 Our speaker this evening is extremely well placed to speak about the challenges, the complexities of American foreign policy and American security policy broadly defined. So Laura Rosenberger is here as a Vice Chancellor's Distinguished Visiting Fellow which is a unique arrangement here at the National Security College where we're really privileged to bring eminent and expert voices from overseas to engage with the Australian policy debate. Laura in her day job I guess is currently the Director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy which is a bipartisan initiative under the the German Marshall Fund, a prominent think tank in Washington. She has a career which I guess goes back to the post 9-11 era and indeed Laura began her national security and policy career in fact during the Bush administration but during that very very busy and turbulent period of time since then Laura has worked in the State Department, she's worked in roles in the National Security Council of the White House as well. Most recently before moving into the world of think tanks Laura served as Foreign Policy and Security Advisor in the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton and that's a story to which perhaps I'm sure she will tell you a little about insights into the way that ended and of course the lessons that hold for the present day. Laura Rosenberger is a very close friend of the Australia-US relationship, she's worked on Asian or Indo-Pacific issues during her time in government and follows those very closely and I think has taken quite an interest in issues around the resilience of Australian democracy while she's here. We will take some questions after a Laura's presentation and of course just a reminder the event is on the public record so please keep your phones on silent but don't hesitate to tweet and engage in the conversation. So please join me now in welcoming Laura Rosenberger. Well thank you Rory for that very kind introduction. Thanks of course to the National Security College for hosting me as well as to the Vice Chancellor for hosting me here at ANU and thanks to all of you for giving your evenings to be here for this conversation. I'm going to start as Rory said with about maybe 20 minutes of remarks but I thought it would be particularly a good opportunity on this topic to have some back and forth so be thinking of questions as I go along. I don't need to tell you all that we live in an era of disruption and in the United States while certainly we feel that Donald Trump is one of those disruptive forces it's very important for us to remember that he is not the cause of those disruptions. Rising authoritarianism, transformative technologies, growing nationalism fueled in part by dislocation, increasing wealth gaps all of these forces are putting strains on the post-war war two international system. The damage that Donald Trump is doing to America's leadership abroad is compounding our ability to deal with these many disruptive forces, hampering America's ability to respond in a smart and strategic way that positions us to meet the challenges of the future. These are all forces that Democrats must contend with as they begin articulating their foreign policy agendas for the 2020 campaign and beyond. Any successful foreign policy vision can't just seek to repair the damage there is no going back to how things were or to simply respond to Trump. The reality is that regardless of Trump major reforms to the international system would have been necessary and while what I'm laying out today is a sense of where I think Democrats are going and should go on foreign policy I come at national security with the belief that it should not be a partisan issue. As you heard from Rory I spent many of my years in government as a career civil servant under administrations from both parties. I remain hopeful that Trump is a temporary outlier and I will speak to this in greater detail and I believe that we can restore a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in the United States. I believe it's especially important as our adversaries have demonstrated how powerful the ability to divide us is in terms of weakening America. Standing together is actually of strategic importance for the United States and so what I'm speaking about today is framed as a democratic foreign policy it is not based on politics but on American interests. I also just reflecting on 2016 think it's important to underscore that Trump was elected not because of his foreign policy but despite it. If we go back to exit polls Hillary was 53-42 on the question of who would better handle foreign policy. 49 percent thought she would be a better commander in chief to Trump's 46 but critically only 13 percent said foreign policy was the most important issue facing the country and this lack of emphasis among American voters on foreign policy has continued. A forthcoming study from the Center for American Progress found that 65 percent of Americans don't think foreign policy decisions by the government matter to their lives. A figure that is consistent roughly across all demographic groups. That disconnect and I say this with great humility is a result of a failure of foreign policy professionals like me to speak about American foreign policy and the importance of American leadership in terms that resonate with the voting public. So it will be critical for Democrats to find ways to talk about foreign policy in a manner that connects with people's lives. Trump has challenged conventional foreign policy in ways that scholars and practitioners find deeply disturbing but he has a clear narrative. For Americans they will look around and see that for all the warnings of the apocalypse resulting from Trump's approach to foreign policy it hasn't come. The damage of course that is being done is significant and everyone in this room knows that and it is compounding. But for many Americans the damage is being done quote over there and it is not visible to many at home. The good news is that because this is an issue that is not particularly salient for voters and one on which they are broadly not terribly familiar with the details it