 I now would like to tee us up for our next panel, which is about unpredictable instability. And we heard from Secretary Albright this morning that unpredictability sometimes is really interesting, but unpredictability all the time is dangerous. And we've also heard a lot about the kinds of challenges that face us around the globe that include crises all around from pandemics to the refugee flows to the new rise of great power. So I'm delighted that we have a distinguished panel here today to talk to us about that. And I'd like to introduce our moderator, Charles Lane, who's a successful columnist for the Washington Post and a regular on Fox News Sunday. Please join me in welcoming Chuck Lane. Well, life is full of surprises. It's a revelation to learn that I'm a successful columnist, but I appreciate hearing that. Thank you very much. And let's jump right in with our panel. And the first thing I'll do is just set the stage for you a little bit. I was talking to my two panelists who are Army guys about that old saying no plan survives its first contact with the enemy. And I think many an administration quite apart from armies could testify to the truth of that aphorism. New presidents tend to come in with a big plan about how they're going to either change the previous form policy or change the world. And those administrations tend to find out that the world has other plans for them. And they're quickly encountered with the need to improvise and come up with a new plan to deal with the new reality. And so that's going to be our theme for this panel and honestly think couldn't come up with a better group of four people to address that issue. I will introduce them really quickly and then we'll just jump in to preserve the maximum amount of time for your participation for questions from the audience later on. So to my extreme left not ideologically but just over there on the left is General Jack Keane who in addition to his very distinguished service in the U.S. Army is now the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. On his immediate right is Juliette Kayam who's a national security analyst for CNN. Then we have the brand new CEO of the World Bank Dr. Kristalina Georgieva who just prior has just arrived at the World Bank in Washington just prior to that was in charge of humanitarian issues for the European Commission. And then right here on my left again these are not ideological references. I'm very comfortable. Is Dr. James Carrafano. He's the vice president for foreign defense policy at the Heritage Foundation and has been helping out with the transition of the incoming Trump administration. So what I'd like to do in the first part of the panel is starting with General Keane ask each of the panelists to briefly give us their thought on where the surprise might come from. Now obviously if we could predict it it wouldn't be a surprise but we're going to try the exercise of trying to identify in advance what the black swan might be over the next four years facing the Trump administration. General Keane you want to take over. Charles thank you. Now being my colleague up here mentioned this other network. I think it was described as CNN. Is that what it was. I just want to mention that Charles is a contributor on Fox News as I am and we are colleagues and proud to be associated with that particular network. Listen I want to thank USIP for what you're doing here today. I think this is the third time that you established this platform and it makes a lot of sense to bring back the incumbent administration and and and those who are taking over and there's obviously a transition experience going on that's divorced from this but you know the public display that I saw some of it on the internet this morning between the principles and both administrations is really quite encouraging. We've had such a polarizing experience these last number of years that maybe there's some encouragement that are very foundational we all have a get in common together virtually that even though we disagree on public policy the fact that we all are very concerned about national security protection of the American people our basic freedoms our values we all have that in common and and we're willing to sacrifice quite a bit to assure it's accomplished and that was very much on display today as we witnessed the principles from both administrations talking to all of you so well done USIP. There's a couple of certainties that's going to face a new administration one is that they will have strategic surprise that's a fact this is the United States a global leader and we've had strategic surprise dramatically beginning in World War II all the way to the present and the second thing is despite our best efforts up here to predict what will be the strategic surprise of the Trump administration if history is our guide we will fail miserably because no one has ever been able to predict the strategic surprise accurately of an incoming administration but nonetheless as we all know and those who have served at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue know that the world has a way of coming to the doorstep of the White House regardless of what their particular domestic agenda is or foreign policy agenda and to certain degree it will move them possibly in a different direction and that's the reality of it you go back and history and it's very pregnant how that impacted administrations post World War II the Korean War no one expected it the Bay of Pigs invasion the Vietnam War protracted war and then we have the collapse of the Soviet Union we have Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait we have Milosevic fighting four wars in Europe and the Europeans at least for most of that was sort of powerless to do much of anything about it we have 9 11 to be sure in the Bush administration but we also have 15 years of protracted war since 9 11 which I would tell you also is a strategic surprise to most of us we had the Arab Spring another strategic surprise in the Middle East that has fundamentally changed the contours of the Middle East with failed states civil wars radical Islamists only taking advantage of the conditions that that exists there so in my judgment there the main contour of what this administration will I think is facing is the fact that there are two growing powers in the world who want to change the fundamental international world order as we know it and they are willing to take degrees of risk to achieve that because they believe it is in their national interest to do so at the expense of the United States and its allies why because they refuse to accept that world order that international order that the United States had helped design post World War II with the major institutions one of them represented here on the stage the IMF the United Nations political military alliances throughout the world so that the calamity of World War 200 million people killed would not be repeated again those nations are certainly Russia and China and