 47 Act but we do need to revise how we are using and resourcing the tools in the toolbox because there is an imbalance and I think, frankly, many, you know, the people you mentioned the general Zinnies that Dave Petraeus is the general crystals and others. They're the first ones who would say I needed more diplomats I needed more AID I needed more informational instruments, the military cannot do these things by itself diplomacy should be first and foremost preventing the conflict in the first place. If you do find yourself in a conflict, the last 20 yards on the field is always the political settlement and the diplomatic piece. You know, you can go the times we've been most effective is when we have marry our diplomacy with some coercive pressure behind it to force people to come to the negotiating table seriously so there are so many examples of this and yet we do not as Bonnie said we don't resource things in a balanced way. Now you're never going to need as much money at the State Department as you did for defense because you're not buying aircraft carriers and tanks and airplanes but you certainly need a much more robust and expeditionary and full, full some diplomatic instrument including the Foreign Service and same goes for AID and I too would love to see a 21st century digital version of what USIA used to be. So we do need to invest in those non military instruments and in the end of the day it will result in fewer Americans being sent into harm's way. And it will result when we do have to send people in harm's way will get better outcomes because they're a robust diplomatic and other instruments to use alongside them so I think that's really, really, it's an important point and I actually think it's maybe less controversial than people think I think a lot of experienced people in uniform would love to see a stronger, you know and more sizable than the Foreign Service for example and diplomatic work. But Michelle if we don't ask the question because the the the actual structure is what's causing us not to be able to move forward. So we tried the QDDR, right and we were using that as a way to better provide funding for the civilian side of the equation so we wouldn't have to go to the military. As soon as the administration ended, we went back to the things the way things were. And then so then we were back again to, yeah, we don't want to tamper with it but I think the world has changed so much that they got to have a conversation. I think we should look at it and the credit I'm just always loathe to go for painful legislation and organizational changes when other things could fix it so I think I would love to see. I mean, I actually think the bigger problem is the politics of the color of money, you know, voting for a defense dollar is a patriotic act on the old voting for a ID is over giving money away and voting for State Department is why am I building bureaucracy I mean it's terrible and that's unfair but the politics of it have to be addressed. But I think the biggest thing is leadership. It is, you know, stating that we're going to do some things differently whether it's, you know, Cheryl's I'm not going to look at a slate unless they're diverse and qualified candidates on the slate, whether it's promoting you know I'm going to start evaluating supervisors based on their support for diversity and inclusion and the kind of environment they create. Whether it's I mean you could go through all kinds of things but leadership incentives, measuring what you care about and then actually holding people accountable. So it's going to take someone not getting promoted because they didn't do the right thing. We're just about to turn it over to your questions everyone who is participating here, but I'm going to give Camille and Bonnie the last word and ask about a new generation of foreign policy intellectuals and international relations scholars, publishing a lot particularly in foreign policy and writing about post colonialism and racism and the end that you know what when I grew up it was like Europe. Yep, they were the imperialists, we were anti imperialist I knew the critiques that we'd had a soft imperialism economic imperialism, but fundamentally post colonialism was some somebody else's problem it would didn't apply the United States. That is not the vision. Again, if you may put more people around the table who've had the experience I think Barack Obama had grown up partly in Indonesia, and his father was Kenyan it's certainly seen British imperialism. He had a different take on that. I'd love for both of you just to reflect on what what may happen in terms of how we think of ourselves in a post imperial post colonial era, but we're an awful lot of the legacies of colonialism are very very evident. If we did have a far more diverse group of people around the table how would we how would we talk about it how we think about it so Camille and then Bonnie you get to bring us home. Yeah, I, the discussion would evolve drastically. The objectives of particularly diaspora and immigrant communities to your point reflect living through colonialism in a very real way, and the understanding that how race underpins many of our development and a decisions and how those things then impact these communities, and how those things then tie into our defense and our security and and the full circle of issues. And so there would be a strong interjection of descent and differing opinions on how a strategic move in a development area or a defense action or any other action for that area will impact the communities impact the legacy of the US in those spaces impact how we are then able to circle back. You know, Chinese investment in infrastructure in the Caribbean and in Africa is is looked at very different by people of those