is one where leadership can have an enormous impact and so it is incumbent upon Democratic foreign policy analysts and candidates in the 2020 race to articulate an agenda for strong leadership backed by a strong narrative. So turning to the 2020 race it's very early. Many candidates don't have a significant record on foreign policy and in fact some candidates haven't yet even entered the race and I should say upfront that I do not expect foreign policy to be a significant driver of the campaign itself but it will be a defining issue for the next president. So against that backdrop let me address the areas I see as emerging consensus among candidates and leading democratic foreign policy analysts, areas where there is a potential divergence and areas where I think it will be critical for a successful post-Trump foreign policy that require more focused attention than they've seen to date. First the democratic struggle against authoritarianism will be a defining feature of the next several decades. The idea that strengthening democracy needs to be central to any democratic foreign policy is emerging as the earliest area of consensus amongst democratic candidates running in the 2020 race and of leading foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic Party. This consensus is born out of recognition of the damage that Trump is doing to American democracy at home and concerns about growing authoritarianism around the world and the fact that that poses a direct threat to the U.S. way of life. It reflects concerns about Russia's attacks on our democracy and of our allies and of concerns about techno-authoritarianism being developed by the Chinese Communist Party. And it reflects concerns about a liberal slides within some of our allies including with the NATO. The centrality of democracy to foreign policy has already been articulated by a number of leading voices. The Center for American Progress has proposed putting democratic values at the core of democratic foreign policy underscoring that doing so is inherently in America's interests. My colleague Jake Sullivan who was policy director on Hillary's campaign also made an eloquent case for this in a recent article in The Atlantic arguing that the core purpose of American foreign policy must be to protect and defend the American way of life. This thinking is also reflected in the new Democratic House of Representatives where the first bill to pass the House was HR1 which focused on a number of measures to strengthen democratic resilience at home and around the world. And in that sense there's a recognition that democracy is not only central to foreign policy but is also a bedrock matter of national security. A renewed focus on the importance of democracy is to our security is perhaps overdone but as the campaign season heats up it will be critical for Democrats to continue to respond to democratic recession at home in ways that strengthen democracy and not allow partisan interests to drive a further weakening of institutions in the name of political gains. Doing so would not only weaken us but it would set a dangerous precedent for other democracies fighting the liberal forces from within or authoritarian forces from without and it would play directly into authoritarian hands. Related to a focus on democracy is a focus on countering kleptocracy and corruption and there is a consensus on the need to combat it. This concern is taking a number of different forms across the Democratic Party with some candidates particularly focused on corporate corruption and others focused more on oligarchs and the way that autocrats are using these tools to hold power. Authoritarian forces like the Russian government and the Chinese Communist Party have weaponized corruption to facilitate interference in democracies. Strengthening our systems against these tools will be critical to strengthening our democracies from within and denying authoritarians a weapon of choice. Technology is another area where we have seen a weaponization of tools against democracy but also a potential to actually strengthen our democracy and it is sure to be a robust topic on the campaign trail. I believe a debate around technology policy is long overdue in the United States. Right now other global actors are setting the tech agenda particularly around data. If the U.S. wants to ensure that information technology continues to grow in a manner that supports democracy and that we remain competitive at the same time it's long overdue for us to step up. But to date much of the conversation has revolved primarily around battles of the past around issues of social media and around frameworks of data which by the way in the United States we don't have yet so we desperately need but we've got to actually start looking forward. Issues of AI are urgently in need of serious substantive conversation whether on facial recognition, ethics or competitiveness. More broadly as we look out over the next several decades these technological trends combined with rising authoritarianism mean competition and conflict will increasingly play out in new domains and battle spaces. We need to be investing in the right kinds of capabilities for the 21st century. Much of this starts with enhancing our own domestic competitiveness and the good news is that Americans broadly support an agenda of investing at home. It also means retiring outdated systems and updating strategies and doctrines to reflect the challenges of the future. It also means updating and rebuilding our institutions to meet the needs of the 21st century. President Trump and his administration are doing enormous damage to our institutions of government at home including the State Department where I spent much of my career. The hollowing out of talent will have a long-term impact but Democrats should seize the opportunity to not just rebuild but reinvigorate the institutions of government to face the challenges of the future. Among other things this means being more nimble and enabling cross-cutting collaboration, breaking down silos and creating better pathways for collaboration between the public and private sectors. Of course ensuring our competitiveness