one is a much more of a near-term problem Russia and China considerably longer term problem but we'll be there and I think this is most obvious to everybody sitting in the room but it is there and we have to deal with it and face it in terms of something I think that may trouble us is the nexus of transnational actors and cyber technology it is just a matter of time for our transnational actors to acquire the technological means to attack our critical infrastructure and as such reversing that because they're not a nation state we don't have the capability that mutual assured destruction did with nuclear power to modify that behavior in other words they can attack our financial and banking infrastructure they can attack our utility infrastructure they they can attack our transportation infrastructure those are critical infrastructures in the United States and you know as well as I do they are not properly defended as we speak today the nuclear infrastructure of the United States is properly defended I'm talking about military nuclear power and also our military networks are properly defended nation states have already tried some of this to be sure and that's going to increase but I think the most troublesome thing because you can't stop the behavior except by attacking back at it is a transnational actor that nexus with with that kind of technology that is a potential surprise for us and and so we don't minimize it remember usama bin laden because we had colleague shake mohammed in our jailhouse for so many years we had a lot of information from him that he volunteered to us you know after he the extended interrogation technique was applied but nonetheless he gave it to us and one of the things we found out was the attack on the united states was driven by usama bin laden principally because he thought he could collapse our moral and political will by attacking our economic center our military center and our government center he didn't understand the american people to be sure but nonetheless it was a realistic strategic objective at least from their perspective to try and that certainly is something that the transnational actors out there today would certainly want to take on they have never ever given up the idea of using wmd on the united states any means to hurt and kill us and certainly if they can acquire cyber as a means to do it they i'm convinced they're going to do it thank you general keen uh juliet thank you it's a pleasure to be here and thank you for having me so i came out of the department of homeland security i was assistant secretary there so i thought i just lay out some of my thoughts i know you're involved with the transition and it's a funny department and so thought i would lay out sort of where we were i served on the transition for obama from president bush and we got briefed on every super squirrely thing that was going on and every you know potential enemy and of course and we thought we had it down right and then of course the first real crisis ended up being this unknown virus known as h1n1 which was coming in from mexico there was no known vaccine at the time um and that's what is going to happen to the trump administration you're sort of thinking about one thing and then something borderless transnational comes around so i want to talk a little bit about more governance and some of the challenges ahead for a homeland which is very different than i think when we talk about war or other issues because it is um still i would say a work in progress um although the department is much older and the apparatus is a little bit more refined one of the issues that will certainly come up and there's just going to be no question about it because it's very difficult to uh sort of undermine or limit the threat that we now face is this sort of you know call it what you will lone wolf whack-a-mole terrorism whatever it's individuals who are more likely than not not directed by isis maybe inspired by isis but what we're seeing in the more recent cases is what you might call sort of isis justified people who have a lot of things going on muslim americans or converts we don't know what's up with fort lauderdale um who um are uh looking to isis to give them justification so there's sort of three different ranges i worry about the isis directed a lot less than the other two um and those will not those will happen in the united states but more specifically they're going to happen in a state and then they happen in a city and that is a very different dynamic than a wartime footing because the challenge for homeland security is really a governance challenge in this country it is 50 governors all with their own opinions 250 plus major cities all with their own opinions all with their own attitudes all with their own budgets about how much they are going to prepare and respond to a threat that is very very hard to predict predict and is showing up in places you know maybe you new york but also orlando you know so i think that that will continue to be a challenge and how a new administration keeps governors who are focused on a lot of different things and mayors who are focused on you know the potential teacher strike and picking up the trash how you keep them focused on public safety and security for an apparatus that is dealing with all sorts of other things so that is going to be i think a challenge in terms of the sort of into what we would call the intergovernmental aspects for any administration and in the absence of a major event which can unify a country like 9 11 for you know the tragedy that unifies these more individual cases are really sort of local responses in many ways so we have to make sure that local and state public safety entities are ready to respond to the whatever because we can't answer the whatever we don't know what it's going to be the second issue is the department itself i know this is an international audience but there's a lot of people domestically you know we always say oh it's a new department it's still figuring itself out and it's it is but it's also either in four eight years it's not going to be so new and so figuring out what lanes the department is in and what it's good at i think is not both a challenge and an opportunity for the new administration because once again we don't know you know there's i can name a thousand threats that could happen obviously terrorism created a department of homeland security and the apparatus that it helps fund on the state and local level but we have everything from immigration to viruses to cyber attacks and other things the third issue is going to be i think and and the thing that might very likely challenge um and uh administration is is some major uh natural event um and and it will it will challenge the way we live in this country in the ways that um the hurricane Katrina respond did not uh we seem to be rebuilding New Orleans as it is or that hurricane sandy is just starting to um we could debate the causes or whatever i'm not interested in that but some