communities or diaspora of those communities than it is by folks of the majority and folks that are traditionally from European continent. There will be a vast difference in how that dialogue happens, because to some some small nations in the Caribbean and Africa may not be major world stage players, but how they move through Europe and the US in particular, but the world in general matters and matters to what they bring as new US citizens as new European citizens. So the dialogue will evolve drastically and we'll call for a more holistic discussion about how we engage with and view other nations that are not traditionally part of some of these broader discussions. I love that I love the visibility of the change that would come so Bonnie, what would you say. Yeah, I think this more. You'll just said 20 years ago. I think, you know, by look, I think the whole question for me calls in the question calls also calls in the question, how we see ourselves as Americans how how do we see ourselves how do we view ourselves, asking ourselves questions that we have not been that we've been afraid to ask ourselves that we've been taught not to ask ourselves a perception of who is America in the world without presupposing who we are and not presupposing that this is what we've learned and that is the way it is. I think a lot for me of this moment and a lot of what's happening now is we are questioning. Are we the greatest power. Do we really know it all are we the best people to go around the world and dictate how things should be when we have so many questions at home. I think that's a scary question for us as a country, because we pride so much ourselves on who we have always perceived ourselves to be as the leader. And not that we should assume that we're not who we can be, or who we have been, but we should be willing to question ourselves, more than we have, and be willing to come up with the answer which may be, we do have a lot of problems. We see them but we try to cover them, or ignore them, or point our fingers at others and say you have this problem with voting you have this problem with elections, we have so many of them here. We're watching everyone else's elections and we can't even do our own. So I think this whole post colonialism this whole post is, to me, who are we really who do we want to be. Let's be honest about it. Let's be honest about how we have been in other countries, how we have treated other countries how we treat them and how we treat ourselves and look at that as a package. And do we have the courage to ask that question and get the answers that we'll get. That was a fabulous answer and I think it's time to turn to questions I'll just say, Heather Herbert, who will hear from tweeted yesterday Arturo Soracon, Soracon who was the Mexican Ambassador the United States again, Alonso Michelle know, wrote yesterday on Twitter, something about essentially the United States has been pointing to election irregularities in Latin America forever you know oh my God those terrible electoral systems they don't work and he basically said, she you know amazing when it happens to you and but but I really do think this question of, if we were who we really are, if represented in the tables of power, if, if the tables of power looked like America, we would ask, who are we, I for one would take great pride in our diversity, not to accept that the, you know, narrative of World War two America the good would definitely have to change, but I think we'd be better for it, not that we're all bad, but we're certainly not all good. So with that, I'm going to turn it to Asha Castleberry who is I have written an article with but it never met visually, or personally nobody meets personally anymore until yesterday so Asha. And Marie. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you so much everyone for having so wonderful panel, especially between diversity and national security network and new America. This is like our second event since it's been a wonderful opportunity to exchange ideas and talk about way forward as the visionary leader as well as the primary co founder of diversity and national security network I'm just so excited to be here and now open up to Q&A. So our first question we have is, what's the best way for allies from the majority to leverage our power without tripping all over ourselves with awkwardly phrase questions from Lin Well, a long time hill staffer and State Department person, and this is to Alonzo and or Bonnie. Bonnie go ahead. Ladies first. So the question is to be exact. How do we, how do we be good allies is that basically how do we be good allies that trip over ourselves I mean, is that is that okay. There are many ways to define allies and I've actually tried to write on this and I've never actually been able to, to write anything. I don't think the question is tripping over yourselves are worrying about that I think for me is on being not just a support for what we're trying to achieve or ways in which we're trying to achieve change. Also, understanding how to be a partner in that and how to champion that on your own. There are things that are done to be in the front to be a partner and there are things that are done when there's no camera when there are things that things going on that you really believe and you really support. And to me, a way to promote these goals of diversity these goals of anti racism these goals of anti discrimination these goals of change and foreign policy is to not only understand it and believe it and to ask questions that may seem stupid, but to ask questions and be willing to understand that you may not know the answer and that's okay because you wrote a bit of culture that tells you that you're both believe a certain thing. It's really to to understand it inside