and the centrality of values is no more important on any issue than China where there is a bipartisan consensus on the need for a tougher approach. But what we see from the Trump administration I would argue is not a strategy. His narrow focus on tariffs undermines our ability to tackle other critical issues. And in that sense there's a major opportunity for Democratic candidates to define a smarter and tough approach that is comprehensive in dealing with a rising China that is threatening core principles of the global order. And of course that starts with our allies. Now I expect Russia to be a significant topic of debate in Washington. I'm happy to take questions on the Mueller report but I will largely leave those for Q&A. But there's no question that debate in Washington will be revolving around partisan agendas in the Russia context at least in the months ahead. But I would note that to date the issue of Russia and of the Mueller report has not come up much on the campaign trail and it does not appear to be an issue that is driving voters. And I believe it's critical that Democrats refrain from making Russia and particularly its attacks on our democracy a partisan issue or frankly more partisan than it already is. Doing so would play right into Putin's hands. The threat Russia poses to the United States and our allies is real and more than two years after the 2016 election we have done very little to harden our defenses or deter future acts of aggression from Russia. This has implications of course not just for Russia but for countries like China where in your country and right here in Australia the issue of foreign interference is also a major concern. There will be other drivers that are sure to be injected into the debate as the 2020 campaign unfolds. Immigration of course is one of Trump's central agendas and one where Democrats have taken a strong stand in opposition to his cruel encounter productive approach. Looking back at 2016 the only national security issue on which Trump pulled higher than Hillary in the exits was on international terrorism which dominated much of the campaign discussion as ISIS launched a series of external attacks and grew its territorial presence in Iraq and Syria. In 2020 I don't expect international terrorism to be as much of a campaign trail conversation but I believe we also face a different kind of terrorism a nationalist driven domestic domestic rooted terrorism. Australia and New Zealand experienced this tragically less than two weeks ago. I am from the city of Pittsburgh and I have prayed and worshipped in the congregation of Tree of Life so for me this is also personal. I believe it is past time for the national security community to address the rise of white nationalism and domestic terrorism as forcefully as we have other forms of terrorism and as Christchurch underscores international cooperation on these threats will be critical but even if global terrorism is not a major focus in this campaign cycle the reality is that America along with Australia and many of our allies still has troops in Afghanistan fighting what many now shorthand is the forever war. A number of candidates have already pledged to end that troop commitment and in an odd alignment earlier this year a number of Democrats including several who are running for president voted against against a congressional resolution rebuking Trump's decision which he has since amended to abruptly withdraw troops from both Syria and Afghanistan. So while I think it's important that we find a way to wind down these conflicts I'm all too familiar with the fact that it's easier to pledge to do so than to actually do so and I certainly hope that the candidates pledging this will back up simplistic campaign trail promises with an actual concrete plan. Climate change is of course an issue that's particularly important for younger voters and Democrats have a strong case to make for both the restoration of American leadership on this issue and for strong investments at home. The Green New Deal is just one example of the creative thinking being done within the party on ways to connect sound climate policy with smart domestic policy. Of course there are areas of disagreement within the party with trade being the most significant one. Unfortunately within the Democratic party we have still not made a case for free trade that resonates with the American people. The Obama administration made a mistake on TPP and I say this as someone who was part of that effort by making the case based on strategic issues and not connecting it to people's lives at home. We can't base our case on trade on abstract issues we have to root it back to their lives and on top of that we've still not provided Americans with the relief needed for real job displacement. The reality is that many of the ills Americans ascribe to trade are not actually caused by trade. Automation for instance plays a bigger role in job dislocation in many cases. A situation that's only going to get worse with the advent of autonomous vehicles and other forms of AI. But until we invest at home to address the underlying causes of these anxieties we are not going to be able to successfully make the case for a free trade agenda one that I believe is critical to ensuring a rules-based international system that is essential for American competitiveness. Now much of what I've outlined here involves strengthening ourselves at home and I do believe that the adage that a strong foreign policy starts at home has never been more true and has never been more critical for Democratic candidates to make a strong foreign policy case. But while it may start at home a strong foreign policy cannot end at home. It would be a mistake to think that we can strengthen ourselves at home without leading outside of our borders. And the reality is that with consensus on the need to defend democracy and push back on authoritarianism this cannot be achieved without robust international engagement. America's retreat from global spaces has been authoritarian's greatest boon. The vacuum we have left has allowed others to fill it. Now allies like Australia has stepped into the breach