 Good morning and welcome to Washington Circle. My name is Phoenix Ricks. I'm the alumni outreach specialist and the moderator for today's conversation with Ben Rhodes, the assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and speech writing. Before we get started, I'd like to warmly welcome our live viewing audience here in Washington, DC. Thank you all so much for coming and I'd like to give a shout out to a number of alumni and youth viewing parties around the world in Sudan, Canada, Nigeria, Israel, Guinea, and Pakistan. So welcome to all of our alumni here and all of our alumni around the world. So I'm sure that your title doesn't nearly cover what you do on a day-to-day basis with the president. To get us started, can you tell us a little bit more about your role? Sure, and it's good to be here with you. And I apologize. I had a bit of a late night last night because we're up in Philadelphia and got back at about 2.30 in the morning. Understandable. That's why I'm having a little paper cup of coffee here. So my role basically involves making sure that the president is able to communicate and design his vision for American foreign policy in our role in the world. So it encompasses a number of different things. His speech writing, and I started originally for him in 2007 as a speech writer, his communication. So what is he saying publicly about issues? What is the White House saying? How are we coordinating with the State Department and other agencies around how the United States responds to events? Our public diplomacy programming, particularly the ones that the president is focused on, the initiatives that he has launched. But also in my role as the Deputy National Security Advisor, I'm a part of the policymaking process where we consider different options around certain issues. So normally my day would begin with joining him and his team for the presidential daily briefing where he gets his intelligence briefing. And then usually in the mornings we had to determine how we're going to respond publicly to particular events. And then a lot of time then is spent around the planning for kind of the next big thing that he's going to do. So the next significant foreign trip he's going to make, the next major speech he's going to do, the next policy initiative that we're going to present publicly, those are the mix of things that end up taking up my time. Well, very busy day it sounds like every day. Some more than others. Well on speech writing, we've actually received a ton of communications questions for you. So Vareed from Israel, Sunita from Nepal, Lola from Nigeria, and Fundy from South Africa have similar questions about speech writing. They've all commented that President Obama's speeches are always inspiring and motivating. Can you give us a sense of the process that leads to the final speech? And what's your secret to simplifying things when you're addressing a very complex issue? And to what extent does President Obama get involved in the research, writing, and rehearsal of those speeches? And then one alumnus really wanted to know about the role of the First Lady in the speeches. Does she preview them and does she have any involvement as well? So with the President, if it's an important speech, there's a pretty similar process that he's followed the 10 years that I've worked for him, which is at the very beginning of the process, if I'm the speech reader I will sit down with him and he will essentially talk for 30 minutes, 45 minutes about what he wants to say. And he, you know, had been a writer himself in the past. And so he usually has a pretty clear idea of the structure of the speech that he wants to give. So I want to make this argument and then this argument and then this argument. And so you get from that first session with him essentially kind of an outline and then even specific language that he wants to use. And then you as a speech reader take that and you write a draft. You then circulate that draft, send it around to the different advisers on policy or other issues who have the opportunity to comment. And what you really want from that process is make sure that everything is just factually right or matches the policy that we want to be announcing or talking about. Then it goes back to him. And, excuse me, and then what you never know is how many rewrites it will go through. If it is a significant rewrite, what he will usually do is sometimes he will actually rewrite by hand the whole speech. Now he'll take chunks of your draft into that rewrite, but sometimes he wants to literally go through that process of writing it out by hand and I've had several speeches that he's done that for. Sometimes he'll just line at it and he'll write in the margins and he'll write on the back of the page and you can end up going through five, 10, 15, 20 of those drafts with him if it's a speech that he is really focused on. And by that point it's just you and him working together. So he's very involved in the beginning and very involved at the end. And frankly what you're just trying to do is help him say what he wants to say. Now in the other two questions, how do you talk about a complicated issue? I think that he is at his best when he is just being, and what he's good at I think uniquely, is just being very honest. Because if people sense that the person is telling them what they really think and telling them the truth and telling them something that comes from their core beliefs, they will be more willing to accept hearing difficult things. I'll give you an example. I worked with him as a speechwriter on the speech he just gave in Dallas, which was not a foreign policy speech, but it was very complicated issues dealing with policing and racial disparities and nobody was going to like everything he said. But because he was honest and just telling people how he looked at the issue and seeing things from everybody's perspective but also not changing his own view, I think then people were receptive to that