city or state will be impacted in a major way and i think that over the next four eight years um as uh as an administration and as a um as as mayors and governors will begin to face whether we don't change the way we live in in america the challenge for our homeland security is of course its size right i mean and that we promote flow i mean people always say you know airport security why can't we be more like israel i said well you put 900 thousand people in the air every day as the department does that's a really hard comparison right you put tens of millions of people on uh subway systems that's a really hard comparison to compare us to any country we value the flow of people goods and ideas there's going to be differences about how much flow you want and i think um i think the challenge ahead in particular with sort of mega storms or major events will be do we begin to think differently about how we live as a society in a country to protect uh uh communities and to protect in particular um uh the seacoast the department of homeland security owns the coast guard also owns fema so it is going to be challenged i think sooner rather than later in a lot of these efforts uh maybe uh an international uh perspective you're sort of fresh off an experience where europe certainly came in for a big surprise a strategic surprise in 2015 well i first i would start with um a recognition that what is new in the world of crisis is not only that they are more frequent and more profound but also they do not have good manners they don't wait their turn they come they overlap with each other uh and actually what is unpredictable uh obviously we can't quite see but we can do a much better job in scanning the predictable and being sure that at least the predictable is kind of under control in my view there are three things that we need to watch in 2017 very carefully one since i come from europe i cannot not say the elections in europe there are three very critical elections march uh april and then in the summer uh the netherlands france germany what is going to be happening around the dates of these elections can have a um unpredictable impact on the results um and actually we have seen in europe so far a remarkable resilience of democracies i was in uh belgium in in brussels on the 23rd of march when the attack in brussels happened and the reaction we all had was stand up be counted our our way of life is not going to be shaken we i went to um their equivalent of the kennedy center bozar uh to a concert and the hall was packed and many people were there to make a statement but if we continue to have soft target attacks in europe would that have a risk and i think this is something to watch very carefully secondly i call it the belt of trouble for a lack of better word but if you take the continent of africa and you start from mali then northern nigeria then you go to central african republic south sudan somalia this is kind of your belt and then you have above the belt libya which we have forgotten to talk about but it's there and then if you cross uh in the middle east of course here you reckon then you go a little further to afghanistan all this is potentially a source of shock uh because the cumulative impact of this footprint of of conflicts on by the way and i didn't mention this the uh congo drc i mean there is a deal would this deal hold and what would be the impact of of this deal not holding so we have this to to to watch i would add you talk about natural events in the united states but we haven't had recently a major drought either in the horn of africa or in the sahel the cycle of drought has shortened the last one when i was humanitarian commissioner 2011 is it now just about time to be hit again this we need to to watch and my third point would be the economy of the world we have to recognize now i am with colleagues from the world bank who were supposed to tell me we have a report coming at four o'clock so whatever i say is a bargain for now but we are coming with the with the report that basically says the growth projections for the world not so fantastic obviously we would see what may be a tax package in us and what would be the impact of this package on growth but we are in the world economy where if there is a big shock in a sizable country and i'm not going to name them but you can all think of what who they may be and then this is all combined in a multiplicity of crisis how are we prepared for it and i guess the short answer is not so well but on the to finish on a positive side i think there is now a huge recognition in governments and institutions like my like mine the world bank that scanning the horizon for the science of trouble being able to to have a much more risk management frame of mind this is the new normal this is where we we are to to be and hopefully we would see every year doing better in the scanning the horizon assessing risk and taking appropriate precautionary action thank you uh yeah i'm totally not going to answer the question well i want to depressing so no no no i want to i want to actually answer a question which i think is more important which is why i think regardless of what the the crisis that we don't know is these guys might actually do okay and i have i have three uh points for my optimism one is the presidential transition law because we've actually never done a presidential transition like this because the law was in place in 2012 but they didn't transition anything so this is the first time we've ever exercised the law and i think fundamentally the law has done a good thing in a sense it enables putting in place a rather substantial infrastructure before the election and that's particularly important for a a team that's coming in which is outside of government because we don't have shadow governments like a lot of parliamentary governments so and we don't so we don't have shadow ministers and we don't have people that really understand the day-to-day governance of what's going on and part of what a transition team does is actually pretty unglamorous it's it's really like doing due diligence on a on an acquisition it's explaining what you're taking over and so with the law it does it really enables the folks who are out running on a campaign to to fall in on some training wheels and to begin that process of transition i think much much more efficiently than we've ever done before and that of course was the intent after 9 11 to do that and i i think that's generally successful so the second is i think is is this administration i i think this administration has really tried very very hard to replicate the the kind of effort that president bush made in transitioning to president obama and i think they've done a very good faith job i mean certainly for the agency that i've been working with most closely department of home and security um j johnson's done a remarkable job i'm the department of home and security could not have been more helpful and productive in helping people understand what what they