 Well thank you all for coming we've had we have a little competition from from France but this is about America first so we're gonna talk about America first appreciate it there will be people I think entering as we as we talk so I want to introduce our panelists and thank them all for being here so first we have a senator Corker from Tennessee the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee we have Dr. Jim from the London School of Economics we have Deputy Prime Minister Hasbani from Lebanon we have Secretary General Almagro from the Organization of American States and we have Robert Kaplan a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security thank you all for participating so I want to start off with a general question which is how do the sit let's I'll start with Secretary General Almagro how do the citizens in the countries that you represent think of America first and how do you think of America first what does it mean to you what is the message that it sends to you first I'm tempted to speak Spanish I don't know if it is fine for everybody primero creo que el pensamiento america primero es maybe we need to get some no no so I think everybody was expecting so definitely well thank you apologies and I think for the panelists who might be helpful we can get them for the panelists there's no translation there's no translation well do you want to try in English okay good apologies first of all this is I would say a very charming slogan because considering that I was born and rise and this continent in the continent the American continent plus now I am the head of an organization that includes all the countries of the Americas so America's first is the sort of a charming slogan nevertheless in a second thought maybe I am not included there and that is a completely makes the approach completely different in many ways the the thing about American first is in many ways not something new for Latino American citizens or Caribbean citizens we have seen administration after administration always giving priority giving priority to the American interest above everything else in the world we have enjoyed that sometimes and we have suffered that many times nevertheless our approach always is to wait and see because we have to accommodate always to a new American administration and try to take the best try to be helpful sometimes and of course try to protect or defend our interest when when it's necessary what we see these days we have a sort of an advantage in many ways that is the message of this administration is quite clear second it is not so distant from the principles and values that we defend in the organization of American state in many cases for example the message of the administration about the dictatorships in Venezuela and in Cuba is very strong much stronger than the previous administration and that of course makes the things easier to work plus as head of the organization I can I can't complain because the American administration has been very supportive of our work and defending democracy in the continent and protecting human rights what we see that the main differences are of course in in some issues that are related to mainly to migration and sometimes trade migration the the main problem is is the rhetoric is if we see the number of the deportations of the the previous administration did much more many more than than than this administration if we see this concept the wall the wall already exists partially it's a legacy of two administrations before so there are hundreds of miles of wall already and those hundreds of miles of wall cost the lives of 500 at least the Latin Americans every every year so that is not so not so much it's not so different the rhetoric is different and the approach is different and that is something that is our concern and of course we are we are exactly with that let me let me let me ask deputy prime minister husband what how how do you what is the message to you how do you feel the citizens of Lebanon and perhaps in the broader Arab world see this well first of all the expression of America first it is seen differently by different people some people see it as a sign of relief because they believe in the past intervention from the United States in affairs in the region has not been extremely constructive others see it as a major shift in terms of potential solutions for the region or in a way unfinished business that has been stopped somewhere in the right in the middle of its evolution which means more chaos and more travel and problems so different people see it differently however if we go back to the key principle it's not surprising to me that a country would put its interests first and that's a natural cornerstone of any strategy whether it's less focus on foreign policy more focused on local affairs this is just the order of business I guess but in the end no global power can actually disengage completely from international affairs not even smaller countries let alone a a global power but what it means to a region like the Middle East is that some selective intervention has been observed within this America first approach in many ways it is also seen as there's no clarity on where the US wants to go with its policy with respect to the Middle East non-state actors are there they still exist they're being eliminated partially but they exist from different backgrounds not just from one background at the same time state actors are there and they're also dealing with each other in a highly polarized environment there are re-emerging forces and global forces coming back to the region particularly Russia and a lot of action is taking place we see troubled countries revolutions turning into wars turning into unrest a lot of chaos at the same time stability within that chaos and the question remains what is the interest of the United States in that region particularly so America first yes but what does it mean to stabilize the Middle East for example and keep the Middle East stable build stable economies reduce polarization at national level and at regional level could that be in the form of peace brokerage in more engaged administration