and understand it in a way that you can go out and champion it yourself. And, you know, and we, it's interesting because a good ally is sometimes hard to define, but you know, a good allies when you see it and people can know in their good ally because of what they believe in, and their actions follow their belief, but there is always action. I'll just add one small piece I think one of the things that you have to you'll learn as you spend time overseas it's about relationships, and there are two conversations. There's the official conversation, and there's the unofficial conversation. And in the official conversation you're representing the best of what America has to offer you're trying to make sure that the policies that we're espousing get through and that they're enacted in that we protect the national interest. And then there's a conversation that you have off the record where they get to know you as an individual, and those relationships carry over. You're a junior officer one day the next, the next time you're a mid level office and that same person you talk to and had a relationship with is now the foreign minister or the deputy foreign minister, and then 10 years later they may be the president of the country. And I think it's about empathy, I think one of the things that women and people of color have when they're in the Foreign Service is that automatic door opening I mean I can't tell you in Jordan, every country I've been to. I've always had the best relationships and the best contact outside damage I'm not bragging you go back and check my record. And that's not because I was the smartest guy, but people were always drawn to an African American about where they've been and how they got there and they're always interested. How did you get there and you're not in the military. And then that began a conversation about who you are and how you got there. And then you're going to disagree they're always going to be a point where you you're going to agree to disagree, but they understand they have their interest and you have yours. And if you're able to manage those two relationships in that way, they will go a long way. I just want to add something real quick. The question started with tripping up. Do not be afraid of that do not let that be a deterrent to finding your way to action to educating yourself to engaging in relationship building to engaging in conversations it's inevitable. This is all an uncomfortable space and uncomfortable dialogue. It's new to you. And as you learn you are going to make mistakes, but dust yourself off. Learn from what happened in that engagement and keep trying it to Bonnie's point about action like an ally is rooted in action. Do not let fear of making a mistake, which is inevitable. Keep you from that action. Thanks for that comment Alonzo I can relate with you because as a woman who served as a junior officer working in the Ministry of Defense and Kuwait. Many of them said to me how did you get here. Working on the gender and you know being an after America and the slaves. How did you get here and it was an amazing experience and they're coming up the ranks in the Ministry of Defense now. Now we will move on to the next question. A comment or note that the United States has been taken taken seriously as a moral force throughout our history, despite our racist failings. Can you make an argument to convince the skeptics that progress on racial justice at home really is essential to our diplomacy. This is a question to Michelle and Alonzo. I, you know, I think that we have been able to exert leadership and have periods in our diplomacy and our history where I would argue that we were a force for good, despite the fact that we had this horrible legacy of systemic racism and inequality. It's, it's, but I think now that there's this is it we're in a different age where it, you know, in the global media age in the this period of, you know, total communication and transparency. You know, and in a period of such pain, and it's it's just so you can't ignore it. And the world sees it. And so I think we're in a different moment now that if we go forward and just try to push it back under the rug, or pretend that it has nothing to do with how we're seen in the world. It's not going to work. I think the fact is this moment is a challenge and the world is going to watch us rise to that challenge and deal with it seriously. And, and we will get huge, you know, sort of credit and appreciation for that, or we will not. And, and, and I think that will hurt us. So I think it's a different moment for a lot of reasons. And that how we do on these questions will actually affect our capacity to lead our ability to lead in the future, at least the ability about the willingness of others to follow and to join forces. Yeah, I just add quickly, the conflict for us has always been obvious. And the countries that we've been sent out to to implement policies that were simply similar being inflicted against us in our own country. But we've always been able to find a way to rise above it. And I think what we have to continue to do is raise our voices the conversations we're having now to change things. And then come about and find a way to identify a real way forward. And I think by putting the kind of metrics in place that we're talking about moving forward. That's going to give us an opportunity to really bring about real change and measure that change. And I think raising our voices is one thing once again. But what are the metrics we're putting in place that allow for us to be accountable going forth. And that's why I think the young people, and I talked about you guys earlier, that your advocacy and your media sabbiness and your being restless is going to help drive this process and force us to be