 Hello and welcome to this latest Lowey Institute Live event. This is part of what we're calling the Long Distance Lowey Institute, in which we communicate our content and analysis online while we're unable to do so in person. A very warm welcome to everyone joining us from Australia and to those dialing in from overseas. My name is Michael Foleylove and I'm the Executive Director of the Lowey Institute. I'm delighted to be here for this very special Lowey Institute Live event with General Jim Mattis, former U.S. Defense Secretary and Commander of U.S. Central Command and one of the most storied generals in recent American history. Also joining us today is one of Australia's most highly regarded military leaders, Serangus Houston, the former Chief of the Defense Force and one of my board members at the Lowey Institute. General Mattis and Serangus are old friends as well as colleagues at the Cohen Group. Since General Mattis resigned as Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense in December 2018 he's been very discerning about the events in which he's agreed to participate. So I'm grateful to General Mattis for agreeing to join us today and to Serangus for helping to facilitate. This event is part of the Lowey Institute's project on Australia's security and the rules based order which is supported by the Australian Department of Defense. Earlier this week the Institute released an interactive timeline illustrating how Australian governments have spoken and acted in relation to the rules based order. I encourage everyone watching to visit the Institute's website and explore this feature. Now some brief housekeeping before we begin I'm going to share a conversation with General Mattis and Serangus and later I'll put some questions to them that our audience members submitted when they registered online. So welcome General Mattis and Serangus. Thank you both for joining me. Thank you Michael. Good to be here sir. Thank you. I'm going to ask both of you a bit about your upbringing and how you got into your, how you started your military careers. I'd like to start with you General Mattis. You grew up in Richland, Washington in a bookish household without a TV. Tell me a bit about your upbringing and how it is you came to join the U.S. Marine Corps. One of the most feared fighting forces in human history. Yeah well Dr. Michael it's like most things. We make our plans in life and God laughs. I grew up hiking in the mountains enjoying life here on the Columbia River. We're a little bit south of British Columbia but in the dry side, the semi-arid side. So probably like many of your people who enjoy the outback, we enjoyed the outdoors here in our region. At the time my team, conscription was still a reality in the U.S. forces and U.S. society. And without a whole lot of reflection, I decided to do my service for a couple years in the U.S. Marines. That leads naturally to how did that go from a couple years to over four decades. And it was just I found that I didn't like a lot of the jobs in the Marines. I grew to hate minefields at a very young age. But I absolutely fell in love with the sailors and Marines, those rambunctious young lads in the infantry who would crawl into minefields looking for something they didn't want to find. And I just stuck around for the pure joy of serving alongside such I'd call them selfless and high-spirited young men. It was the infantry. It got its name infant soldier, young soldier. They were all very young men basically. So that's the story of my life in a capsule. And General Mattis, you described your childhood as heaven on earth, but in your 43 years of service in the Marines, many of the places to which you were deployed from Iraq to Afghanistan and many other places could hardly be described as heavenly. Let me ask you, what was the toughest assignment that you were given during your military career and which job did you enjoy the most? Well, I enjoyed most being an infantry second lieutenant because there's no there's no gap between you and your troops. You're right there in the mud alongside your sailors and Marines. And that's also the rank when I first met Australian soldiers and found a like-minded crew there I might add. But I think that the job that was probably most difficult was the last job I was in. I find it a lot easier to actually go into the brawls than it is to order other people to go into the brawls. That's a lot more difficult in its own way. Different skill set and not one that is as rewarding the sense of you're testing yourself against what you're sending the men to. You've got a little bit of remoteness there and it's not the most redeeming kind of job. Alright, I'm going to ask you about your time as Defense Secretary a little bit later. Sir Angus, let me bring you in because you had a different journey. You were born in Scotland, I recall. You applied to the Royal Air Force initially but I think you were told you were too tall to be a pilot. Thankfully the Royal Australian Air Force wasn't so picky. So tell us a bit about how a young man from Scotland ended up having such a distinguished career in the RAAF. Well, it's interesting. Actually the people who did the cockpit check didn't know how an ejection seat worked. I would have fitted but they didn't know you had to lower the seat to the lowest position to adjust the ejection seat. So I guess a mistake was made. I came to Australia. I decided I'd go out on the land and the second year on the land I was share farming and we had a very bad drought and I went broke and joined the Royal Australian Air Force and from there I never looked back. Interestingly, I discovered as soon as I got into flying training that the ejection seat works by you get into it and you adjust it downwards, not upwards. I fitted perfectly. Well, I think Australia rose a vote of thanks