in forging peace and relationships and positive relationships so basically putting America or the United States first in the policy of the administration could mean positive interventions selectively probably not at a mass scale and collaboration and cooperation and creating the right environment for the evolution towards peace and stabilization by identifying the right brokers of peace identifying and exercising the right pressures in the right places without necessarily having to have the same level of interventions as used to happen before but a business cannot be left unfinished and there's also a moral and human responsibility towards stabilization because there's nothing that's not interconnected everything is and has us inner involvement in the Middle East over the last year has that been constructive has it contributed to stability within the region but we have seen involvement in Syria for example with the ISIS fight against ISIS that has been quite positive and resulted in positive and positive outcome it's not completely finished yet there's there's more work to be done it's I think the post-ISIS period that needs a clear strategy the interventions from Russia of course have a big weight in the region we would hope to see a more constructive approach and supportive approach to fast-forwarding towards peaceful solutions in the region and I guess it's understandable that you know first year of administration you're still formulating strategies and approaches and and building links but more clarity needs to happen very quickly because events are evolving in a rapid pace in the region and they need a closer look and I'm gonna want to come back to talk about your prime minister a little detour that he took to to Saudi Arabia and what the significance of that is and what the Saudi role is and what the US role might be but we'll come we'll come back to that senator senator quaker what is what's your reaction your own reaction to America first and how has it played out so far with this administration so I think you have to look at the genesis of we have a country where a large part of our population feels alienated feels like they their lives have not ended up being where they thought they would be they've worked hard all their life might have gone to high school a couple years community college and for 20 or 30 years they basically have worked and received the same amount of wages and things are costing more and so so you have to first realize that you have a president who's speaking to that audience and you know a lot of times in the foreign policy arena in particular we talk about lofty things but we never speak about foreign policy in a manner that relates to the people that we actually represent I mean you know we come to places like this Davos or Munich or other places and you know we talk amongst ourselves but we fail sometimes to relate that back to the people that we actually serve so I think what you're seeing the president do is do that in spades and I know Mark Meadows is here one of our great leaders in the house he can attest to the fact that it's created almost a tribal support for the president by many of the people that are in this particular category so so which is a lot of people by the way and it's happening by the way throughout Europe similar kinds of things are happening so so so the rhetoric is oriented that way but I look back at look we had it we had a situation in Afghanistan where we were telegraphing when we were going to leave and have to give the president accolades for saying we're gonna it's this conditions base we're gonna be there and it actually gives us an opportunity there over time to broker a piece of cord at some point whereas the other people are just waiting out so you know I could point to various obviously TPP both candidates ran against that you know I would like to see us in an alliance that counters some what China is doing in the region and as it turns out it's not going to be what's the state of our alliances at the moment do you think they're strong people have confidence lack of confidence what is the state of play you know we're having a conversation back in the in the speaker's room and I think that there's a there's look there's no question there's unpredictability people don't know what's gonna happen I mean the president's on advisors as Mark knows will you know spend months trying to shape a policy he will give feedback all along the way and then finally at the end he's gonna make a decision but people in the room many times don't know what that is going to be so I will say again as you know the president and I haven't always seen out of I that's been well documented on the other hand I will tell you I've seen where that unpredictability has been helpful in negotiations I mean we're talking like what do you think of well I'm thinking right now of the Iran situation I've been tasked with others to try to figure out a way forward domestically and know the administration's working with with our European allies but I think the fact that they know that this president may well wake up one day and just spread it which is not something I didn't think it was a very good agreement on the front end but once you're in it you've already given up your leverage it seems to me it's kind of thing that we should stick with and try to improve but when they know that he could wake up one day literally just wake up and decide he's out of it yes I've tried to tell him you can only do that one time so you know let's do it if we're gonna do it let's do it at a time when it's beneficial to us I don't believe that's now you think it's already changing the behavior of Iran I'm not talking about Iran I'm talking about the fact that our European allies are far more interested in talking with us about what we might do as a result of the fact that we have a person who they know is somewhat unpredictable in this way so it doesn't always pay off you know there are other instances where you know it's it's it can work to our disadvantage but look I look at the policies and I know you want to get to the other panelists I look at the policies that are actually