better. Because with that kind of interdiction, it forces decision makers who don't like seeing their name in the press, the 24 hour press that forces them to be much more conscious about the things that they're advocating. And I think it's also going to make us better as a nation in regards to advocating and developing future policy. Thank you. Next question. Interesting one. What happens if Trump wins again? What does this mean for people of color and foreign policy national security, whether in government or outside of government? And where do we go from here if we can't meet the moment? This is anonymous, but I will go with Bonnie then Camille. Yes, well, if we have another Trump administration, well, first of all, it'll be either the status quo or depending on your viewpoint, it could be worse. As people of color, we have to continue to not be discouraged. We have to recognize that we must continue to do what we have been doing. And we have to recognize and the country is very divided. And a lot of times, those who are not of the Trump party are often made to feel that they don't matter, that what they think and feel as Americans are not important. And very often, it's, I mean, I think I can say it without being political. There's been, you know, you have negative things said about women and people of color that are not things that would be particularly make you feel very included. And so it's a feeling that many Americans have of not being a part of America, not being included America, not being considered as valued. And I think, you know, if we have another administration, we have to fight against that. We have to fight against the feeling that, you know, if you're not part of the, you know, of the ruling party that you're not important. And I think we have to keep and keep ourselves empowered. We have to have, we have to remain vigilant and recognize that this is our America too. And we have paid a large price to be a part of this country to help build this country. We have carried a lot of it on the backs of many people of vulnerable communities. Black, indigenous, you know, Hispanics, Asians, you know, Muslim, all of us have had to deal with a lot of things and women as well. So we have to recognize that we're a part of America and that we should not feel like we're not and we have to be vigilant and we have to be strong and we have to keep up the fight. I think that undeniably it will be tough for people of color and disenfranchised groups in this country, but I also think to build off Bonnie's point, there will be shifts in governance structures, right. The private, we've already seen the private sector respond by creating new norms and filling gaps and demanding justice in their spheres of influence and civil society is doing the same. I think we'll see a much larger shift in how America governs itself because these institutions, civil society, industry, etc will continue to make demands in their sphere of influence that will change those dynamics and I hope we rise to meet that moment. In addition to what Bonnie is saying about us not letting ourselves feel disconnected and disengaged from our democratic process and making our voices heard within this nation, but that will be undeniably hard because we will be reinforcing a perception both at the individual level and at a global level that what's happening right now is okay and it is not and I don't think that that is the sentiment of the the broadest sloth of the American people, but if Trump is reelected that is what we will be saying to ourselves into the world. That's a good point and you know most likely political instability may persist, but we cannot allow that to continue to divide us but bring us together to continue to you mobilize advocate, continue advocacy. Okay, our next question. How do we make progress when so much of our field relies on networks, which are saturated with unconscious bias. This is for Michelle. Great question and I think the first thing is, you know, you, we have to ask an expect of our leaders that they recognize this. And I actually think it's very important to start to have leaders sort of really reflect on their experiences and their own biases, but also to do you have a clear right assessment of the organization that they're inheriting and and to have a factual basis of how bad is it, you know, how far from the goal, are we really here. And then I think you have to take a very proactive approach that says this is a, you know, if you're a leader in an organization. This is an responsibility that you have, and you can't just will say oh I'm open to, you know, people of color coming to ask me to be a mentor. You got to go out and proactively find people that you want to mentor or sponsor. You can't just sit back and admire, you know, say, well, if the incentive, you know, it's all about incentives and if the incentives that were different maybe the promotion boards would behave differently. You got to get in there and look at well what is the incentive structure and how does it need to be changed or realigned towards a set of goals so and you have to hold yourself accountable. And you also have to be willing to hold others in the system accountable and my experience when when that happens. It's amazing how behavior changes. You know, people are very smart with somebody talked about the gatekeepers the gatekeepers are smart. They realize there's a new sheriff in town now this really matters and oh someone's watching and I'm going to be held accountable and how I behave will actually affect my own career prospects. It's amazing how behavior changes so I think I think that's something that we need to I think unpack in a much more systematic way to say how do we align. All those incentive structures and across the board and then