and they will listen to you. I mean it's a good message for public speaking in general. Don't just try to tell the audience what they want here because they'll know that that's what you're doing. Tell them who you are and what you really think and that's what he does when he's at his best. The first lady does not get particularly involved in his speeches. She's pretty good at giving her own speeches. Quite good. And I think there's even like a little competition there. Oh really? They make each other better. But I think what I don't know is they obviously have their own conversations. At night he goes home every night for dinner and so I'm sure he talks over with her what he's thinking about. But she won't, for instance, edit a speech. It's good to know but yeah her speeches are phenomenal. Yes. So on complex issues in addition to all of the communications questions we've received we've also gotten a lot of comments about U.S. foreign policy and one I think is a really great question. In 2013 an alumnus of one of our exchange programs who spent a year of high school here in the U.S. testified to Congress about the effect of a drone strike on his hometown. He said I don't know if there's anyone on earth who feels more thankful to America than me. However, he continued on to say that in some areas anger against America that results from strikes such as the one in his hometown make it really dangerous for him to acknowledge having gone on an exchange here, acknowledge having American friends, much less discuss how much he really likes the U.S. So what would you say to an alumnus like that? Because we have a lot of alumni in similar situations where they go home and they can't really talk about having gone on exchange here. Well I think that this is a part of one of the central challenges that any U.S. president faces. I'll start from like the bigger vantage point and then get at the specific question of drone strikes. You know the bigger vantage point is what I've noticed after seven and a half years is there's a very interesting and at times contradictory set of demands on the U.S. president. We often face demands to be using military force in other countries. Why aren't you doing more? Both from international audiences and from domestic audiences because the United States is the only country in the world that has a certain type of military reach and particularly you know when it comes to terrorism the domestic audience feels like you must be doing everything possible to ensure that a terrorist network can't take root. Internationally it's often more around a humanitarian challenge like the situation in Syria which actually brings both of those together. And yet when you do use military force it is always controversial and you are also similarly always going to anger audiences at home and abroad. And so this is the most difficult thing about being president when it comes to foreign policy which is that you are on the one hand constantly being pressured to use the U.S. military in other countries and on the other hand the use of the U.S. military in other countries is always controversial, always complicated and always carries with it unintended consequences. So having said that with large I think the way the president has tried to use military force is to define narrowly the times when we believe it's necessary. So if there is a direct threat to the United States where you know we know that this terrorist network or this group of people is plotting to launch an attack against the United States or against a military facility or an embassy you know that's a type of circumstance where we will use force if there is but we will do so in as limited a way as possible. So not the kind of large invasions that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan but again more targeted action like a drone strike which I will come back to one more time. When there is a large scale international challenge the president wants to work through multilateral action consistent with international law with other countries and knowing that using the armed military will make things better. I mean this is one of the things that colors the debate on Syria for us which is that he is not seen an option that suggests that using the U.S. military in a larger way on the ground would actually solve the problem so he needs to know what the plan is for that. On drone strikes in particular we understand how controversial they are in other countries that any use of force raises questions about sovereignty and any loss of life particularly innocent life is going to inflame opinion. Now the president has tried over the course of his time in office to put in place the highest possible standards around when do we take that action to minimize well he has the highest standard we have which is a near certainty of no civilian casualties. We would also acknowledge that when you use force there's no such thing as you cannot prevent tragedy and loss of life but I would say that we are trying to be we're trying to act in the most limited way possible with the the clearest objective possible which is a direct threat to the United States and that's an evolution and I know people are concerned about the use of drones but I'll just say one more thing I was just in Laos ahead of the president's visit and the United States dropped more ordinance on Laos during the Vietnam War than all of Europe and World War II and there are still cluster munitions all of the country that are still hurting people and we're trying to clean that up. I do think that whatever people may think for or against the use of drones it is a positive evolution from that type of use of military force where there's just kind of this indiscriminate bombing which characterized our efforts in Vietnam. So again while I welcome opposing views I do think that the United States has evolved over time to try to cause as little loss of life as possible in carrying out our military objectives. Thank you, thank