playing an important role working with others like Japan and India to uphold core elements of the international rules based order particularly here in the Indo-Pacific. And as we contend with an increasingly multi-polar world the role of our allies in shaping global rules and norms will remain critical even with the restoration of U.S. leadership. But as Australia's foreign policy white paper notes American leadership is critical to sustaining rules and norms. So in this time of disruption U.S. global leadership has perhaps never been more important. Ensuring that as institutions change they recognize a more multi-polar world we will need to rebuild institutions to manage new technologies and ensure that they do this in a rules-based way recognizing democratic values and all of that requires robust engagement from the United States. It requires us to recognize the new ways in which power is being exercised and therefore to exercise new forms of global leadership to show up in the spaces where power is being contested. In particular it's clear that a unilateral American approach which we have seen under the Trump administration leads to a world in which American power is diminished and that a multi-polar approach will be even more important, a multilateral approach will be even more important in a multi-pillar world. It will be critical for democratic candidates to make this case for American global leadership. The good news is that despite assumptions that Americans overall are more isolationist today and less willing to engage in the world the forthcoming study I mentioned from the Center for American Progress found that Americans favor a form of what they've dubbed restrained engagement preferring the use of diplomatic political and economic channels over military action in advancing U.S. interest with few supporting isolationism. But sustaining support for American global leadership and international engagement will require concerted effort by our leaders to build a narrative around why it matters. Let me end on a perhaps personal and hopefully not overly cliche note but one of America's greatest sources of power has always been the idea of America and one of the most harmful things that Donald Trump has done to American power is to shake that idea upending the values that are the core of who we are diminishing our power and harming our credibility. We need American leadership that does our best to live our values recognizes our failings and self-corrects stands with our friends and serves as a reliable partner for our allies and so simply put one of the most important tasks for a successful democratic foreign policy is to restore the attractiveness of America. Thank you very much. Stick around. We've I think you've really just begun the conversation in many ways because there are there are many points in those remarks where I think colleagues and friends in the room will have questions. I've got my own questions which I'll maybe come to you with shortly but let's let's open it up to the group straight away please. Wow this is this is this is good. Please confine yourself to one question each and try to make it a nice succinct question rather than a speech. So I'm going to begin right over on my far left with the young woman over here. There's a microphone that will find its way to you and I'll work I'll work from from this side to that side. Thank you. Thank you for that. I just wanted to know if you could please comment on the Mueller report over the weekend. There we go and and and and also I'll ask all of the speakers just to introduce themselves as you or the question is to introduce themselves so thank you. My name is Tamara Bab. I'm currently studying Masters of International Security Law and that's why I'm so interested in this speech. Fantastic. Thank you so much. So I think one of the most important takeaways from what we know of the Mueller report which is to date still a summary of the overall report for me from the national security national security perspective is the reaffirmation of the findings from the investigation about the core components of Russia's attacks on our democracy. The summary lays out the main vectors that Russia used a campaign around social media the hacking of the DNC and several campaign officials and the use of those in order to undermine Hillary's candidacy and to help President Trump. We also know of course from several other investigations including the international I'm sorry the intelligence community assessment a bipartisan investigation by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee as well as several subsequent indictments that have been brought by other parts of the Department of Justice laying out additional elements of Russia's interference in American democracy. For me that's the most important takeaway from the Mueller investigation is a unanimous and absolutely clear finding of what Russia has done and what I would add is continues to do and so for me right now I am disappointed by what I see as a perhaps not surprisingly partisan reaction to the conclusions of the investigation when I think you know understanding in fact as I mentioned that one of the core strategies of Russia's efforts is to divide us this is precisely the time that we need to be coming together as we look forward to the 2020 campaign and the 2020 election it would appear to me that Russia has received no message of clear deterrence. There's been very little consequence for its activities and many of the very clear known vulnerabilities in our democracy that have been exposed through these activities have not been addressed. It's frankly a significant contrast I think to the response here in Australia where you've had a very bipartisan response to countering foreign interference against your own democracy. So as I look forward to 2020 I think it's absolutely critical that our leadership comes together in this moment recognizing the very direct national security threat that we face. There are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have been introduced in Congress that would be quite easy to pass if simply there were the political will. Thank you and