how do we hold ourselves and this is in and others in the system accountable. Asha if I can just add there I think also it. It's important to recognize we all have unconscious bias right we all do. And so New America when I when I got there in 2013 was minority women we're now 70% women 75%. One of the things I recognize is, you know, we, we hire people who look like us who have the same experience we do because we feel comfortable with them. And Camille said something very important, you know, we've got to be able to be uncomfortable, we're never going to have the conversations we need to have unless we can be uncomfortable and that goes also for recognizing. Yeah, my instinct says this person's terrific. Well this person's terrific because he looks so she looks like me, you know, that's this person's more likely to think like me, and I need people who are diverse, but I think it's important to recognize that this isn't always you're not necessarily racist you're not necessarily sexist you are human and human beings like the people who are like them and we have to make a real effort, all of us to get out of that that those those biases and constraints. I call it Emory the mini me approach to mentorship and sponsorship. Oh they remind me of myself 20 years ago, right. Exactly right. That's a really good point because I think that's a problem with all of us, you know, and it's something work in progress, you know it started with us from little to where we ingrained some sort of these unconscious bias when we were in school and then lived with us beyond and that's something that we definitely have to work on moving forward. Next question. Kai, none acts a specific question about how a proposed proposed Congressional Commission on counterterrorism policy can be constructed to include the voices of people affected by US counterterrorism policy. More broadly, how can the way we make us policy evolved to include affected communities. Was that directed to anybody. Yes, sorry. Well, I like Alonzo answers well Michelle. Ladies first again, go Michelle. So I actually think that there is this is a moment in time when you know a lot has happened. In 2011 and the original authorization for the use of military force, the original way that we thought about the focus on al Qaeda and its direct affiliates. Now we have ISIS we have so many other groups that have evolved and changed and morphed. And the and the strategy and approach has broadened to include a lot of activities that were not necessarily there at the beginning so I do think this is, you know, 20 years in, or, you know, it's, it's worth actually taking a pretty hard look at the counterterrorism approach which writ large not just military dimension but all the dimensions. And I think in doing that it would be very interesting to talk to people who've been directly affected, including so much of our counterterrorism approach has been focused on building partner capacity. I would say that if we build local indigenous forces then that lessons the burden on us it increases their capacity to provide for their own security. Well how is that actually worked, you know where has it worked why is it worked when it's when it hasn't worked so well. Why hasn't it worked what do we learn from that how do we you know what how do we take those things to do account so I think it's a really interesting idea I have to give some more thought to how you implement it. And I guess we're, you know, Alonzo has had, you know, 30 more seconds to think about this and I have he's going to jump in with some great ideas. No, Michelle, this is a complex issue and as you said, the laws and regulations that have been put out put in place for in the name of national security. Over the last 10 years or 12 years have become overlapping. And I think that they're going to we're going to have to go back and take a look at how we're implementing some of these policies, but also going back to the people are being affected by it. And we always talk about the browning of America. We are a country that is diversely different than we were 10 years ago 15 years ago and we continue to be that. And I think if we don't go and interview and talk to people and find out what's working not not and it's not working. Then I think we have a 10 year and we're going to create even more angst within our own country that's going to create a national security problem for us. So I'm hoping that there will be a lot of policy reviews. And look, we're not trying to turn the system on its head but we got to make it better. We're not evaluating and looking at information and interviewing people and addressing those issues, then we're not doing our jobs. And that's a problem. And can I jump in here should just very briefly. When you talk about commissions, I mean I was on the 911 Commission. And one of the things that I thought that kept that so real is that we were, we were are real are real. The ones who are really answering to even though it was a congressional commission mandated commission, and many of you may remember it was really. It was really done because the families really pushed it was a resistance by Congress to have with one of the things that kept it real was that we felt like we were answering to the families. It was a families who were, we were connecting to on a regular basis when we were on the hill, presenting parts of the reports during the process the families were there, they were interviewed after each one of these, each one of these discussions. And so, you know, having those who are impacted or have been impacted is fundamental to being true and being real about anything you're anything kind of whatever you're doing with the commission. And so, if you're if you're going to have any kind of commission you have to have