you for that answer. I'd like to turn it over now to our live audience if anyone has any questions they'd like to ask. Hi my name is Jack from DC. I just want to ask a little bit about citizen diplomacy and how you see that as a tool. I know that you have a lot of official tools available to you in shaping how certain events or foreign policy is viewed but I'd love to know where you think citizen diplomacy can fit into that and also what the limitations that might be. So in terms of enlisting Americans in our global outreach. Well I think it's incredibly important for a number of reasons. One, you know look let's face it at any given time U.S. foreign policy is going to be controversial. People are going to like some things about it and not like other things. Oftentimes people actually like America more than our foreign policy and I think it's important that when the world interacts with America that it do not just be you know a discussion of whatever the pressing policies through the days that it be with Americans and they get to know Americans and they get to know what Americans care about. So that that's you know that's the first thing I'd say you know because particularly in a world in which you know what we talk about a lot you know one of the things I'm struck by is because of the fact that we're the only super power. What do we talk about? We talk about terrorism and we talk about nuclear weapons and we talk about security issues because we have so much responsibility for those things. But a lot of people around the world you know yes they're worried about those things but they're worried about education and entrepreneurship and science and technology and how to just live a better life and so having American citizens who are engaging globally think broadens the conversation to issues that people all care about in their own lives in ways that sometimes it's hard for the government to do because we do have so much responsibility for all these security issues. The other thing is I think it's good for Americans you know our ability to be more globally oriented. I mean look that I mean I'm not here to talk about politics but you know that's one of the things that we're talking about in this interesting election cycle which is that you know are we turning inward are we looking outward and I think we benefit when we have people going on exchanges or we have people working overseas or we have Peace Corps volunteers. Everybody who participates in that from the American side is going to be enriched and in a world that increasingly has you know a global economy and you benefit if you speak another language or if you know another culture I think that that helps us as well. So in the last thing I'd say is that the connections that are forged you know some things that amaze me is the type of interactions that take place where you don't even know where they're going to lead so for instance we have our young leaders programs and these people come here from Africa or Southeast Asia other places and they interact with Americans and sometimes Americans can go overseas and interact with them. Those people might end up being prime ministers or presidents or business leaders or entrepreneurs or civil society activists in fact they are going to be those things and so the ability to kind of forge those human connections and create that those networks can benefit us in ways you know they go far beyond our foreign policy they just go beyond you know a narrow national interest it will be the connections that we have to the rest of the world that will pay dividends for decades. So I think it's enormously important to have citizens engaged around the world to have them be a part of our diplomacy if you will around the world. The limits are again at any given time there are going to be things in American foreign policy that are controversial we could never do even if we were doing everything right there's no way that everybody would think that and I wouldn't say we always do everything right but so you you can't have that kind of solve for controversies around foreign policy but you can't have that fill in a better picture of what America is and build those connections that benefit both us and I think people around the world. Thank you are there any other questions. Hi my name is Carolyn and if I had more time I'd ask you a really hard question like what's your favorite color. So if Cuba and Iran are in a race and the finish line is an open diplomatic and economic relationship with the U.S. which one is the tortoise and which one is the hare and who's going to win. Nice question. Cuba is ahead of Iran in that in that question I mean that in a negative way about anybody but here's the difference. The Cuban government has decided to pursue a better relationship with the United States so they took a decision to open embassies and to open up to more travel and commerce in the United States and that that's a decision that kind of runs across the board in our relations. They have not made a decision to change their political system yet our belief of course is that the more there's openness and interconnectivity for the Cuban people in the rest of the world the more the Cuban people themselves will be in a position to make their own decisions about the future but the Cubans have made that decision which by the way was not an obvious decision for them to make they had been perfectly comfortable being in opposition to us for decades. The Iranians have not made that decision they made a decision to have a nuclear deal with us so they made a decision to change their relationship with us on one albeit very important issue but they have not made a decision to normalize relations with us. If we hypothetically wanted to open an embassy in Tehran I don't think that they would allow us to right so so that's the difference you know the the Cubans took this leap of wanting to improve relations with us and normalize relations the Iranians only took a step