were assuming command of and and i think that's generally true across government i think it's been enormously helpful and when you talk about passing the baton literally there are actually people that are passing the baton and not talking about politics and it's i think been very gratifying for me as an american citizen the third thing is is you know on january 13th they uh they do a left right exercise is uh um crisis management exercise with the incoming and outcoming s ones and uh the and it and as somebody has worked in this stuff forever um you know it's true mucky said you know no plans to rise contact with the enemy but eisenhower's call it carlary was his planning plans are useless but planning is everything and so notion is is preparing to prepare is in itself maybe the best hedge against uncertainty and um one of the and they've made a lot of i think it's a lot of progress one area in particular is in in dealing with a cyber security response because literally there was no plan and over the course of eight years they've actually put together a cyber security response structure in the federal government you could argue it's not perfect it's not exactly maybe what you want but it but it was better than what we had before which was nothing and so that's one area of great concern that that i think they've made good progress and i would really i would hope that they're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water so there actually has been good work in terms of putting the structure together on how to deal with uncertainty and uh and hopefully this this team will pick that up from the uh from the last team and move forward on that so i'm i'm planning on going to sleep on january 20th and sleeping pretty soundly and waking up on the 21st and thinking the world will still be here so what time are you going to sleep on that one yeah i'll be pretty early yeah um well thank you all for those uh really interesting comments i warned you i might improvise and i think you've already anticipated um part of what we were planning to do in our second round of questions which is to talk about the importance of crisis preparation and getting ahead of problems i wanted to maybe uh get your reflection on something um that Dr. Georgieva pointed out which is by implication some of the uncertainty and some of the crisis in the next four years might come from the developed world from the what is all we've always thought of as the more stable areas of the globe i i hope it's not too risky to say the biggest shock maybe in world affairs this year was generated by the united states in our very own election um certainly not a flood or a epidemic but a big shock to people's expectations uh and i'd like to ask each of you to reflect on that and ask whether we've reached a point in world affairs where we really can assume any particular area is a sort of a reservoir of stability or whether this instability is maybe something that's been globalized along with everything else who wants to take a crack at that i i'm gonna start because this brings a very interesting memory 20 or 2011 maybe it was um i had a visitor in brussels at that time i was in charge of humanitarian affairs and crisis response and the visitor was greek fugati the fema administrator somebody who grew up in the ranks from a firefighter to run fema and to my to my taste very well so i asked greek what are your priorities and his answer was two one think of the unthinkable to prepare the united states to receive international assistance if the unthinkable happens and now what shook me as a european was i never thought i would live long enough to hear somebody from the united states to say i want to prepare the united states to receive international assistance but the point is that we actually are in a world where trouble travels shocks especially those that are caused by the evil of men in a technologically connected world and those caused by by nature they absolutely put a soul on equal footing who is to say i mean if you remember we in europe not that long ago were victims of our own stupidity uh in the second world war and then we were the refugees united nations agency for refugees was created for us um who is to say that in the world there wouldn't be a situation in which these shocks are to be to be there but this being said i just want to stress two very important things because they lead to our responsibilities one developed countries may now be more at risk of multiplicity of shocks but we are much better prepared we are much more resilient because we have strong institutions we have strong economies and therefore too we have an obligation to work on resilience everywhere because if we don't trouble travels it is gonna come and bite the seed in the butt that's a that's a technical term uh general general key general key i i think that's uh almost self-evident uh frankly because we are part of the developed world and as i mentioned the the two revisionist powers are trying to change the world order that we helped develop we're going to be challenged and that is already in evidence secondly the terrorists the radicals their target is largely the developed world for similar reasons because the developed world has global impact politically economically and socially and they believe it's that pollution which has brought them to the radicalized ideology so ultimately we are always going to be their objective and that is going to continue with that part of the problem that we have uh with the radicalization of people ideologically and religiously motivated to kill the fellow citizens of the kill others this is a generational problem that we have even not even come close to dealing with we don't have a single alliance that i'm aware of to combat the problem we haven't tried to develop a comprehensive strategy uh to deal with it we have people in america that think we can develop a counter ideology strategy to deal with the radicalization of largely muslims i find that to be quite absurd i think we need to have the people who are involved in that uh and develop the counter ideological arguments for religious people themselves political leaders themselves who are part of the nations where these conditions are allowed to fester and and people become radicalized but we definitely need if we have a a radicalized problem like i think we do and we can describe it now as almost a global jihad why aren't we not approaching the problem globally to deal with the ideology similar to we've done be in the past we we did this with post-world war two and we intimidated by communist ideology every single european country looked at that saw that as a formidable threat and no country by itself could stand up against the the soviet union and the war saw a pact so we put together what a political and military alliance and developed a containment strategy that worked we were motivated by the intimidation certainly of that ideology and what it portended for all of our our freedom loving people where