the people that you're answering to not just can set you up, but the people who are going to be affected not only for the reason why you have it will be affected by whatever comes out of that study or commission. I just want to add something we've seen this model in the private sector as product inclusion becomes a bigger apparatus and organizations. It is scalable to find ways to have either D and I experts people for affected by a policy or a tool become spun up and address or reflect on review a given policy system institution, etc, as a response to it being developed or about to launch and so we should be created about how we engage the communities that will be affected by the policies we're building. I just want to also add to it in terms of counterterrorism when they look into the non military tools that they may use against us where we where they would gain that influence from great power competition like if you read the gray zone report done by over at CSIS they talk a lot about the use of non military tools so that's very important to keep track of but only way to understand as you understand the culture of those non state actors and that's really important. Okay, good. So, we'll move on now to the next question. Do you think the principles of development economics could be applied in a way that promotes convergence for America's poorest communities. This is for Bonnie and Anne Marie. I'll let you go first and Marie because I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm happy to answer. I, if if the question is, should we be thinking about development at home as much as abroad. The answer is unequivocally. Yes, I grew up in the world like other places need to be developed. Look at Princeton, New Jersey, look at Camden, New Jersey, look at Newark, New Jersey, look at plenty of towns and cities in the United States, and then look at plenty of towns and cities around the world. Obviously the problems differ because of the big cultural differences, but poverty illiteracy lack of opportunity lack of good nutrition lack of access to energy we've got folks in the across the United States that don't have broadband and access to school. We can learn a lot from other countries. So if the question is, should we stop thinking of development as something that happens out there and poverty is something that happens here, and have a much more integrated approach where we recognize that we can learn. We can learn from India's frugal innovation, we can learn from the way Kenya uses digital money we can learn from the way folks in Brazil use conditional cash transfers. Absolutely. Development economics. Again, this whole foreign policy development versus what we do at home so much of that is based on the very narrative that Camille was talking about, which is a fairly, it's a middle class to to upper middle class, white American narrative. And again, there's a lot in it that is true but there's a lot in it that is not. And I think of us as a country. Again, we reflect and ideally should connect the world, and that that is what I'm proudest of as an American that when I go around the world I say my country reflects the whole world and I always use the examples of the final five of the gymnast team, you know that just triumphed right now I looked at that, and every American's cheering, I hope, and that is that was a team that looked much more like America. And so I, but but the questions are very important one that we have to stop differentiating between development economics is something that's only abroad. Yeah, and I mean, I think that's an excellent answer I think the only the only thing I would just add to that is just to emphasize even more the importance of not looking at things so domestically and internationally and so domestically and globally because so many of the problems and this is another kind of myth that we have and and I want to talk a little bit about this dismiss we have about over there and over here. We have so many problems here that we're not really talking about, you know, and remissioned nutrition food security issues a big, a big problem here, we don't talk about that much. You know, only because of coven 19 are we taking infection diseases seriously as we have, we've always seen it as it's going to be over there. We'll deal with it we'll figure it out well we got the capacity we have the, the medical the global health capacity to deal with it look at all the countries that don't. And now it's a reality check not only not only do we not have a word not even as good as a lot of the countries in terms of how we're dealing with it so when we look at things like that we do ourselves to the service because we have this myth that we are much better prepared that we are much less probably have much fewer problems, and we're not being honest and real about what what's happening here. And so when these and so when the reality hits it's often too late, because then it's too late because we lost a lot of time that we can be better preparing ourselves because we're not looking at ourselves in a better microscope we're too busy looking in a microscope outside the US. So, just to add to just briefly I think we have to stop having such a domestic international view about things, we have to understand a lot of these problems are global, which means they affect everyone, including the US, we directly has such a great global health capacity to deal with all kinds of things that we are not as prepared as we think we are. And that's not a bad thing, as we said before, just knowledge is power so knowing that we're not we can better deal with Last question, I will have only one person answer of the grand time. What positions within national security or government more broadly can significantly influence diverse hiring