to that recruiter for the Royal Air Force that mistakenly told you you couldn't join the British Armed Forces. General Mattis, I want to ask you about alliances. You've often quoted a line from your time in the Marines when you're going to a gunfight bring all your friends with guns. What's your view about how America's alliance system works and how it furthers the interest of the United States? I think you have to put it in a historical context because for 100 its first 150 years and more as a Republic, America tried to shy away from alliances and after World War I the world had changed but we still kept that tradition and it still tugs at us today. It's still an aspect of the American view of the world but the greatest generation coming home from World War II having gone through a global depression, having been through a horrible war tens of millions. We don't even know within 10 million how many died in the war. So many died. It was somewhere between 50 and 70 million and they said what a crummy world and whether we like it or not we're part of it. And out of this comes the United Nations which was the effort to have a place where we could talk and try to keep peace and prosperity online. Bretton Woods, Bretton Woods one and two, you and I know it as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so when people were losing hope they didn't have to turn to a fascist named Mussolini. It was actually a lender of last resort to get wealth generation going again. We saw it with the Marshall Plan and then I had something the Australian Ambassador to Washington DC taught me and he said and America made the single most self-sacrificial pledge in world history. I thought I knew something about American history I said oh you mean the Marshall Plan you know where we told him he said oh no he said that was just an example of America's generosity after being the victor in a war that it actually escaped a lot of the costs of. He said no he said the most generous thing, the most self-sacrificial pledge made was after World War II they couldn't look at Europe and said that's twice in 25 years you've drawn us into your war something I think Australians too feel to a degree and we're turning to Asia to Latin America to Africa you're on your own with the Soviets. We're tired of you. He said instead you pledged 100 million dead Americans in a nuclear war to protect democracy in Europe. Took a foreigner to teach me that the Australian ambassador to Washington DC. So it was out of that reality that the greatest generation said we have got to be part of this world and from that point on the rules-based order became exactly what we aim to promote and protect with like-minded nations we couldn't do it on our own that was a going in assumption and since then it worked so well that some people have forgotten that you need to tend to it you need to nurture it you need to protect it you need to adapt it but that's that's where the alliances came from and when you have like in our case 100 years of mateship in many cases you actually have something to build on already so it's a matter of continuing to build it's a matter of continuing to show respect and listening to your allies something we occasionally need a reminder about I might add like today. Well tell me a bit you alluded earlier to having some experiences with Australian servicemen over the years give us a little bit of color about that if you wouldn't mind in what circumstances have you dealt with Australian officers and service men and women and what's been your experience? Yeah in over many years we deployed into the western Pacific the Indian Ocean we've trained alongside each other and one thing that really stuck out for me was the Marines being a naval force we cannot solve problems with mass we're not the US Air Force we're not the US Army and so we actually find similar problem solving in the US Force where the individuals initiative and their skill is what you rely on you're not going to rely on mass so it was always at times a heartening experience to serve alongside your guys because we could learn from them and then of course going into Afghanistan it was the Australians under then Lieutenant Colonel Gus Gilmore were the first non-American reinforcements that I had come inside our lines there at a place called Rhino and out of that they were under our tactical control and there is where Australia lost its first lad killed in action was under my that tactical control and I might add that the last Australian killed in action was when I was the commander of US Central Command so when America was attacked on 9-11 if you ever wanted to see the value of alliances there was Australia at our side immediately with very competent very high spirited and ethical troops and you can't ask for more than that. Sir Angus let me bring you into the conversation and ask you the same question from the other end of the telescope if you like what do you think Australia gets out of the US Alliance and what do we give in return Well I'm a very strong supporter of the the ANZUS Alliance I think it's it underpins our defence policy it enables us to gain access to intelligence logistics and technology which we probably wouldn't get without being an alliance partner this has enhanced our capability and of course we've had access to the most advanced weapons that are available and many other force multipliers so without that sort of alliance we wouldn't have as much well I guess let me go another way we also get interoperability we exercise with the US forces we've done an awful lot with the US Marine Corps they come to Australia regularly on a number of different bases and they basically are the only nation that really gets a chance to routinely mount an exercise invasion of Australia and that relationship at the high end of war fighting has served us