on the nuclear issue and frankly the mix of forces in their system the nature of their revolutionary ideology I think still has them seeing the United States as an adversary. Now we think that it would be better for the Iranian people if that changed but ultimately the Iranian leadership has to take that decision. I'm going to come back to the studio but first we're going to take a question online. I have to tell you you're immensely popular we've been getting questions all night and all morning. This one's from Reham in Palestinian Territories she says I'm a Palestinian IVLP 2013 alumna my question is in the fight against terrorism does the US have a realistic plan to promote religion reform and support moderate religious leaders in Islamic countries or will the US only rely on military force? So look we cannot only rely on military force and this is something that you know President Obama has said time and again that these with military force you can accomplish a narrow set of objectives you know you can disrupt terrorist plots and target terrorist infrastructure and leadership networks but you can't fix broken places and you can't resolve political conflicts with a foreign military and this is again at the core of a big you know I think the debate we've been having in our foreign policy community here for the last couple of years you know that when you have questions like we see in the Middle East that are fundamentally about how people are choosing to live together and address the role of Islam and politics, address the inter-communal differences between different sects we can't solve that with our military there has to be solutions that are forged by the people in those countries now we can try to create incentives for people and we can try to use our diplomacy to get other countries to support better outcomes and we yes we'll use our military to try to deal with the most violent extremist elements but ultimately there's a limit to what the military can do. In terms of promoting reform with inter-religion look we believe that there's no the only long-term solution to the challenges posed by groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda really will come from within Muslim communities and because what these groups try to do is pervert Islam for their own purposes and the rejection of those efforts by the vast majority of Muslims but the in the kind of persistent effort to reject those ideologies I think is is the only way that this has dealt with in the long term. The United States in that effort you know we're not going to be able to engineer reform movements inside of any religion. I think what we can do is number one at home lift up and welcome and celebrate the fact that we have a remarkably successful Muslim community that co-exists with other communities that benefits from the values of pluralism and democracy that we have here in the United States. I think overseas we can encourage and do encourage other governments to similarly try to lift up the value of the ability of people to coexist and practice their faith in their own way but to reject extremist elements. I think we can lift up good work that's being done in other countries you know there is courageous work that is being done in many different parts of the world and we can kind of give that a platform and we can shine a spotlight on the people who are doing the right things so that we're not just against something but we're for something and you know that effort again has many different components sometimes it's you know where are we putting our development assistance sometimes it's simply you know who are we promoting a dialogue with sometimes it's literally publicizing things that other people wouldn't know about otherwise so this will be a long-term effort ultimately change has to come within societies and communities but we can always be on the make an effort to be on the right side of that and try to empower and lift up where the people who we believe are doing the right thing as best we can and a lot of those stories are actually by and from our exchange alumni so I'm really proud to say that a lot of the things you're mentioning about the people doing courageous things and the stories we want to share they actually are alumni of us government's concert programs yeah and I'll say something about that which is that I don't want you know people don't have to agree with everything we do either you know sometimes you get a little nervous that well this person you know doesn't like our policy on x so should we like there's no way you're going to engage broadly and lift people I you know there are people who can disagree with certain things the United States does but still believe in what we're just talking about you know the value of pluralism and the peaceful resolution of disputes so we have to have space in our programming and our outreach for different points of view you know as long as we're in the common space of rejecting violence and prejudice absolutely so I know a lot of hands just went up we definitely have time for more questions from our DC studio if you'd like to hand the mic over thank you Edmonton Alberta and I just wanted to ask you America has vetoed every single action against Israel in the UN we give a countless amount of aid without strings attached so is America serious about solving the Palestinian-Israeli crisis if so how so one of my greatest disappointments you know I think what President Obama would say one of his greatest disappointments is the lack of progress on this issue in the last seven half years we have tried many different tactics we've tried very aggressive U.S.