being put out put in place and you know the rhetoric's different yeah we the tariffs didn't turn out to be quite what everybody thought they were gonna be this week but I do think it speaks to the people of our country and I think that I will have to say has done an incredible job in rallying those animal spirits in our own country there's no question I mean this the the deregulation that's taking place the tax reform we just passed it's affecting the world economy the IMF reports we all are aware of so so this making us strong economically and I'll just stop with this you read the national security report that just came out and I think what's what's striking about it is it's incredible focus on our national security being so tied to our own economic security and at the National Security Council the head of our National Economic Council sits at that table as do other people involved in economic issues and so I do think that what is consistent and there's been inconsistencies what is consistent is the fact that I think he views I know he views tremendous economic strength on our part is being key to us being secure in other ways sure let me ask Bob Kaplan and Dr. Jim to maybe put this in some broader context so Bob what talk about this I mean is there anything really unusual about America first I mean we've had nation states since forever people have looked out for their own interests I saw a comment recently that said in the past this was one commentator saying in the past the United States spoke nobly and acted selfishly now it's just being more honest it's both speaking selfishly and acting selfishly is that a misreading or is that where does this fit into all right well in terms of American history there was a great political analyst historian of the mid 20th century Teddy white Theodore right white and he wrote that there was always a 30% of the American people who belong to no particular party who are suspicious of allies suspicious of foreign aid tended to have a higher opinion of Douglas MacArthur than Dwight Eisenhower supported Joseph McCarthy and they were like a moving 20% 30% and they were always there the what's happened this time is that they attached themselves to one candidate because that one candidate spoke to their experience which was and I can tell you this firsthand I've driven all across America recently is that outside of the two coasts outside of the university in college towns outside of outside of most state capitals not all it's a complicated picture life in America does not look very good you go from town to town of 20 30,000 where the main street is hollowed out the stores are boarded up and these people have really suffered so that 30% combined with how globalization has split the American people and and I would add a third element which is that America was a very inspiring successful democracy and the print and typewriter age but it is unclear to me that it can it can continue as such in the digital video era because the digital video era is changing the nature of the American people in terms you know in terms of how they think how they get their information and how they get their news so to me Trump may not be an aberration he may be the first digital video age president married to populism so so that's the domestic picture on on the foreign picture what I see is that the United States functionally is a liberal maritime power you know it's Navy is its primary day-to-day strategic instrument it protects the seas for free trade you know and allies access to hydrocarbons and with that seafaring maritime great power tradition like Venice more than Rome America has has generally been able to project power better by supporting free trade because free trade goes together with democracy it's a perfect fit and a perfect way for America to project power so I think that when when when President Trump signaled a withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific partnership moving away from free trade that was the biggest self-inflicted error that you know that America has made in Asia in decades because it reduced America's vision for Asia it shrunk it down to just help us out on North Korea and we want a better deal with China on by bilateral trade and and I think the effect is corrosive going around the world if you go to the Middle East what's going on with the US in Mexico I think our allies in Europe are far less sure of us because deterrence has to be proclaimed forcefully all the time or else it doesn't work and if so if you get a president who doesn't seem fully committed all the time from the very beginning to NATO that undermines deterrence if there's any question mark whatsoever Dr. Jen why don't you step in here and talk about what what are the consequences of this this policy you know we've heard a lot of warnings here at the World Economic Forum in Davos that this means the luster is off of globalization as Prime Minister Modi from India put it other people are foreseeing a sort of a halt to globalization or a slowdown in it and we have actually seen some stagnation in trade flows and currency flows and things and bank international bank lending and things like that what is what do you foresee well you know first of all and I'll offer a Chinese perspective on the first question which is look you know if President Trump says America first the Chinese would say hey we get it you know which country really doesn't put their you know country first Germany does and everyone else does except that President Trump is more vocal I think the real question here is do American first policies really put America first and I think that there's a clarification that we need to make with regard to globalization which touches upon your question we blame a lot on globalization and trade where in fact job losses are you know known to be much more associated with technology and are these you know the imminent trade wars coming especially with regard to China this kind of trade pressure really a good thing for the US if China stops buying you know aircrafts 180 thousand jobs if it stops importing soybeans you know 10% of some local population Missouri depends on you