incredibly well we stay in touch with what's happening at the high end and right across the spectrum of conflict and we're very very I think privileged because of this access because of this interoperability we do not have to spend as much on defence as otherwise would be the case and just over 2% of our GDP on defence without the alliance we'd be spending double that to have the required insurance policy that we need against the risks that we see around the world at the moment particularly in our neighbourhood General Mattis tell us what is the role of the US military in supporting the global rules based order and what is the role of the State Department how important are diplomats in supporting this order that you described earlier I think that over the last 25 years we've gotten this little caddy wampus where we've put the military into some circumstances that could probably be better addressed by our diplomats but our diplomats carry out the most essential function and that is two fundamental sources of power over its last 100 years one is the power of inspiration a little frayed on the edges right now and one is the power of intimidation the role of the military is to make sure that the military factors are understood by our diplomats what we can do what we can't do what we recommend and to keep the diplomats in the driver's seat of our foreign policy it's very important I think that we remember that America is not out to seize other countries and this sort of thing and at times we've tried to solve problems using the military that I think perhaps could have been better addressed by using our diplomats now there's a role for the military this is where we can learn a lot from our allies the Australian effort to restore order in the Solomon's several years ago showed a diplomatically led police reinforced with army troops effort to calm the situation in a part of the world that needed your attention and so there you see a kind of a collaboration with the policy written by the civilians the military supporting the constable who was put in charge of the restoring the order and a very adroit use of the military and one of the reasons that we want to maintain a very strong relationship with Australia is that this is one of the countries that can actually teach us how you use all elements of national power and not just default to the military so it's a it's a sort of thing that I think takes more training in our schools I'll be blunt about it I don't think the way we teach history today is turning out graduates of our universities fully steep in the role of traditional diplomatic practices and I think that has been to our I just say it has not been proved to our credit as we tried to fill the gap using the military well Angus let me bring you into this question if I can because I don't think we would say Australia's perfect and in fact Australia's spending on defence will shortly pass the magic number of 2% of our GDP however recent governments of both colours have underfunded the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade what would you say about the importance of the armed forces on the one hand and diplomats in supporting the rules based order and also furthering Australia's national interests well I think on the defence side this government's got it right I think their approach to the strategic update and the associated force structure update is right on the money the strategy shape deter respond is the right strategy I think we need to build up our deterrence capability and that's brought out in the force structure review but I also think we need to put some of the hollowness out of the defence force and again some of those issues have been addressed in terms of increasing stock levels of weapons and fuel and so forth the other thing I was very pleased about was the fact that there was a focus for the first time on what to do about the grey zone we have seen what's happened in the South China Sea we've also seen what's happened in Ukraine and I saw that very close and personal when I was in Ukraine looking after Australia's interests after the shooting down of MH17 and I think the funding is right too well over 2% $575 billion for the next 10 years and a large proportion of that $1 billion going to capital investment but I think it's absolutely imperative that we also build up DTHAT the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade I believe that diplomats can achieve an awful lot and they may even prevent the need for using military force in a given set of circumstances and I think we've taken too many cuts in the diplomatic area we need more diplomats and not less because the people that I have observed I mean Jim just mentioned Solon and Arlen's Nick Warner was the diplomat who went out and did that he's an incredibly capable man and did a wonderful job there in leading that particular campaign but diplomats diplomats are incredibly useful in circumstances short of conflict and I just don't think we have enough of them and when you look at the comparisons between the number of diplomats we have around the world with other similar sized countries we're at the bottom of the list and I think that's disappointing and we need to do something about it. General Mattis let me ask you about how you dealt with some of these issues during your service as President Trump's Secretary of Defense shortly after you became Secretary you delivered a major address to the 2017 Shangri-La Dialogue and after you spoke you may recall I asked a question from the floor in which I described you as the hope of the side and I asked whether the world might be present at the destruction of the global order the US had helped to establish and maintain since the Second World War and you may recall you responded by quoting Winston Churchill to me and you said bear with us once