-led diplomacy under Secretary Kerry we've tried to work more bilaterally with Israel and the Palestinians we've tried to get other countries to support peace initiatives and none of that has worked I mean I think our plan has always been again to people know essentially how a two-state solution would look our plan has basically been to try to find whatever formula we can to help Israel and the Palestinians get there now and that hasn't worked at the end of the day people you know if there's not a willingness to take that step among the leadership in Israel and among the Palestinians then there's only so much we can do and unfortunately we just haven't had you know we've we've opened the door and and nobody has walked through it now people might ask well why don't you push into the door you know you can apply more pressure I think that you know kind of is implicit in your question I think you know the challenge with that is even if that may seem attractive it's not ultimately going to solve the problem because you know just take Israel they would have to do very hard things on their side to reach two-state solution and the more I think our concern is if they feel forced into doing that that they may be actually be pushed further away from taking those hard hard steps that that it may feed a sense of of concern inside of Israel that that they're being abandoned so therefore they're going to they're they're going to be less likely to you know deal with very challenging issues like how do you how do you address settlements and how do you how do you implement a peace deal how do you give up a certain amount of land so that's been our concern with that approach you know at the other side of the argument is we're very concerned at the facts on the ground right now and at the continued settlement construction and so I do think everybody needs to think hard about that in the United States where there's such a you know natural affinity for Israel and an understandable desire to support uh Israel that the settlement issue is really reaching a point where it's going to force some some you know some very hard questions on us we have time for one more I can take a couple more take a couple more okay great I'm tired I'd give long answers it's okay I'll try to give shorter answers okay if you want to package a couple together in the room and then take one of these people who I feel like you know if they stayed up you know tweeting okay that sounds great thank you so in 2009 during the Cairo speech the tone of the the speech was in general a very hopeful one it was cheerfully it was it was the reconnection between the west and the middle east one one thing that had been gone for a long time my question is if you were to write a speech again talking to the to the middle east what would the tone be like this time because after the air spring and all the things that are happening in syria ices things have changed and they didn't exactly go as planned when the speech was spoken thank you so just very quickly then when I look back at that speech of course some of the things that we talked about have happened and many of them have not but those are the things that we believe and so the notion that I mean President Obama I think looks at history with a very long view and he thinks that there's value in telling people again where we stand and what we would like to see happen and some of the things like I said that he talked about in the speech we were able to do some like the Arab Israeli conflict have not worked out in this time period but you know if anybody wants to know what the United States stands for and the future we want it's still in that speech and so I don't think we should change what we believe in or what we would like to see happen because events have taken a negative turn in many places in the Middle East you know I will say he's addressed these issues at length and I think there is a sense of exasperation on one of the issues I was talking about earlier it's true in the military it's true more broadly there is a very conflicted view of the United States in the Middle East on the one hand there's a lot of resentment about us being too involved in the affairs of countries and meddling in the affairs of countries on the other hand there's a view of why haven't you fixed this problem or why you know and I think what President Obama has tried to do repeatedly is say here's what we believe here's what we will do here's what we won't do and you know we will want to be a partner on behalf of solving problems but ultimately you know these huge enormous questions that are whirling the region are going to have to be addressed and solutions are going to have to be fine by the people but we will do our best you know in that effort to be a partner and I still think the Cairo speech is a good window into how we view America how we view the relation between Islam and America and frankly where we would stand on on the key issues. Anyone else have a question? Yes. I'm Aaron an alumnus from the State Department program and I guess recently especially with the rise of the allegations of the Russian hacking of the DNC we've kind of reached a bit of a new low with our relations with Russia and I'm kind of wondering what sort of points of cooperation what can we have to have a bit more of an optimistic outlook on our future on our future relations with Russia? The interesting thing is we still are able to cooperate with Russia on some things even as we have very strong differences on many other things. I think a complete breakdown in US-Russian relations would be very bad for the United States and the world and frankly is not necessary so if you look at even the last couple of years we would not have gotten the Iran nuclear deal without Russia they joined us in the sanctions they joined us in the diplomacy they were unified in our diplomatic positions and that helped us get that done it's just even as we were putting sanctions on them over Ukraine and had strong differences over the Assad regime and so I do think there's you know we're still implementing the new start treaty which limits our deployed nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons launchers so I think there always has to be space preserved for the ability to cooperate on certain issues but the way in which