know exporting soybeans the state of the academic findings today is that on net China has also created Chinese imports has created jobs through services and it's about balance the jobs that have been displaced and the jobs that have been created we also forget that bilateral trade flows in terms of imports versus exports completely mismeasure the real trade activity because it's global supply chain China for example China's value added in that and making iPhone is only 4% but if it stops producing key component parts I mean that kind of completely disrupts the entire flow so it's not by the trade deficit measurements from the traditional statistics that tell you this you know paint the whole picture then the dollar being the reserve currency we need trust of the dollar you know we talked about unpredictability sometimes we would even say it's a bit random right so you know buying treasury bills what we found is that countries that are US allies versus countries that have their own nuclear weapons they have a huge difference percentage 35 percentage points difference in how much US treasuries they hold so the economic consequences of you know kind of America first I just want to put it out there do they actually put America first okay so we've well we've seen some concrete action from the from the US administration just in the last few days tariffs on washing machines and solar panels that affects China to some degree how big a deal is that does it foreshadow more severe sanctions and if there were more severe trade actions against China how do you think China is likely to react you know if it stops at solar panels and washing machines I think it's okay part of the reason that is that China has excess capacity and solar panels and also China is actually trying to get rid of a lot of the allure and manufacturing so it's kind of an external force that will force that transition so I would say that's okay but it is a signal and if there is more pressure for another onslaught of trade you know tariffs coming I can guarantee that the Chinese government will have a very strong stance most importantly because it is no longer the case that if you have strong domestic pressure which will come from businesses which will come from Chinese people that the government will not respond to that they absolutely well so I think that Chinese government will absolutely have retaliatory a position if this gets much worse and what about Latin America obviously the president has said some strong things about about trade from Mexico and from other countries in Latin America what what would be the reaction let's say if he rips up NAFTA that would have a dramatic impact on Mexico and if he's also complained about the trade deficits with other Latin American countries as well he's paying close attention to the trade deficit with each country that he's dealing with how does Latin America deal with that what would be the impact in in Mexico and Latin America and and how what kind of response would you expect first I want to finish something I was saying I was talking about the rhetoric against migration but it's not only the rhetoric there is a decision against the TPS that of course affects mainly immigrants from the Northern Triangle and that may create of course some social unrest that may bring even more illegal immigration to the United States about trade what we have seen is mainly the Mexican case and some issues with Argentina that later they were resolved later the thing is and some threats against the FTA with Central America my concern is that and of course some Latin American countries were affected by the by the TPP the thing is that first of all countries will try to protect their interests in negotiations with the United States as Mexico is doing so that means very hard task but of course feeling confident that they may be able to to achieve enough protection of their interest if it is not the case of course what you do you look for new trade partners and is what mainly trade partners of the TPP are trying to do these days I think that is in fact is a consolidated space in Latin America that China has China is the main trade partner of Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia and we can count so it's already a space a space that belongs in the trade mutual trade to them this TPP was a way of recovering part of that market so now it's completely abandoned in the now conditions so people will try to keep improving those conditions and keep improving that trade with Asia that they have so is all of this maybe I can ask a lot of people is this opening up just an opportunity for China I mean there's been a lot of commentary to that effect that China is going to the United States is creating a vacuum the China is going to step in I saw that the foreign minister of Chile recently said the US had in fact created a vacuum and the China would be stepping in Senator Corker what do you is that are you concerned about that are you nonchalant about it no not nonchalant I think that China has for years and is stepping it up even more had a strategic vision that is long and is investing resources creating alliances creating relationships sometimes not to the benefit of the countries they're doing it with because of the way they finance it and the way they build it but there's no question that they are very aggressive we we are lacking in that regard and and we hope over the next couple of weeks to be taking some steps to to help counter some of the and I'm really talking about more of the development side of things but no I think I think from the standpoint of a country having a vision implementing that vision putting resources big resources behind it there's no question that in it and TPP couldn't agree more both candidates by the way in the race one who actually been kind of involved in it and creating it on the other side of the aisle were though speaking to the issues that you're talking about between the coast and that Mark and I see all the time in our own states and and so you know it just wasn't politically palatable from their perspective although I'm not sure about that okay I'm not sure but it