we've exhausted all possible alternatives the Americans will do the right thing. Now that comment attracted quite a bit of press coverage because you seem to be implying that America was exhausting all other opportunities all other avenues. General Mattis let me put it to you that nearly four years later it feels like Washington really has exhausted in some cases all possible alternatives to doing the right thing. Can I ask you do you think that America has taken a right to a wrong turn in the past few years? I think you have to go back again in history and remember Dr. Michael that after our very nasty argument with King George III we actually set up a government that would not function smoothly or efficiently. We wanted to be clunky for example a lot of people were concerned about our commitment to the NATO alliance probably the most successful military alliance in history because it kept the peace it was set up to maintain the peace of course in the Cold War protect Western European democracy and the first time it goes to war is when the United States gets attacked. I mean you couldn't have mistaken the irony of how what it was set up for but what it eventually was used for but if you say that the rules based order and let's just take that alliance as a canary in the way that for all of the president's concerns that the people in Europe are not paying their fair share they're not paying full freight in most cases which is not new to President Trump he's perhaps a little blunter in his comments about it but you can find this going all the way back to John F. Kennedy's administration but on the other hand you see the U.S. Congress adding money the president requests for NATO every year and adding money to that budget we are spending more on NATO year-on-year for the last several years so I would say also in the midst of a very raucous time in our democracy certainly words are important but actions speak louder than words even in diplomacy and in security issues and right now I think the president's having one of these periods where they go through a lot of a very passionate arguments and there came a point where it manifested politically I came in by the way after first meeting with the president and we had a very interesting discussion where I disagreed with him on the three positions he put forward to me and he still hired me while in office I had only three lines of effort one was to make the U.S. military more lethal one was to broaden and deepen trust with our allies and partners and one was to reform our business practices I spent 80% of my time on line of effort number two working with allies and so rest assured in the U.S. Congress there is very strong support for alliances in the executive branch in the state department in the institutions there is strong support certainly across America we find strong support but at the same time I don't think we have in our own responsible way promoted the value of alliances clearly as Serangus just explained the value of the bilateral relationship with America we have not done that well in America fortunately it's coming out in this election and I think we're going to see some impact of the view of alliances here in the next couple of weeks let me ask you you referred earlier to the fact that when I asked you what was the most challenging job you had in your career you nominated that period as defense secretary from the outside it felt like you were trying to hold things together and ensure that the military remain strong the alliance system remain strong how challenging was that when you were operating in a system where of course the alliance system the rules based order had a lot of allies within the system but perhaps not in the Oval Office how much of a challenge was that for you as defense secretary yeah I don't think I know it was out in the news a lot that I would somehow keeping things together against the president I had a very forward relationship with President Trump I mean I was right up front with him that's the way I work with my boss wherever I've been and you know I had to deal with tweets he has an unusual way of putting things out at times but at the same time I generally saw him once a week over a private lunch and I explained to him very clearly what I was doing I'd tell him what I'm going to say when I go to NATO next week this sort of thing so it wasn't that difficult but further Michael you know I went into I went into NATO in my first conference there and I explained to the people many of whom were friends because I'd been a supreme allied commander for NATO wearing a uniform only a few years before I saw a lot of familiar faces and I said you know it's now manifested I cannot go home and tell the American people that they have to care more about the freedom for your children then you're willing to pay for then you're willing to sacrifice for it's now manifested politically we've got to have this talk this is no longer World War two devastated Europe you're on your feet you're doing well and I would just tell you that in a number of areas from India to Sweden and Finland to Mexico believe it or not we have very very warm and trusting very trusted military to military relations not five eyes level in terms of what Serangus rightly called interoperability and intelligence sharing but nonetheless very strong relations so it would to me that was not the difficulty it was it was something I was very upfront when I was interviewed for the job I was upfront in my Senate hearings and again I didn't feel like the lone ranger on this at all this is a widespread belief in America even if it's kind of subdued beneath the headlines on the on the newspapers every day thank you general I want to ask just one more question about the Trump administration and then come on to China and some other issues you're very careful