we try to define when we disagree with Russia or any other country is rooted in international law international rules of the road and so if you invade a country and violate its borders as with Ukraine we're going to respond to that if you engage in cyber activity and we said the same thing the Chinese that again violates basic concepts of the rule of law and sovereignty then we're going to respond to that so that there's an understanding of here's here the places we're going to differ on are not just about arrival review it's about an international order that we support and I think that that's the the line that we draw and frankly what we believe and this is important to every country is we need to show that if you follow those rules you will benefit more Russia has not been following those rules their economy is suffering as a result you know their economy is is smaller than South Korea's it and it is stagnant and and in the long run they're not going to be able to sustain these types of military efforts and expenditures if they don't focus on their own foundation and there will be better position to do that if again they're abiding by basic rules and norms and so that's I think that's what will guide our approach do you have time for two more questions okay we'll take one from the audience and one from twitter thank you hi my name is Jason Carroll I did the yes abroad program in Senegal and my question for you is what region and or regions of the world would you say are the most important to yes abroad yes abroad the state department efforts and our diplomatic efforts today and what language or languages in these regions would you say are most important for young people to be learning just real quick on the second question I think Spanish is the most important language for Americans to learn because this is our part of the world and our ability to interact with our neighbors I think it is it's an underappreciated part of our foreign policy in Latin America and it's deeply interwoven with our own country and culture and so I would always recommend Spanish I learned French so I have to do that myself obviously I I can't pick favorite regions or risk offending well I will say a couple things though and to differentiate so Europe is always kind of been at the the core of our engagement in the world doesn't mean it's more important than other parts of the world it just means these are the countries that not only we have alliances with but we cooperate with them around the world so we have a commitment to European security and European unity and European success but because of the way history is developed it is more likely than not that European allies are going to be a key part of a global climate agreement an Iran deal you know a counterterrorism effort so that's why Europe is kind of distinct and they can be taken for granted sometimes but you know they're they're kind of a cornerstone of a platform for how we deal not just with Europe but with global challenges president Obama I think has felt that the Middle East of course is is important to us and and and consumes so much attention and rightly so because we have important interests there and they're huge challenges there but I think he's looked around the world and said Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are places that there have not been enough focus on and North Northeast Asia we've always you know we have allies in Japan and Korea and we're deeply engaged here in the US-China relationship is fundamental to how the world works or doesn't work in the 21st century but these these other parts of the world have been particular areas of focus for us precisely because they are areas that are on the verge I mean they're at different levels of development but they're all moving fast and if they continue down a path of successful and stable economic development and they move in a path of greater democracy that is going to shape the global environment in very important ways if you look at Latin America just the consolidation of increasing prosperity and security and the result resolution of the old conflicts you know that creates an incredibly you know as potential to create an incredibly peaceful and and stable part of the world where human rights are respected it's an enormous market for our goods that's incredibly important to us even though it doesn't always get a lot of attention and by the way that also will deal with the migration problems that have presented challenges from Central America we people have opportunity in the places they live those issues become much easier to deal with if you look at Southeast Asia part of the world that I've spent a lot of time focused on these economies are growing at an unbelievable rate and again if if that development it continues to be peaceful not only are those going to become enormous markets I mean our economic growth as a country is coming largely from our ability to export to places like this but if they become part of the solution again and dealing with something like climate change or responding to natural disasters and you have countries like Myanmar that are transitioning towards more democratic governance that can become a source of global stability in sub-Saharan Africa where you have this mix of some countries that have huge challenges with conflicts and governance and then some countries are the fastest growing economies in the world if that if the trend is more in the direction of growing economies and more democratic and less corrupt governance that is going to be a huge platform for stability and trade so we've tried to put more focus on these these these regions that often get overlooked by US foreign policy you know sometimes people look at you know it's Russia in the Middle East and like the rest of the world doesn't matter you know maybe China but there's billions of people in these other places and they're enormously important to our interests and we can't deal with any problem climate