has left us in a weakened position as it relates to again if you if you think about the economic alliances and how much what that means for national security standpoint it's really hurt us on two fronts and you know we have to remember that these countries have a domestic audience also they went out on a limb agreed to an agreement with the United States of America and then now we're not a part of it so it's it's been very damaging and yes I don't think this is the first year I don't think the administration is yet fully thought how they're going to try to counter that I do want to say as it relates to the Western Hemisphere it's my understanding that the White House is going to spend tremendous amounts of time and effort in this next year in the Western Hemisphere hopefully that'll be welcomed but and I think that it will but I think there's gonna be a tremendous emphasis on that Dr. Jim could you address that I mean is China this is just open the way for China and Latin America and elsewhere I think China did not expect this kind of opening especially in certain areas as quickly as it happened and China also harbors no illusion that it can fill the room the role that the United States have filled in many many aspects of the role look let's face it's a middle-income country developing country it's big but it's still poor however as president she has you know put out a new kind of global model a new platform for economic cooperation through infrastructure I think that is real leadership and I think he wants to define his legacy by creating enabling this kind of kind of global cooperation just as post-war United States you know pushed for more universalism but let me just say the reality even though we've heard of you know the the greater cooperation of other countries with China is that it is it's very tricky with the Belt Road initiative China has over and again met with so much political resistance even in the countries that they're trying to help finance infrastructure a one little anecdote helps you know the clarify the the story the question Sri Lanka needed a lot of infrastructure China wanted to finance it and then because of political parties they decided to side more with the US and India and they were waiting for the promised loans and it never came and they wanted to switch back to China and China's like I don't think so many stories like that interesting let's turn to the Middle East and back to Lebanon because there's been a lot happening there so the United States is seen as seen it as in its interest to closely align with Saudi Arabia in order to counter Iran and and the rivalry between the Saudis and the Iranians really seems to be unfolding in a very tense way in in Lebanon the Prime Minister Hariri sort of may have this mysterious stay in in Saudi Arabia he announced his intention to resign later rescinded returned well what is going on here exactly and how much do you see we finally need an explanation and only you can provide it what do you see is and what do you see is what are the Saudis doing and what how do you what do you think is the US role in all of this what is what role is it playing I think this is a well first of all what happened happened in the past now we're looking forward how we can actually move forward with the results of what happened the nation of our Prime Minister had triggered or was triggered by an escalation in rhetoric coming out of Lebanon specific faction in Lebanon that was anti Arab in general and was quite aggressive against our Arab friends and countries and allies so basically that that triggered a long internal reaction as well from various political parties in Lebanon and the government has pretty much everyone represented in it from through a democratic process basically and that's democracy in general the the challenge was always how to keep Lebanon away from all the conflicts that are happening around the region without interfering in any conflicts and without any conflicts interfering in the stability of Lebanon a line was crossed at that point in time the resignation had readjusted the position of the government in order to get everyone to agree that this government has one position and the official position of Lebanon is to remain neutral from all these conflicts and that was achieved post resignation therefore he went back on his resignation and now we're back to business as usual and focusing on internal things Lebanon first well what is business as usual obviously as well I have a big role in Lebanon has tremendous amount of influence Saudi Arabia is tremendously concerned about Iranian influence via Hezbollah and other and other ways has that changed let's split the two things that there are people in Lebanon who vote for members of parliament they get elected and they get participation in in the government so that situation has been developing over a long period of time and there's a group of the Lebanese who participate in this government through a democratic process that's one thing there are people also in this government who refuse to have any arms outside the authority of the government and refuse to have anyone taking a decision on war and peace outside the decision of the sovereign government of Lebanon and any arms outside the Lebanese armed forces are not accepted and this is the view of many people in this government so that's one thing this is also if you shared by many other countries as well particularly I'm sure the United States would share that view and has expressed that view quite clearly Saudi Arabia has been quite vocal about that as well so there's an alignment of many people around that that point now how do we get there without actually causing damage to the rest of the country to the institutions of the country that we are trying to build to the banking sector of the country that's a question that has to be addressed very very clearly particularly by the US administration who are today making major decisions about sanctions against Hezbollah for example so how do we make that happen in the most efficient and effective way while US doing what is in the US interest Saudi Arabia is doing what is in Saudi