when you're asked to reflect on the Trump administration you did however break your valve silence in a statement you gave to the Atlantic in June when you said that Mr Trump is the first president in your lifetime who does not try to unite the American people instead he tries to divide us what was it about that moment that led you to speak up what were you concerned about at that point in time when I left office it was about the treatment of allies I made it very clear in a public letter and when you walk out of an administration on a matter of principle Michael I think knowing that it's still a dangerous world we have a commander-in-chief elected by the American people that's what the Constitution says the French colon de Devoix de reserve a duty of you don't need to get out and start running your mouth about suddenly you're the font of all wisdom and make their job very difficult for the president the secretary of state the secretary of defense this sort of thing so I remain silent and there did come a point when I thought the military had been put into a position that it shouldn't be I'm hard over about the apolitical tradition of the US military the military exists to protect the experiment that we call America the peace the people of America that's a separate issue so I wanted to make that very clear and I did so and I promptly left the public stage at that point I want to ask both of you about China we've had one or two problems with Zoom during this interview on your end but it looks like it's working now so we're going to plow on I want to come to you first Sir Angus on the question of China and let me ask you about China in the context of the rules based order obviously an emerging China a rising China presents in many ways the most serious challenge to the global order that we've been discussing let me start with you Angus and then come to General Mattis Angus what do you think about Australian policy on China at the moment what do you think about the Australian debate on China have we got a balance right both in our public policy and in our public debate well I think that right now we're in a difficult position a challenging position our number one alliance partner is at loggerheads with our number one trading partner and of course I think there's been some shall I say some loose talk from here in Australia where we've seen some comments basically make the circumstances a little worse than they needed to be so I think our relationship at the moment is at a very low point I think the Huawei decision was probably you know where it really started and this year we've seen a number of events that run through them because I think everybody knows and even today there's some debate about whether coal is being restricted Australian coal exports but I think we need to take a hard look at our relationship with China I think we need a reset we need a circuit breaker because really we're going to come out of this recession that we have at the moment because of COVID-19 we need China why we're integrated into the Chinese economy and you know fundamentally we need to be able to work effectively with them and we need to engage them with mutual respect and mutual sensitivity I think they need to respect our sovereignty as we respect theirs but constructive relationships with China both at the bilateral and the multilateral level are essential to Australia going forward they're not going to go away they're going to get stronger they are going to be a force that we have to deal with so we better work out the best way to work with them China is not our enemy let's get that very straight and some of the messaging that we've seen from elements within Australia particularly in the parliament I think has been a little bit ill disciplined I'll probably take a hit for saying that but the fact of the matter is I think in the sensitive relationship we have either to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Trade Minister the people who are carrying the responsibilities to make statements and messaging about China in terms of these calls we've heard for more economic sovereignty in our trading relationship diversification is fine but it's going to take years to achieve and the fact of the matter is as John Edwards from the Lowy Institute has said we're deeply integrated into the East Asian economy and that's China and any talk about instant sovereignty in an economic sense is more rhetoric than real we need to hold firm to our values and our interests and work with like-minded in arrangements like the Quad and with ASEAN to construct a new strategic architecture in the region and that's going to be very challenging but we've got to do something along those lines and I was very encouraged by the outcome from the Quad last week. I might say finally I was really taken with what our Foreign Minister said in the press conference after the Osmond meeting in Washington. She said we make our own decisions, our own judgments in the Australian national interest and about upholding our security and prosperity and our values. The relationship that we have with China is important and we have no intention of injuring it. I agree with that and I think we need to put a high priority on restoring some sort of normality to a very challenging relationship. Thank you Angus and I note that as you were talking about undisciplined statements there were a couple of dogs barking at your end. General Mattis I want to bring you in on China if I can. Tell us a bit about where you think the US relationship with China will go over the next decade and in particular how do you think Washington should strike a balance between different imperatives on China. For example the economic relationship versus criticizing human rights abuses within China versus a more realist emphasis on constraining China's external