we'll go to this gentleman here and we'll keep moving that direction. My name is John Angley but my question is back to the authoritarianism issue. Your your a speech I can't disagree with any you said about China and Russia but it also highlights that second point I always strikes me the inconsistency of the US attitude to authoritarianism. You've got authoritarian regimes you put up with like in the Middle East Saudi Arabia so that I think undermines your that kind of apparently selective attitude to authoritarianism. It really undermines the broader opposition to authoritarianism and it just continues on. So you're asking for a comment on that if you like. The question is you know is will it ever be broader than just your main two competitors who are both authoritarian Russia and China and would you see that changing you know in the following debate. Yeah I think so far what we've seen at least from I mean I'll speak to what I'm seeing in sort of the broader democratic conversation and then I can speak to my own views but certainly as I mentioned the sort of idea of putting democracy very core at the center of a democratic foreign policy or national security policy is is pretty much across the entire spectrum of democratic candidates from the most progressive to the most centrist and pretty much all of the leading voices within the Democratic Party have really come out and talked about the need for a you know democratic values based foreign policy. I think there is a recognition that the inconsistencies that you mentioned do hurt us and so there is really a focus on ensuring that that approach is very clear and consistent. You know I completely agree with you that when it comes to credibility it's it's you know very damaging when we are not consistent in our approach. That's not to that's not to argue that there aren't you know difficult trade-offs sometimes involved in in those in those calculus but I think it's one where consistency is absolutely necessary and when frankly we face a world right now where the slides of a liberalism are beginning to occur within our own alliance structures where we have several NATO allies as I mentioned where democracy is really quite in question. I think it really underscores the importance of actually holding quite firm in in our in our values on that front. Thank you. Do you have any other questions in this corner over here? So I'll take this gentleman at the back. Thank you. Good evening my name is Sorana I'm from Cambodia and I'm a master's student from the master of diplomacy and I got a question regarding the domestic affairs of the U.S. politics. As for your personal view do you think Donald Trump should be impeached? And why and why not? Thank you very much. No no no no here's what I would say. I think impeachment number one is largely it is entirely actually a political decision it's not a legal decision whatsoever. Number one. Number two I am quite focused right now on what is the best way to strengthen American democracy and prevent our institutions from being further weakened and I am quite concerned that the potential of I'm quite concerned about the potential for impeachment proceedings to do further damage to America's institutions of democracy. I believe in our resiliency and I believe that if we can make a very strong case to voters that we can actually come out stronger at home with actually strengthened institutions than we would if we were to proceed with impeachment. So I'll take this question from this gentleman here and then we'll move to the middle block thank you. I'm sorry we'll come back to you if we have time. Ben Ashion in post doc researcher here at the Crawford school. So my question relates specifically to China and the rise of China and so it's clear that you see China as a threat but I want to ask you to elaborate you know more specifically like how and in what ways so is it the nature of the Chinese Communist Party itself, specific goals it holds, specific actions it's taken and are you suggesting that cooperation with China is possibly no longer feasible and also the timing of this like has this there seems to be an intensification in US attitudes towards China with you know since Mike Pence's speech at the Hudson Institute that there seems to be a more stronger approach towards China out of the United States these days but is this a recent phenomenon or something you see that's come? It's a lot of different components to that question so I'm going to do my best to address them. Look number one I think the US approach to China has been getting probably tougher for some time I've frequently told folks that if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016 a tougher approach to China would have certainly followed suit it would look different than what we see now but there's no question that we were headed in this direction so that's point one. Point two is cooperation with China on a whole host of issues is going to remain absolutely essential it's not this is not a binary you know there there are so many issues on which cooperation with China on which you know collaboration in some ways on problem solving is absolutely essential but what I do believe is that we see we see under Xi Jinping's leadership in particular an increased assertiveness and willingness to challenge rules and norms and to weaken them and then remake them in a way that is favorable to China and that is what I believe is unfavorable to the international peace prosperity stability particularly in this region but also globally I think that I'm deeply concerned by whole host of non-transparent kinds of tactics coercive measures that I think are not conducive to an international rules-based system that is the kind that I believe will actually continue to preserve peace prosperity and stability for Americans, for Australians, for you know throughout the throughout the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Can I just push you a little bit further on the technology dimension of that because I think looking globally at US-China competition clearly there's this contest for the commanding heights of the new technologies and places like this