Arabia's interest while also Lebanon is trying to do what's in Lebanese interest how can we find the common ground to get through this period as positively as quickly as possible without engaging Lebanon in the regional conflicts that are much bigger than the scope and scale of what the Lebanese government can achieve single-handedly on top of that we're impacted by those conflicts directly we have million and a half refugees in Lebanon from Syria the world is trying to help on a humanitarian level but we're paying the bill we're actually fronting and delivering all the services on the ground so we're providing a global service a global community service in Lebanon as a government so Lebanon needs that support needs that global community support and if it is in the interest of the United States to create credibility stability in the region to also counter the the Iranian spread across the region and influence there's a lot to be done on encouraging growth prosperity stability in places like Lebanon well you know but you know what the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah has said that he said that the Saudis asked Israel to wage war to attack Lebanon and that and presumably the Saudis were doing this with at the behest of the United States and others so is that do you believe that I know I wouldn't go that that far in this analysis I think there's a lot of rhetoric coming out of different different parts of Lebanon and the region think what we need to focus on today is the solution of the wider region particularly in Israel particularly the peace solution in Palestine and Israel in Syria and all the other other other words in the region have to be addressed in one way or another I think going through peaceful negotiations is one thing putting the right amount of pressure is also another thing but again we cannot dictate a policy on on any country or entity we're there trying to also protect our own interests and stabilize the country stabilize the region and we do hope that in one way or another there will be a positive overlap of interests between the United States Europe the Middle Eastern countries that are engaged in this discussion and what we have at the local level in Lebanon right we're gonna turn to questions and just a few minutes but let me ask Bob Kaplan you know some people have said that we're really making too much of President Trump and America first that he's really a paper tiger that there are a lot of things that he said he would do that he hasn't done he hasn't imposed any really severe sanctions against China he hasn't declared it a currency manipulator he hasn't ripped up NAFTA he hasn't ripped up the JCPOA with regard to Iran as he pledged during the campaign what's your sense is he more bark than he's bite bite is he in fact a paper tiger I I think yes he is more you know his bite is less than his bark but here's the but is the United States for 75 years was a glow was the you know was a global leader you know that America the world's chief military power and economic power the US dollars the reserve currency and when you're the chief when you're the leading world nation in terms of how power is perceived your your bark matters a lot everything you say is infinitely analyzed you know it you know nation states you know make decisions based on statements coming out of the White House all the time it matters more when you're a leader when you're a leader the you know the rhetoric has to sink not perfectly but it has to sink more or less with what you're actually doing so that if your rhetoric is you know is very unpredictable and you have what I believe is a very weak state department that undermines your hard power too because you know because power works in sync you move ships around the world your secretary of states says something the White House makes a statement it all has to be coordinated and the strongest American presidents have been those who have been able to coordinate and orchestrate the various the various kinds of power that's available in Washington when you have an administration that simply cannot do that won't do that it undermines the reputation for power is that what's happening senator is that the United States reputation for power is being undermined bad communication between the white or coordination between the White House and the State Department statements that that seem to be more threatening and no actual follow-up at least not immediately as pledged what is your take on that well I've sort of had this conversation openly maybe I shouldn't have but I do think that as everybody was adjusting during the first year secretary Tillerson went out would be out doing something in China relative to North Korea or whatever and as he was doing so and making progress and I spent a lot of time with him and I think he gives by the way very sound advice to the president and by the way he and he and our Secretary of Defense Mattis never go to the National Security Council or to the president without them both agreeing in advance which is not not the norm in many administrations so I know he's giving very sound advice and there have been occasions where communications of different types came out and undermined that and basically were were a setbacks to us I do think that's changed to a degree and I feel that I feel with Tillerson there's been a reprieve of sorts and I think that this is just my observation this is me saying this I think he feels more secure in his job today and I think you're seeing more of a sync up and in that regard so I do think yeah sure during the first year we some things happen that probably didn't need to happen we can open up for questions yes right here business is around the world you know seeing American engagement being very important it strikes me that I buy into the theory that America first has resulted in America alone we're isolated on trade we're isolated on Paris we're isolated on looking at human rights vis-a-vis our allies we're isolated on the question of the capital of Israel and the president's comments which you know we don't have a tape we can't prove it about countries in Africa and Haiti