and DDI initiatives and how Michelle. Well, I think it has to start from the top. You know, you've had one of the candidates in the presidential contest commit to having half of his cabinet be women 5050 right now I think President Trump when he appointed his cabinet 18 of the members of the cabinet were white men and that the every president before that had done better. That was worse than every president since Reagan who had 17 is what I'm trying to say so we've we it was a bit of a backsliding but I think it starts at the top with a president who has a vision with a cabinet that is committed to this as a priority. And then with a White House personnel office and with chief human capital officers who are really looking to industry to other governments for best practices and how do you actually realize greater diversity and inclusion and how do we create that and what do we what are we going to do what are we going to keep track of how are we going to hold people accountable how are we going to incentivize people aligning with that agenda. But I do think it's a question first and foremost of leadership, but you can't stop there with the vision you really have to drive it down through the system to realign the incentives to reward the behavior that you're looking for to hold people accountable when it's not there. So I would say it starts with the president and his cabinet. Thank you Michelle underscoring the importance of leadership and a strong vision, the top down approach. Absolutely. Great. So thank you so much for participating in our Q&A. This is a lovely panel and now I would like to pass the pattern to Mollette. Hi, thank you Asha and I just wanted to say a few closing words and a note of thanks to everyone who participated. Thank you for that great discussion. I think when we thought about and envision this event it really was around this idea of how to make this moment different than those in the past and as Laura mentioned we really had no idea that this conversation would be held on the heels of such another unjust shooting of a black man in this country and sort of a renewed series of protests around some of these issues. And it's really kind of a sobering reminder that the progress on these issues that are so complex and so embedded really in the fabric of our society in our country that progress can be fragile. And so we're really grateful for New America wanting to co-host this discussion and for the panelists who brought forward so many ideas to think about as we move forward. It's clear that progress really will depend on ensuring that our communities are diverse and you know reflect all parts of this country. We talked a lot about the issues of workforce and pipeline and really rebuilding institutions to bring the best of what America has to offer. But you know that's really the first step. It goes beyond that and thinking about issues of climate and and the workforce and who are we empowering and how who gets in the room and who is at the table and harder but also important are you know what are the policies I would change we had different people making the decisions. And Alonzo mentioned sort of this need for a coherent policy that brings together national interests into play and uses our assets equally and it's a really important sort of point in thinking going forward. Progress also depends on building these platforms that help to elevate people of color in these spaces so diversity and national security network and w caps are two examples and how we as a collective community can support these efforts. But really progress depends on holding all people accountable. Those gatekeepers those leaders. We talked about the importance of individual leaders and you know as Bonnie mentioned the continuous push that needs to happen at an individual level. But as Alonzo also mentioned that you know truly transformative change within organizations requires challenging traditional mindsets and the need to go beyond the individuals for systemic change. So how do we think about what metrics are in place to hold people accountable. How do we align incentive structures. And then finally at the day really progress at the end of the day progress will depend on the actions of the people in this room. As Michelle noted this is a moment that we can't ignore. How do we deal with the impact that all of this has on the future of our country and our ability to lead. And so continuing to ask the hard questions continuing to be uncomfortable. How do we bridge the divide between who we are and who we say we are who are we really who do we want to be. Are we holding up the mirror to ourselves. And I thought Michelle made an important point and I'm ad-libbing here so early on but you know the power of America is really the power of our example. And we set an example by our actions. So thank you all for taking the time in this afternoon to continue these discussions and hope to really move collectively towards this reality that that maybe George Floyd really did change the world. And really heartfelt thanks to the new America team for pulling this together and hosting all of the panelists all of these excellent remarks. Look forward to the next round of these conversations so thank you all and does anyone from New America want to say anything to close. I will just again thank my team. I want to thank Heather, Robert and Alex start from political reform who have been really sort of a catalyst for us in reaching out and embracing both networks, both diversity and national security network and W caps and also our spectacular events team we just love them and you can't see them but they're behind the scenes and they make things happen seamlessly with lots of different back and forth so my thanks to them and my thanks to all of you.