university are part of that story. American universities are part of that story so I just wonder if you can talk about really the what appears to be a sea change and thinking politically in the US at the moment about the private sector the academic sector in the US-China competition. Yeah I think particularly when it comes to technology the United States and many of our allies have seen a whole host of cases of industrial espionage of theft of intellectual intellectual property and trade secrets obviously sometimes that's cyber-enabled sometimes that's through research collaboration sometimes that's through more traditional forms of espionage in private sector companies. The United States has taken several steps recently in terms of foreign investment screening to strengthen those controls on the technology sector which were not previously included in our investment screening procedures as well as to look at the reviews of our export controls in order to ensure that technologies that could potentially be dual use are actually captured as such. I think that the challenge for any open society and the democratic society is to protect these technological areas where I think it's not just about economic competitiveness it's also about genuine security risk to protect those sectors while also ensuring that we don't enable a closing off of ourselves or in any way in any way engage in kind of xenophobia about that you know in the manner in which we do that. But I think the reality is particularly when we look at technologies like AI where the PRC has invested heavily in a real whole of nation approach you know there is an enormous potential for a competitiveness gap for the United States and we will face some trade-offs in thinking about how to take steps to protect our own ability to develop our technology and to do so in a way that is consistent with democracy and our values without harming our competitiveness by cutting out contacts and I think this is actually one of the most important and areas where real nuance is required in how we think about it and making sure that we weigh all of the trade-offs appropriately. Thank you. We'll take another question from the group in the middle here this is getting really lively. We'll start with the woman at the front and then we'll move back. Thank you. All right Rachel Warner I look after the Middle East and Afghanistan in defence so my question is related to Afghanistan and we know that we're currently negotiating basically the Taliban and the Afghan government about what the future is going to look like. How far do you think President Trump would go and how unpalatable is that likely to be to the international community to meet his commitments of getting Afghanistan troops out quickly? So I've made it a policy in the past two years to never try to speculate on anything President Trump will or will not do. That being said you know I think number one it's pretty clear that he this is a commitment that he wants to fulfill. It will be something that is important to his base for him to be able to tell them that he's done and therefore I think there's potential for him to make any range of unpalatable decisions or decisions that are unpalatable to the broader international community. That being said I think this is one area where bureaucratic inertia is important. I think the Defense Department does have a good bit of sway on thinking throughout the administration on this. Now that is shifting. We of course still have we don't have a confirmed Secretary of Defense. We don't even have a nominee for Secretary of Defense. We also don't have a permanent Chief of Staff at the White House. So there's a whole host of reasons where I would be cautious about where this may head but I think well I guess I think there's a range of possibilities but I ultimately think that it will end up in a space where President Trump can proclaim victory. Now look we've also found that he's sometimes willing to proclaim victory even if he hasn't actually done what he says he's done. So you know there's all kinds of ways that you can call troops other things and we've done that actually previously and so is there a way that he can talk about you know bringing the troops home maybe while still having you know a presence there under a different name possibly. So I think there's a whole range of possibilities so that was a lot of speculating on not speculating. We'll take a question at the back the woman at the back and then the gentleman behind her. Thank you. You've critiqued partisanship within the US political system. Do you think that the post-Trump foreign policy era should have a concerted focus on creating a bipartisan message to the world? Yes. Yes I would very much I would very much hope to do that. I mean look there's I'm not like so naive to think that this is something that we can do in sort of every corner of the foreign policy space. Issues like defense spending for instance are always going to come under partisan disagreement but are there some broad principles and consensus that we can reaffirm? I think so and I think if we lift the hood a little bit actually on the foreign policy conversation in Washington as I said I hope President Trump is an outlier. In fact if you look at some of the most unanimous or close to unanimous votes in Congress over the past few years have been on foreign policy issues and so I actually think that there is still more bipartisanship on foreign policy in most areas than there actually appears to be on the surface and that does give me some hope. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Michael. Yeah I'm a second year undergrad here at A&U. So my question is on technology as well. So Brett Smith the president of Microsoft was here this morning and he talked about how Microsoft is trying to take the lead in calling for regulations on technologies like facial recognition and autonomous weapons. But since the privacy fiasco last year the tech industry has been a favorite target of Democrats and Republicans alike. So do you think under a democratic administration in 2021 and beyond there's any chance of a Democrat in the White House working with companies that are trying to be proactive in creating some sort of rule-based regime technology like autonomous weapons or do you think there's no chance at all. Thank you. A lot of questions. Thank you. So I think that when it comes to technology and technology policy and ensuring American competitiveness and ensuring ethics around technological development and all of these issues that there is nothing that the government can do alone on this and that it is inherently it will inherently require cooperation between the government and the private sector. I was at the White House during the Stone revelations and I watched the relationship with Silicon Valley come crashing down and of course during the encryption debates that we had in the United States a few years later that that tension in their relationship only only was further entrenched. So there's an enormous amount of distrust frankly on both sides of the sort of public and private space. So I think that it's incumbent on government to figure out ways to work with the private sector but I also think it's incumbent on the private sector to figure out ways to work with government. This has to be a two to tango kind of thing and so as much as the government may want to work with the with the private sector as long as we have companies who you know refuse to work with our Department of Defense while you know entertaining working with authoritarian powers. I think it's going to be difficult for us to actually get anywhere. So I think that there is a need in both Silicon Valley and in Washington for that willingness. Now is there some regulatory action to be taken here? Yes. Does it need to be smart? Yes. Does it need to ensure that we're not fighting the last battle instead of the future war? Yes. Does it probably need to ensure flexibility so that it's not actually regulating away our competitiveness? Absolutely. So I think that tech policy is absolutely going to dominate part of the conversation on the campaign trail but it's actually an area where I don't think there's necessarily consensus even within the Democratic Party on what the right kind of technology policy is. Thank you. I'll take one more from the group in the middle here then we'll move over to my very patient right. This gentleman in the front here. Thank you. Thanks so much for coming down and doing this wonderful speech. I'm Karan Tamizh. I'm one of the graduate students at the ANU and used to work at the Australian Mission to the UN in New York. In the last time there was a big Democratic primary field in 2008. Foreign policy background at least passed decision-making regarding the Iraq war became a big differentiating factor. Now you've gone through a lot of the issues where you think the Democrats, the Democratic candidate and the Democratic foreign policy can provide a clear distinction to President Trump. Do you see any kind of divisions inside the primary field from the candidates, a lot of them, a lot of whom don't have that big of a history in foreign policy that might pop up in national security or so over the next year or so? Yeah. I actually, I mean as I said, I don't expect foreign policy to be a sort of driving factor in the campaign either in the primary, maybe actually a little bit more in the general election than in the primary. So I don't think it's like 2008 with the Iraq war. But I do think there's a couple of areas where there are some potential differences. I mean technology policies I mentioned is one where I expect there to be a lot of conversation and I don't think we have consensus. Trade, as I mentioned, is another and it will be, it really hasn't been put yet to some of the more centrist candidates who appear to be running or may be running or haven't yet declared that they're running but are still coming down the pike. Somebody like Joe Biden obviously has a very, very long record on trade, very involved in promoting TPP. So where Joe Biden would land on the campaign trail, for instance, that could be one differentiating factor. I do as well and I kind of talked about this a little bit in my remarks. I do think there is a bit of a difference amongst candidates on the degree to which they believe that American international engagement or global leadership should be sort of a primary aspect of our approach. There are certainly some candidates who will argue something along the lines of we need to focus our attention at home first as if this is a choice that can be made. What I would note is of course that even those candidates have articulated, you know, for instance the importance of democracy around the world and countering authoritarianism and countering kleptocracy and you can't do those things if you're not internationally engaged. So I think there is an inherent tension in some of what is being articulated by some of those less international engagement focused candidates but I do think that that also could be a bit of a differentiating factor in some of the conversation. Thank you. All right, we'll go to this group now. You'll go to the ANU students are asking all the most troublesome questions this evening. I just should note that it's a sign of ANU's spirit of inquiry that you're getting troublesome questions from our students. Very welcome. Academic independence please. Yeah, I am a student. My name is Elizabeth. I'm a first year in a Bachelor of Age Pacific Affairs. My question is so while obviously complete abolition is unlikely, given the increased threat of the increased nuclear threat, do you think there's likely to be a move towards nuclear nonproliferation anytime in the next few decades? Nuclear nonproliferation as in actually arms reduction? Yes. You know, what I would say. Yeah, it's very tough times on that front. You know, we're sort of headed in the wrong direction right now on a whole bunch of different fronts. So obviously, you know, actually if we broaden out for a second, you know, even in the sort of the worst times of the Cold War, you know, arms control agreements and, you know, the arms control mechanisms with the Soviet Union and then after that with Russia have been one of the areas of sort of constancy, frankly, stability