have isolated the United States such that it it does seem like this is an America alone approach not an America first approach your reaction well look at the some of the rhetoric that has been utilized has isolated people within our own country right I mean it's it's caused people to step back at the same time the United States is very important in all of these areas I know the Paris Accord we're not a part of now I wouldn't I think at some point you may see us back in and they're maybe on different terms but I don't see I don't see us today is America alone I do see us people looking at us in a little bit different light and and I think we probably have burnt some good will that built up over many many years and and you know it's going to take some time to rebuild that over time and hopefully you know I don't know what's going to happen Friday afternoon at 2 30 or whenever the speech is but hopefully what we'll see is the beginning of of an understanding that that has taken place in some bridge building beginning there you go right there hi my name is yes mean she had to I'm an entrepreneur from Egypt I wanted to ask a question also to the senator first of all thank you for being a voice of reason at times when the world is watching and and happy to hear that but regarding the Middle East how can the US suddenly decide America first after so many years of being so heavily involved in the region without many of us even one thing that involvement and then if it is America first then why are we still why why the need to recognize the capital Jerusalem as a capital at such a controversial time when the US has no interest in being engaged and actually solving this problem and all the other problems you know not to mention the fact that countries like ours will never see democracy because our governments are continuously supported by the US and we're never you know and now human rights abuses are ignored so how how do you see America first in this context well I'll start by saying it I think it's far more difficult to be the president of Egypt than it is the president United States with 95 or 6 million people 700,000 new young people entering the market every year two and a half million people added added 28,000 classrooms needed today health care system in shambles terrorism in the Sinai and it seems to me that that we need to in spite of the fact there are these and I've had these conversations with president cc in spite of the things you're mentioning which are you know to a to an extent true the fact is we don't want Egypt to fail and so you know we it's you know we have to continue to work with them and support them actually for the people of Egypt's good too where situations are not ideal as it relates to moving along and dealing with NGOs and dealing with human rights and dealing with many of the things you laid out but I was not in favor of the last administration's quick pullback from Egypt in the manner that they did to Jerusalem look I think what you see in this president is when he has friends he he he goes all out I mean you saw that was Saudi Arabian many cases not really asking for much in return just boom probably the same we'll see I don't think any real commitments were made on on the side of Israel but again boom a commitment was made friendship is there and and a lot of times it doesn't I don't think it's thought through in some cases in a strategic way necessarily but and you know it did happen in fairness that at a time when the Sunni when the Sunni population is closer to Israel then it's been in a long time right I mean it's really you know it is closer to Israel than it's been in a long time and and I want to say this the back channel conversations that we've had I don't think it really created quite the stir that that people think I know there was a lot of rhetoric that came out I'm not defending or I'm just observing what has happened so so as far as us being out of the Middle East I do think as was stated clearly during the campaign and most anytime I talk with him on the phone or in person about the Middle East Iraq comes up you know he thinks it's the worst thing we've ever done foreign policy wise and so you're seeing a natural pullback we're not we're not leading right now in Syria the way we should be I mean you look what's happened in Sochi here soon I mean the Russians are but I will say Tillerson's done it I think he's doing a pretty good job right now with Putin in beginning the process you saw Putin committed to the UN process I'm talking too long so I'm gonna stop thank you for the questions did I signal that I don't know I thought I already breathed you know you don't look like her but you acted a little bit like my wife oh I'm so sorry oh my god well she's a lovely person question thank you I'm Tim Snyder I'm a I'm a historian that the thing which struck me most about this panel was that the majority of the panelists spent significant time on the domestic problems the United States of America that seems to me to be the striking thing the second striking thing is that in a conversation about America first we don't actually have a sense of what the domestic policies would be which would address that let's say that permanent 30% or let's say those workers in Missouri or let's say your constituents in in Tennessee so my question or my concern about America first is its circular character it's very easy to kill time in Philip space by talking about America first the danger I think of the suggestion is that our domestic problems are the fault of others are always the fault of others and that they can be solved by blaming others and by protectionism which I have to say I think is not the case and I worry about precise I come from the I come from a place that went 76% for Trump which has done very poorly out of globalization I understand exactly the animal spirits you're talking about what I'm concerned about is that without a domestic policy which actually did do something to put Americans first this is all going to turn out to be circular and leave us much worse off than we started question mark I guess I should answer that yeah senator you respond to a lot of