is that in dealing with this we don't have it and and i think that's a sad commentary this this is why i'm encouraged about this administration i'm not i'm not talking about politics now i'm just talking about leadership american leadership in the world has a role to play and we can play a role here we don't craft the strategy but we can bring people together and say look at we got to get we got to get organized here we got to think through this problem we do have a generational problem these people keep killing us and we got to figure out a way to stop it my profession can only do some of this the kinetic solution is just a portion of it and it has a rightful role to play to hold this horrific behavior accountable it has appropriate role to play but i would suggest to you it is a smaller role than what needs to be played to push back on the political and religious ideology and that's where we got to get to and thoughtful leaders of the world i'm convinced can do this american leaders i think we can help possibly organize that effort and empower it we don't have to come up with the answers they can come up with the answers julia so i just you know in response to your question about uh multiple crises and crisis preparation we often talk about resiliency and that sort of the word has sort of a zeitgeist and everyone talks about we just need to be more resilient um you know if we just did more yoga we would all be fine kind of attitude and and i think it's yeah i remind me every morning but uh it doesn't work um but the i want to remind people that you know resiliency is actually investments in making city stronger response capability stronger um having interconnected systems of critical infrastructure built in a way that if the best so just assume that the bad thing is going to happen because most of us in this field have to just assume that how do you stop the cascading losses how do you have failsafe systems that stop the bad thing from happening and i think that as we try to stop bad things from happening which obviously prevention and mitigation are key um also these real investments in what it means to be to be built resilient doesn't mean that you know people in manhattan you know you know or in new york like you know we just keep rebuilding the same way like in the last time you know it floods every time or do you know can we build subway systems that are that are stronger or having to do with terrorism you know look i came from boston i oversaw the boston marathon security planning two you know up till two years before the boston marathon attack we in boston like to say oh boston strong it's our irish you know stock that's what got it through it it let's just be i mean bs what got it through us is while three people died at the finish line over 300 people who were sent to hospitals did not die right and that doesn't happen in crisis management that ratio is too good to be true um and those were a lot of bad mistakes but part of that was the training investment in crisis management in engaging a public health apparatus that was ready to surge capacity if something like that would happen that is what strong and resilient is you try to stop the three from dying and the attack that happens but also invest real investments cost money in also trying to minimize the harm in a world in which we have to assume bad things will consistently happen though we wish they wouldn't um we're just about ready for our question answer period so i'd like the people are going to be handling the mics to prep but i want to give jim a chance to say a word on that actually i want to go back to your original question because i actually thought it's one of the true uh threads of bipartisanship that's gone through the last two days and i think should not be lost is and because what i hear from you know left and right and conservative and progressive and the republican and democrat is nobody disputes the notion that the peace and stability of europe the middle east and asia are all of vital interest in united states uh and uh and that and uh and you have to get equal attention all three of those not that they all have to be the land of milk and honey or anything anybody expect that middle east anytime too but the notion of a of a large uh uh regional um disruption in any three of those regions is incredibly damaging to us and the and job one of the next president is whether you want to run the threat of radicalization or cyber or whatever that that uh that all three of important all three of our equal importance and you don't get credit for two out of three um so i think the notion of an asian pivot however is is inappropriate for the next president that uh that and each region demands a different solution set and and has to be up with its own term because i don't think you can make big global tradeoffs to say well we'll you know we'll divide up you take this part of the world and i'll take that part of the world um each region is going to have to be dealt with on its own uh in its own uh uh case and obviously that they're going to impact one another some agree but but they each demand equal attention and i do think that's bipartisan i mean we could argue about the specific sets of what you do but i i i think there is broad recognition that we all need a roll of our sleeves and we need to care about all three okay thank you very much i'm gonna move a little bit and i have my magic pen out here if you see it pointing at you it means it's your turn to ask a question so i'm pointing at you would and and when i point the magic pen at you that also triggers your identifying yourself and then asking a succinct question it's one um it's uh formerly under secretary's date um in the obama administration for economic growth energy and the environment i just like to make two points and raise one set of questions one is arguably over the last decade the most serious crisis facing the industrialized countries has been the financial crisis um because it not only had adverse financial circumstances but very strongly adverse political circumstances which we're still dealing with throughout the western world europe and the united states in particular which argues for the increased emphasis on maintaining the legitimacy and the credibility and the resilience of international financial and trade institutions the second is that we discussed early earlier today a whole series of strategic issues but there was very little discussion of the role that increased trade and trade deals should play and had been anticipated to play t-tip and and t-p-p in bolstering uh our alliances our alliances in the pacific with t-p-p and our alliance in europe with t-tip now problem is my concern over the future and and if this is a bipartisan issue it's not one or the other because we saw in the campaign both candidates opposed t-p-p my question future is the incoming administration really would be weaker and the united states would be in a worse position if there was not stronger support for global