behavior versus cooperating with China on issues such as climate change for example. How will the US square this circle? How should it square this circle? Again Michael I would just put it in a historical context we have not had an adversarial relationship with China I mean with Australia and China and the United Nations we together rolled back fascism in the Pacific we lost there and it was only in 1947 to about 1972 that we had the adversarial relationship never before then and since then Republican and Democrat administrations have seen China coming of its own as a positive thing the one point I would make is as we look forward which we must do right now we leaders have a responsibility to define reality and I only hope that in Beijing they want the kind of respect and the kind of respect for other nations that we want to see or China or Surangus mentioned about China but as we look forward this is probably the most significant issue of our time specifically between the United States and the PRC and I say this because we must find a way that when these two nuclear arms superpowers step on each other's toes as we will from time to time the nature of the world we're going to have to think through how we're going to resolve those differences I mean this is a reality this is what leaders do and history is not very forgiving of someone saying well that's difficult that's your duty now let's get on with it I think that we will see a more constructive engagement in the new year and perhaps with a more mature strategic framework but I think that what we want to do is remember that no one nation dominates in this part of the world European colonialism came in it was pushed back in the years of World War II and following we've seen the Soviet communism what they tried to do as far as bringing the ideas in it was pushed back and when someone we're not asking for people to sign up it's our way or the Chinese way but when someone comes out and says there's one belt and one road my view is with sovereign nations there's many belts and many roads and we should not put people in a position where it's either with one belt and one road or they're voted off the island kind of thing I think too that we're going to have to preserve the positive pieces that we do have and there are positive elements from education there's been some mucking around there too with certain Confucius societies and all but overall the education doors I think are a positive part of the relationship Australia with China and the United States with China I think too if we can look at the aspects of the economics where it's reciprocal and if they want customer facing relationships and investments in our country then we should have the same for our businesses in their country further I think we need to reframe the narrative which I think is also what Serangus was saying there and that means a return to what I would call structured strategic dialogues right now Michael I'm concerned we talk about North Korea's nukes or we talk about the Senkaku islands or the South China Sea or Hong Kong or the Uyghurs but there's not the overarching strategic discussions about common ground and the priorities we placed the kind of thing we had for example with Moscow and Washington DC even during some tough times that the Reagan administration for example dealt with as we arranged to get Jews out of Russia unable to immigrate to Israel in the midst of the Cold War we were able to do that and I think too we're going to have to prioritize multilateral engagements and there Serangus mentioned the Quad I just think the Quad helps us to integrate and yet separate where necessary so that we can have we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and my last question but I don't understand right now why China is doing much of what it's doing they come to America and the president said we will not militarize the Spratly Islands and they militarized the Spratly they asked for our help in the 80s about the return of Hong Kong it was the right thing to do they said one country two system they violated them we had reduced our sales of arms to Taiwan over the years on the assumption it would be a peaceful reconciliation and we're not seeing that now you look on the Indian border I don't know what is causing President Xi no one else matters in the country I don't know what is causing President Xi right now to go with diplomacy and the cyber efforts against Australia the banning of beef from certain Australian when you put this together there's something driving this a vulnerability somewhere that I don't understand and part of getting this relationship back on track is understanding each other and right now China is doing some things that makes that problematic. General Mattis I want to ask you about another cheery topic and that is coronavirus first let me say how shocked and sad and Australians have been about a toll that coronavirus has taken on your country now 210,000 dead and counting that's more than the losses in World War I, 9-11 and Vietnam combined if I'm correct we're used to seeing the United States as the epicenter of global power not as the epicenter of global disease has COVID shown up America's frailties do you think yeah you know that one of the biggest challenges we have is we are the United States and an awful lot of power is in our states but we have not handled COVID situation well that is no ground for an excuse the bottom line is we have seen a response to disease politicized in an unfortunate way and the cost is real any crisis and certainly a crisis against a nasty little bugger like COVID-19 is a race between knowledge and time it caught us all flat footed China I think mishandled some things early on I think Australia was quite right to say we need to look at this so we don't do it again unfortunate that China took that