questions I'm sure the others have things to say maybe Bob Kaplan yeah what I would say is I'm not an economist and I didn't read all the pages of the new tax plan but from what I can gather from it and what experts have told me it's a tax plan that doesn't deal with the problem that Timothy Snyder point you know pointed out it's a tax plan that essentially the wealthier you are the better you do out of it and that it's and you know and if that's the case the tax plan will exacerbate you know all the problems that you know that that you that you spoke about so and you know the degree to which you can get domestic policy to solve domestic problems to me has to start with with with the tax structure and then with a lot of other problems and to me the tax plan went completely in the other direction or partially in the other direction there another question yes maybe to build on what Timothy was just saying is some my worry is when you have foreign policy where you use foreign entity sort of to blame for certain problems which are domestic and as you just said Mr. Kaplan a lot of things which were talked about in the primaries and in the campaigning haven't been you know fulfilled in policy yet as the key backers of the president see they're not getting ahead it's not improving and his base might be dwindling my worry is that it gets more extreme in order to to show more action and foreign policy becomes even more changing quickly unpredictable for our foreign partners and I would love to hear from the foreign partners how you think about this and I think that's a worry about I have was a more and more populist government in the US as a US citizen living actually abroad right now but actually coming from a German heritage as you can tell from my accent so I think this global attitude around this is really something I'm interested into here from our perspective actually I was just thinking as this conversation was going on that the current administration the America first driven administration has been more engaged in the activities in the Middle East than probably the previous administration the previous administration had pulled back much more than what we see today so we're seeing a rebalance being being established no doubt and if we talk globally there's no doubt also that there's a general trend around the world post 2008 crisis to refocus internally retrench on corporate level on government level all institutions and entities have actually refocused internally going down to some places at the city level and we saw the rise of cities not just nation states but city states so that's quite natural after a crisis of such a scale populism rose as a result because we are internally focused and that's natural as well but it doesn't mean when you put yourself and your interests first that you're actually isolating yourself and you're enclosing yourself there's also a way of having your interests first by engaging in globalization and getting certain terms set the right way that put your interest first so there's a new way of looking at globalization I would say we're seeing it now from the eyes of localization but in reality we're seeing more globalization happen through this locally focused policy of many countries many subnational entities and as far as global partners are concerned it's it's a time to reset priorities and rebuild relationships from a slightly different angle the question remains for those countries who play a global role can they afford to leave a gap or an opening for other countries to come in it's a competitive time now for global space and while you're entrenching and focusing internally you can't just drop the ball internationally all together and you know keep an open space for others and this could be good news for others as well so this is why I think a revisit of the definition of globalization from a local perspective and the concept probably of America first today as we're discussing it is an eye-opener that putting your country's interest first doesn't mean you're actually totally a protectionist policymaker but you might also be a a globalizing agent from a slightly different angle from what we have been used to before so we have just like a minute and a half left so Dr. Jennifer quickly add one thing we haven't really touched these policies fuels nationalism that's the danger and we're already feeling in China with the domestic pressure so very quickly in a sentence or two that's it tell me each of you what do you want to hear from President Trump when he makes his speech center I want to hear a very positive role from him positive statement about America's role in the world and and an explanation of America first in a way that does not from the audience and and people around the world make it look at us if and make it appear as if and and actually he will show actions after that shows that we're not it's not about America being alone it's about obviously taking care of America's economic interest but at the same time knowing of the important role that we play in the world Dr. Jim that even with America first policies America was still continue to assume key responsibilities as a key nation and there is a great room for global coordination deputy prime minister I'd love to see clarity on the plan for the Middle East if there's a plan in place and I'd like to really understand how the statement on Jerusalem recently would help any kind of solutions in the Middle East given that it has given a lot of material for those who oppose the United States in the Middle East to get more popular secretary general that he's committed to bring democracy back to Venezuela and that for us is the main issue today in the continent so that could be the most supportive action that he may have that America first means American values first and American values are impossible to implement or to project without allies and therefore America needs to strengthen its alliances with like minded nations and you know and you begin from there which means more involvement rather than withdrawal from Europe for from many other places great thank you all for participating thank you all for coming