institutions which were extremely helpful in 2007 2008 if we let those institutions languish if we don't give them support it seems to me the world and the united states are much more vulnerable to a financial crisis or to a trade war this to me is a big problem the second what does this administration do and what does the if we don't have t-p-p if we don't have t-tip what is the alternative to demonstrating to other countries that we are major players on trade that we're reliable partners on trade and international economic issues then it seems to me it weakens our credibility not just in the economic area but on national security and on political issues as well so i'd like to pose these two challenges to our panel how do we strengthen the legitimacy and of the international institutions on which we depend and if we don't support t-p-p or t-tip what do we do to demonstrate our trade credibility and therefore underpin our national security and our foreign policy credibility in asia and in europe so that's a lot to chew on who wants to take a shot at it since since it is uh i'm here from one of the global institutions i feel feel obliged to uh to come on that question actually i'm very happy to come on that question of course in a world that is more interconnected and shock prone winning needs stronger buffers we need the capacity when a shock occurs somewhere to very swiftly move resources and make sure that it is protected from the rest of the world is protected from a contagion just going back to the general key is a very good point on the necessity to deal with these threats at source because militarily we can do you can do some but not everything is there anybody in the audience who like me was born on the other side of the iron curtain the bronx the bro that color a little further a little further a little further that iron curtain in europe so i see people raising their hands look what how did you win the cold war you won it of course with smart strategy and engagement but basically economically you drove our system at that time central planning to its knees and it went bankrupt and we were free well we need a similar massive investment in areas of instability i think of my institution as the world bank as the critical investor in areas that otherwise would fall in the hands of bad people and stay there for a long time as well as to pull these areas from the hands of bad people and bring them back to a more civilized place but global institutions have an also an obligation to be oriented towards the future to make the investments that would make a difference in the world of tomorrow and what are these investments well first we do need to assess economically and financially where the risks are and be able to put a price stack on them and actually the world bank did a study astonishing astonishing number 14 trillion dollars is the cost of conflict and violence to the world economy obviously cutting this cost down on its own is a very good thing to do but then we have to be much more creative and this is my second point in being able to lean forward at the time of crisis anticipate crisis act early lean forward so we prevent the crisis into sucking in world resources and creating instability to do so we must rely much more actively on these global institutions to create the environment for the private sector to step in because what gives me grief at night what makes me not go to sleep just the idea of the demographic boom that is happening exactly in this belt of trouble I was describing Nigeria turning into a one billion people country well for that not to happen or to happen without creating huge instability we need jobs for people we need well we need first education for boys and girls and then we need jobs for people we need people to stay where they are and believe you me from an european perspective I saw how destabilizing it would be when people are on the move unexpected it in big numbers so to to sum it up I'm talking about my institution the world bank I do see the world bank today as necessary as it was after the second world war to make that investment instability in the world in the way that creates a chance for us to cut down the cost of destruction and of course provide the buffer to the world and not only not only from a security standpoint also from a financial standpoint I would leave the other panelists to venture on the topic of trade so I don't take all the air in that question well I think we have a question here Eileen shields west refugees international so one of the most destabilizing forces in the world today is the large number 65 million people who are displaced because of climate conflict or economic migration and my question is what are we well the US is do we perceive that as a threat and that we have a role in mitigating that threat or we rely on Europe to deal with it as we know that's not successful or the neighboring countries who have Lebanon and Jordan and and Turkey of course so senator Kerry brought up the idea of a new Marshall plan this morning which would encompass Middle East Africa and Asia is that possible doable is that even in the cards with the new administration I'll take that enough about the new administration to the comment in terms of what they would do and I'm not sure anybody here truly does but I would suggest this first of all thanks for the question we have to go to what is causing that problem we certainly have to treat it the migration that we show explode in Europe the 11 million people that have displaced in Syria is a real humanitarian crisis I'm frustrated by the fact that it's allowed to linger as long as it has based on our own public policy to be frank about it but these challenges that we have in the Middle East and that political social economic conditions that are essentially driving those challenges we have to help our Middle Eastern friends deal with these problems and we have to be very frank with them about some of these conditions that are there and and help them shape the improvements that's necessary the civil wars the Arab spring has all grown up as a manifestation of those conditions the social disenfranchisement lack of political participation and the lack of economic opportunity our major drivers to the instability and turmoil that we that we see there yes for something like the Middle East some fashion of a Marshall plan I would agree with Secretary Kerry on that although I don't agree with some of his other public policies let me just full disclosure here as it comes to Syria some of the other issues in the Middle East but I definitely think we have to look at that that entire area holistically and given the millions of people that are under the age of 30 as you know in that region and economic and social disenfranchisement they feel this problem is going to get worse before it gets better and you know you can look at the Middle East from an American perspective and wring your hands and say this has gotten worse ever since we tried to do something