change global health non-proliferation unless again we are investing in success stories and progress in these places and the reason these exchange programs are so important too is that these places are full of young people I mean the the youth populations in in an area like Southeast Asia or sub-Saharan Africa where we've tried to increase our exchange programs the you know they make up enormous percentage of the population and they're going to have a lot to say and in some of these places that have an older leadership that well that's going to change as young people come up and so our ability to make those contexts now um is going to make all the difference before we get to our last question from Twitter I'd like to give another shout out to all of our viewing parties around the world we have viewing groups in Moldova Guinea Israel Nigeria Pakistan Sudan and Canada and I'd like to thank all others who joined us online we really appreciate your participation and thank you for sending in all those lovely photos from your viewing parties so our last question is from Twitter the person says looking ahead to the future what is a foreign policy challenge for the next administration that should receive more attention in the current presidential campaigns when the current presidential camp well no comment um the uh you know uh so everybody's going to talk about terrorism and and they're going to talk about Putin um I think the South China Sea is an incredibly important issue that Americans need to pay a little bit more attention to because it's always concerning when you have big important countries with deeply contrary territorial claims in a part of the world where a trillion dollars of commerce flows each year and so the ability to support a peaceful resolution of the disputes in South China Sea even as there are these irreconcilable positions I think that that's going to be an issue of the next president I don't know how much will be in the campaign but that's an issue that will confront the next president uh I think um this issue of cyber security is getting more attention I think that's going to be an increasing uh challenge that has to be dealt with because it can touch people in their own lives um because so many of our so much of our lives are online and I think thinking through how we're working to address that challenge is going to be important uh to the next president um you know beyond that uh I think you know climate change is it is still kind of a little underweighted in American politics um and it's been hot here by the way last year yeah um but but seriously like it I remember when we went to Paris um for the global climate conference and it was shortly after the the Paris tax um which are obviously you know heartbreaking and but there was kind of an undertone of a why you you know here talking about climate change you know who cares about that you know we should only be talking about terrorism uh and it's just it impacts every other issue that we're going to have to deal with um and and there's not a country we go to that is not going to be significantly harmed in some manner by climate change when we I was just in you know Laos and Burma and Vietnam and the food supply that they depend on uh and you know is going to be potentially significantly eroded and when you think about the refugee flows people are concerned about the migration out of Assyria as they rightly should be but the migration that would take place if current trends continue on climate change would dwarf that uh by millions if not billions of people um and so this is something that we have to care about as Americans as part of our domestic policy as part of our foreign policy and President Obama's tried to put this in the middle of our foreign policy and it's a tough issue because the choices you're making are about the future and not right now and that's always a hard trade-off to make and the choices have to involve us doing things at home and then coordinating that with what countries are doing abroad um but the one thing that I've been pleasantly surprised by I'm very surprised wrong word but hardened by is that everywhere we go around the world when he meets with young people this is what they want to talk about and and that includes in the United States by the way and so you you know some of the days you turn on you know the cable news here in the United States and it's like the things that young people are talking about just does not match up with what they're seeing on the news and in part that's because young people are getting their own sources of information so they're not just sitting there all day watching you know cable news or something you know they're they're going online or they're on a social media platform or you know they're they're communicating with each other but I do think that there's this weird disconnect and I what I hope is that younger people are forcing these issues onto the agenda here in the United States and around the world over time in ways that change what that issue said is and again I think climate change uh is an issue that uh is just going to have to take up more and more of our attention thank you thank you so much for joining us today do you have any my favorite color is blue okay to answer that other question thank you so much thank you all for joining us this morning this is the second episode in our Washington Circle series so you really helped us kick it off thank you for being our second guest I hope you all will stay tuned for more announcements about our future episodes and for everyone who joined us online I hear you guys have a really great conversation going on in the chat space and we'd love for you all to continue that on our facebook page which is international exchange alumni and you can also tweet us at exchange alumni as well so thank you all again and this concludes our very um well our second episodes because they are very first but our second episode of Washington Circle thank you