as a reason to take retribution economic retribution on Australia but I think that what we have to look at here is the democracies New Zealand I would say Australia is not not perfect I'm not saying that but well handled Taiwan Republic of Korea but it's interesting too to see that countries that had recently been through a bad hit with SARS there's nothing like something in the human experience a disaster to really get you ready for the next one and we got lucky and lucky on one did not put us in a position I think where lessons learned processes and procedures rehearsed put us at the top of our game and we've paid a we've paid a bloody awful price for it is the bottom line there's no dressing it up all right now I'm going to take a few questions from the audience or rather we collected some questions before the event began and I want to put a couple of them to to both of you I'm going to start with you if you don't mind syringes can I ask you we were talking about China before and and General Mattis was putting some of the onus back on Beijing we have a question from Malcolm Garcia and he asks what can the world do to influence Xi Jinping what do you think Angus what can the world what can Australia do to influence Chinese thinking on some of these questions and I think that's very very challenging you're dealing with a an authoritarian state in China the president of China is also the the leader of the the Communist Party in China and he holds immense power in November of 2017 he went out with a very long statement which suggested that he was stronger than any of his predecessors in terms of his leadership of the Communist Party and of course of China so influencing China I think is a great challenge but I believe I do believe we've got a this is where diplomats come in I think the diplomats have to start working to prepare the way for the politicians to engage and I think that at the political level that's probably the way to do it more broadly engaging the Chinese people well a lot of Chinese young Chinese come to western universities they get a good education and they get exposure to what happens in the democratic world they go back to China and they get involved in business and so on so I think there's probably a lot of people in China who are well disposed to the western world and I think we should try and and build on that good world that's out there but it's very challenging because of the limitations of working with a state that has essentially closed doors to any suggestion that we might be trying to influence their young people or we might be trying to influence their community I think we just the way we were going in 2014 when I think the relationship hit a high point seemed to me that we were headed in a really good direction things were becoming more open we were working together on things like MH370 we signed a trade free trade arrangement and we even signed off on a strategic partnership with China but since then things have become much tighter and Jim said he's not quite sure why so I'm not quite sure why because things seem to be going in a reasonable direction but they changed after 2014 and I think it's more than Huawei I think there are other things that have changed it and I'm not sure what those other things are. Alright General Mattis I'm going to ask you a question I might just say for our live viewers we've had some problems with the video from General Mattis but the audio is fine so if you know why you're seeing a lot of shots of me of my face when you're hearing General Mattis speaking I assure you it's not vanity on my part it's just because we're having some video problems but we're going to plow on like a good Australian infantry or US Marine General Mattis let me ask you I have a question from my chairman Sir Frank Lowey who's in Tel Aviv at the moment. Sir Frank asks in relation to the Middle East what has the Trump Administration got right or has it got wrong. Yeah I think right now in answer to Frank's question you take a look at this opening between the United Arab Emirates and Israel and we're seeing the seeds of a deeper piece it still concerns me that Iran is doing what it's doing there I'm not trying to look at that reality and the amount of support they're giving from Lebanese Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Syrian Assad regime and some of their militias acting contrary to the best interest of the Iraqi people for example and all the way down to Yemen but as you see this warming trend between the Arab states now joining Egypt and in terms of relations with Israel with United Arab Emirates and Bahrain I think you're seeing some of the groundwork taking firm hold that will reduce a lot of the tensions and what has kept the Middle East out of boil at the same time there are worrisome issues out of Turkey certainly the situation in Syria with Iran's continued help and Russia's blocking the UN from really playing a good role to mediate that are reason for a lot of concern but I think within the realm of what the administration has done I think that the most important thing is that we're seeing this relaxation of tensions and coming out into the open something that was only happening very quietly for quite some time there have been warming trends but in the Middle East I learned don't believe anything that's not in public it's got to get in public and it finally has gotten there so I would really highlight that as what has been gotten right. Alright I want to ask both of you briefly about climate change if I can as a threat to the international order General Mattis perhaps you first obviously the US Marine specialized in traditional security threats climate change is a non-traditional one but how real a problem is that how much of a threat is that to our national interests and to the order from which we've benefited