about it the best course of action is to just pull back and try to contain this problem as best we can and let them solve this themselves this is not our problem to solve it culturally very different the topography is very different and this is much their problem and that's 1935 europe all over again thinking that's what that is and and and that's being tired of world war one and not expecting Nazism and that polluting ideology is going to contaminate anybody it'll go away just leave it alone and how horrible a mistake did those leaders who are plagued by the experience of world war one have to suffer as a result of it in terms of their people we cannot afford to not do something about this problem and it's going to take a lot of thoughtfulness and comprehensive strategy and participation with our friends in the region to do it we got to get the europeans involved in it because they are all touched by this crisis that exists there in terms of the united states and we really think of the south north challenge that we're going to have or if we don't have it already with minors and undocumented minors trying to come here and then also mass migrations after some catastrophe i mean look when the Haiti earthquake happened i know we like to feel good about ourselves and say we're going to deploy resources and help the Haitians what really did animate all of the activity was a utter fear of a mass migration out of Haiti that would sort of show up on the shores of Florida that's not a bad thing i think it's important that we protect our borders but that we have to continue to assist these countries that might face mass migration problems not just from an altruistic you know de-conflict perspective but also because those challenges will find their way here just given how the united states so often serves as a magnet we can try to close our borders which uh uh but you know the oceans are hard to close um a lot of times we have a question here hello shon shon callahan with catholic relief services i wanted to ask you a little bit about values and uh it sounds like a little bit what i'm hearing is a little bit of a bunker mentality of bunker america and protecting ourselves and when i was studying history when i was young one of the things that that we were very proud of is we were the new world and the old world was kind of state and that new world was young and vibrant and energetic and i was in kenya a month ago and talking to some people and they started describing us as the old world that they were the young countries that they were the vibrant ones that latin america was young countries as well so those continents and that we were more of a status quo power so my question is the fact that we have migrants coming here to a certain degree is a good thing because we must be doing something right but what is the importance of the values of that optimism and that energy and that we don't close ourselves down but open ourselves out and invest in the continent of africa and latin america and other places so that they see feel and have hope in the future and can trust in the united states as opposed to thinking we're a status quo power out to protect ourselves it is very beautifully said that what in in the end determines our choices is who we are and one thing i learned when i was commissioned for humanitarian aid going to this devastated places was that europeans americans the people from this old world very good people very very generous willing to put their lives at risk to save the lives of others but somehow talking about being goodness is being good is not it doesn't cut through goodness tends to be quiet evil very loud and you're right that what makes us so strong is we do have this core values of solidarity sharing the opportunities with with others and we have to amplify this voice of goodness but we also have to be mindful that our people in our countries are anxious they're anxious for reasons and not look with disrespect to this anxiety and look for solutions that that are based on these values but they're also good for the for my neighbors and my family for their comfort for their strength of mind and by the way i just wanted to say that retired general flin in an interview with ferid Zakaria talked about the marshal clan he is the forthcoming national security advisor he talked about the necessity to invest very heavily in the countries that are more must conflict problems so it resonates very much with the the position we have taken on this panel but thank you for bringing that up we talked we talked about the strategic surprises and general keen said that we can never predict those those crises so what i would like to do is actually give you a concrete example and see how you would respond and juliet already started mentioning with Haiti but state collapse is clearly one of the things that we are facing and then venezuela is probably what the country that was probably called nearest to united states that will collapse very soon imagine a situation where you have a collapse of the state in venezuela with civil war the government killing lots of people lots of refugees and it's close to united states close to mexico colombia etc what would you recommend the new administration to do in a case initiation like that or easy if i could add the crisis in venezuela what what ought to be done to prepare for it right now as well as to cope with it if it when it happens even is you want to try that jim i don't you know in terms of which was your second question the in preparing for the future any new administration most importantly from a national security perspective has got to develop a national security strategy not something that's you know thrown in the whole box and nobody reads but something that's thoughtfully put together that actually becomes a foundation of the work that you're about to do on behalf of the united states and then you have to have the processes that support all of that and the objectives that you're trying to achieve and some accountability for that this is organization will stuff that is boring is all daylights but it really makes a difference and you can see when you look at the nsc and how it operates differently under under administrations and how some operate can sit will be better because these systems are in place and another thing i think the interagency should do is something it's embedded in me because of my years of experience with the military one of the reasons why we're able to deal with different enemies as well as we can is because we prepare so much based on different scenarios as we call it so we do we don't call it crisis management but we do this kind of crisis management against different enemies so that we're prepared to deal with the unexpected as a natural condition of warfare and therefore i believe we likely do it better than anybody in the world however most government entities even those that deal with crisis management don't do that because they use the excuse that day-to-day business is too