in the relationship. We have seen that erode pretty significantly over the past few years. Now look, this isn't really just, I'm not going to blame this on Trump. You know, Russia's violation of the INF Treaty started during the Obama administration and, you know, it's been a challenge since that time. You know, obviously, since then we've seen the Trump administration pull out of the INF Treaty. Traditional arms control mechanisms seem to be eroding. I think we're all concerned about the future of New START and then that doesn't even get into obviously some of the, you know, concerns we face closer to home here in the region with North Korea. So, you know, my own sense is that if we can simply kind of go back to status quo ante and maybe rebuild some of the mechanisms, certainly with Russia, which I think are really quite important to the arms control regime, then that would be maybe the best place that I think we can get ourselves to. So I guess that's really not a very optimistic answer for you. I'm sorry. So we'll take two more. What I'll do is take both of these questions together and that gives you the opportunity to evade either of them if you wish. But I'm sure you won't. So in the front row here, please. Over on this side. Thank you. Oh, yes. One for you. Oh, this gentleman here. Yes. My name is Hideaki Shi. I'm from the Embassy of Japan in Canva. Quick question on Afghanistan. I think you talked about bureaucratic inertia when you talked about Afghanistan. But I wonder, do you think bureaucratic inertia with regard to Afghanistan serves to ensure America's, you know, global engagement? Or is it actually undermining America's ability to respond to greater strategic challenges? Okay, don't answer. This man who kindly passed on the microphone, you should take, we'll have three questions. Why don't you take your question, please? Yes. Yours might be easier. Laura, my name is Ben Smith, Australian China Friendship Society. You've spoken a lot this evening, vilifying China in one way or another. And yet, on numerous occasions, the United States has threatened China in the series of military bases which you have in the Western Pacific. What's your question? My question is that you should be the last person to criticise China. That's not a question. You've made numerous, numerous threats, the American government that is, against China, including the nuclear threat. Tell us about that. Thank you for that question. And our last question of the day, I think to the young woman in the middle, please, who has her hand raised. Hi, I'm Rhea. I'm an undergraduate law student. I was just wondering if you could comment a little bit on sort of the importance of like gun regulations and Islamophobia in the 2020 presidential race, particularly in light of A, the Christchurch attacks recently, and B, sort of the controversy and conflict that's arisen from some of the comments that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and in response to her Chelsea Clinton make. So thank you. Three wide-ranging questions. Over to you, Laura. All softballs as well. Okay, so starting with Afghanistan. I think that the United States has kicked the can on this particular challenge for too long. I think that it has often been too easy to continue with sort of the status quo while not actually facing some of the very tough decisions that we need to face. Now, one thing I will say on this point for any of you students in here who have especially if you're studying national security decision making, anytime I speak on national security decision making, one thing that I say is that if I ever have the privilege to serve in government again, I will never allow a decision memo to come across my desk that has as one of the options, do nothing and the consequences of that because I actually don't think that decision makers effectively weigh what the pros and cons of the status quo are. We look at all kinds of options and if you ever want to hear me talk about Syria and decision making there, this is actually super important in that context. The kick the can, do nothing decision is often the easiest, but it's one where we don't actually go through the exercise of weighing the pros and cons, but it is actually taking a decision and we need to recognize it as such. So in the Afghanistan context, do I believe that our inability to come to a very carefully weighted decision in a way to wrap down our presence there in a manner that protects American interests and enables the continued stability of the region is harming our ability to project American power elsewhere? Yes, I do. On China, I'm happy to chat. I don't believe anything I said is vilifying China. I've spent a lot of time in China and I certainly appreciate many friendships with the Chinese people, but I believe that a constructive relationship with China has to recognize some of the challenges that we do face in that relationship today and that is what I was was laying out. On the question of Islamophobia guns, Ilhan Omar, that's a lot. What I will just say is a couple of things. One, Donald Trump and his rhetoric has given permission to a lot of very heated xenophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist rhetoric. He has done that since his speech announcing his campaign, his candidacy in 2015. I don't believe that he is the cause of that. I grew up in a part of Western Pennsylvania that is not the friendliest to many minority communities and I'm deeply concerned by the resurgence we have seen in white nationalism in all kinds of forms across the United States. I think that it's incredibly important, as I mentioned, that the Democratic candidates for president project leadership that actually represents our values. I mean, for me, that really is about the attractiveness of America. It is about the idea of who we are and of being true to it. We have many blemishes, but our Constitution talks about forming a more perfect union, and that's always been what we've attempted to do. I think that that challenge is significant upon us today, but it's one that we have got to tackle and facing these demons are actually incredibly important to doing that.