so much. You know I've ceased trying to convince the disbelievers in climate change that there's climate change the way I would handle it when I was Secretary of Defense I'd simply say okay I don't know how come but all the ice has gone away from a certain place and I've got to be concerned with it so just bear with me as I deal with it because what I eventually hit on in order to try to change the thinking there was most of you who drove to this meeting or wherever you're at have car insurance it's not because you expect to have a car accident tonight it's in case something goes wrong so shouldn't we at least have a insurance policy if climate change is real for me it's real it's quantifiable it's science and I have no doubt about it matter of fact in 2008 as the as the commander of US Joint Forces Command we wrote down the 10 talk drivers for the next decade or national security problems and one of them was we announced in 2008 was climate change it's a very alarming trend in the desertification all those those kind of things I think it is an area that in one way allows us all to work together and lose a lot of the adversarial relations we may have on a number of other issues for the good of all mankind but it's going to take political leadership and that's by everyone including the United States is the bottom line I consider it very serious if something we can get to in 10 or 20 years I think you need to start working the insurance policy with urgency yesterday all right and Angus just briefly on climate change as a security threat if you wouldn't mind look I think climate change is real I recently became the chair of the Murray Dalning Basin Authority and inflows into the basin have been reducing steadily over the years 20% reduction at least and if you have a look at the droughts over the years 6 drought in the last 20 years 20 years before that only one drought 20 years before that only one drought so in key parts of Australia in the food bowl of Australia we're seeing the climate change in an adverse way and those sorts of events are happening all over the world and I think it will have a security dimension to it I don't know how food production for example with a vast growing population huge population growth predicted through the next 20, 30 years I'm not sure about food supply I think food security is an associated issue which is going to become very prominent and very important so climate change in itself is real it's what comes out of the climate change I think there'll be issues with food security and if we look at the rising temperature it doesn't just have an effect over the land in places like eastern Australia we look out into the Pacific some of those little nations out there have real concern about a rise in the sea level and there's got to be a security concern about that as well so I agree with Jim we've got to get the world community together and climate change is something that we can put on the table and be guided by the science and basically decide how we're going to handle what is arguably one of the biggest challenges that we face in the future. General Mattis we've got time for one more question I'm going to ask you about the 2020 election I'm going to ask you to endorse a candidate although of course if you want to make news for the Lowy Institute you're very welcome to do so but let me ask you this having served a number of US presidents what do you think is the most important quality for the commander in chief in your memoir call sign chaos you said that the two qualities you look for when you're looking to leaders in the US marines were initiative and assertiveness when you're in the box what do you look for what will you look for on November the third in your commander in chief. Yeah I will decline your offer Dr. Michael to endorse a candidate my thoughts are that retired generals need to retire their tongues during election season in keeping with the a political tradition of democracies from Australia to the America but I would just say that what I would look for most in leader is competence and compassion that to me is the character piece of them I would look to the character and competence as a leader and compassion empathy with their people all their people as Harry Truman put it he's also the president of those who did not vote for him I'd look for character Michael and thanks so much for having me Michael this is more fun than waterboarding you know training thank you thank you general Jim Mattis and syringes Houston for having me for having us in your homes today it's been a fascinating conversation I know you won't blame me general Mattis for trying to push you a little bit on newsworthy topics thank you for teaching us or teaching me a new word today and that is Caddy Wampus I still don't know what that is but I'm going to look that up later so I've learned a new word from a US Marine today so thank you very much it's been an honor truthfully for me to speak to two individuals who've served their countries with such distinction so thank you thank you for pressing on despite zoom difficulties we really appreciated it and thank you everyone else for joining us for this Lowy Institute live event please keep an eye out for the Lowy Institute's work I mentioned earlier our timeline on the rules based order last week we published an analysis by non-resident fellow Dr Tom Wright on American global leadership and the November election and let me also give a plug to my podcast the director's chair in recent episodes I've interviewed Jake Sullivan and Nick Burns we've both endorsed Joe Biden and in the next episode I'll speak to the leading Republican foreign policy figure Steve Hadley who was national security advisor to George W. Bush in the meantime from everyone at the Lowy Institute thank you for joining us today and stay safe and well