much too consuming and we're never going to get able to get the principles involved and we got to get past that and only when you can get the attention of the principles can can this really work and i would suggest that that is something that possibly general flin with his military back when i haven't had this conversation with him could maybe put in play so that you can deal with a crisis like venezuela or a problem with nuclear weapons in pakistan you know we can we can make a laundry list of of things that need to be done and i'll just stop there somebody else at this experience in europe of being all of a sudden faced with a massive displacement of people and very and basically economies in our region in huge trouble i would say do european steroids do what europe did much faster what europe did in the end is exactly the right thing massive financial package for the countries in the region that are in trouble where refugees come from or our hosting refugees reinforcement of the border control so we know who is coming and we can give some comfort to the population that we know who is coming and fast assessment of where in the european economy people actually can find jobs be be be prepared to to do that when we have the situation you describe a country that is facing political collapse is what your your scenario then of course it is the politics that needs to be fixed but if there is no massive financial assistance then fixing it would be costly over medium term and less likely to be to be successful and of course domestic politics is domestic politics it would be for the people there to to figure it out but if they're left on their own they pay a very high price price the rest of us pay a very high price we did it in europe over period of 18 months for fairness to us i don't know a country that or a region that would have a million people coming and this would not be a shock but we we have to be much faster we have to be much less wishful thinking in kind of saying i can i wish it to go away concentrate on on on a solution and act very quickly i think we have about enough time for one more question which is good because we have one more question thank you john arden more from the university of virginia my comment actually relates to an earlier period in which i had the great privilege of being the first chairman of the board of the united states institute of peace and i had a wonderful time in talking to senator spartan martin aga a leading democrat about what he wanted for this great institution and then sitting immediately next to ronald reagan the then president of the united states a wonderful republican about what he wanted from this institution and i believe that spartan martin aga and president ronald reagan would just be enormously pleased and excited to see the wonderful success of this institution that was literally created by them and that created then all of the wonderful leadership that it currently has had with all the many chairman and others this this wonderful agency is doing extraordinary work that i think needs to be more broadly called the attention of the world generally not just the american people second general comment is one of the things i think as a concept that needs to be put on the table somewhat more strongly than i've heard it today as we all seek the things i think that we share in common we would like to see greater economic development we would like to see a reduction in in conflict and war we would like to see greater human rights we would like to see far greater health and wellness generally for people around the world but we know the thing the aggregate of things that actually correlates with all of those things more strongly than virtually anything else we found it is democratic governance the rule of law good governance generally and so i would suggest that one of the things we need to be talking about is not just a marshal plan it is the question of how do we actually get out there much more effectively in promoting democracy rule of law and good governance and that we not forget the enormous importance of those things as we think about this for example let's say in realist terms but that we understand realistically the thing that really does correlate or all of these things relating to governance and we see so much of this now a few years ago there was a very very fine proposal to create a democracy rule of law training center for all of africa that would be funded half by the united states a id that would be funded half by the european union i still think that would be one of the single most important things you could do in trying to assist africa that would then be turned over in a short period uh to the african union but i hope that we put on the table in all of our discussions democracy rule of law good governance i i'm i'm a i'm a secret closet fan of usip and a and a steve and nancy thing but i don't want that to get out in public but but uh but i want to run up to that to my comment about why i'm a fan because i think it relates to your comment which is i i hate we need an interagency solution i hate that we need to i hate those things right this notion that we can only solve a problem if everybody freaking gets involved i'm not how many people have been involved in government but when they say a whole of government i i really kind of blink right the i think the answer is whether it's governance or development what you need is the right combination of tools at the right time in the right place to get the job done and it's not always a trope of a marshal plan or something else sometime there might be a very finesse of instrument and so one of the reasons why i love usip particularly what nancy and steve have done is what they have done in some ways in very humble ways is they put together some tools for the tool kit which don't fit in kind of traditional big government programs don't necessarily aren't this thing you would find in the ngo but they live in that little shadow space in between where somehow that's just kind of a nice tool and just the right piece to fit in there so i'm a fan because it adds more tools to the toolkit and and and i actually don't like this notion of when we have a problem we need to throw up a toolkit and just start throwing tools at because sometimes what the world need is not an architect needs a craftsman and in a lot of these problems i would actually disagree with maybe a lot of things that we need big and more and everything and in cases there are a lot of cases where what we need is a craftsman with the right set of tools and a lot of times it's tools are exactly the kind of things that that nancy and steven the folks who are doing but i never said that i'm glad i'm glad you can concluded on a construction metaphor uh real estate development is a very relevant thing these days in america and this conference has come in on time and under budget right at 3 45 p.m this panel i should say so join me all in uh giving some appreciation to our panelists