 Good afternoon, everyone. Hello and welcome to the third in our speaker series for smart women's smart power. I'm Dr. Kathleen Hicks. I direct the international security program here at CSIS and I also have the good fortune of leading the smart women's smart power initiative which seeks to amplify the voices of women in foreign policy, security and international business. And I want to thank all of you for joining us here in the room, but also those who are joining on the web And of course since it's the 21st century, we have to remind you to please follow us on Twitter. Our handle is at smart women Please go ahead and pull your phones out now to add that to your Twitter feed And I also invite you to check out our podcast series, which is tremendous That's on iTunes. It's smart women on iTunes. I Want to take a moment today to thank in particular City which supports the series and I'd like to briefly turn the floor over to Candy Wolf who's executive vice president and head of global Government affairs at city. So please join me in thanking Candy and city for their support Thank You Kathleen for that kind introduction and welcome to all of you for our third event in the series smart women's smart power This past Sunday What was it March 8th? I've lost track of days. I think the snow days have kind of thrown me off It is March, but it marked the kickoff of the 2015 International Women's Day and International Women's Day I think as many of you know is celebrated globally and it's a focus on the economic political and social achievements of women and I want to call attention to cities activities. We do we spend a lot of time on International Women's Day We're in a hundred countries around the globe and so it's very important from an employee perspective to participate in International Women's Day, so we kicked off with the closing bell last Friday at the New York Stock Exchange to begin the The month-long celebration. We don't look at it as one day We look at it as a month-long celebration and in the month of March We're going to host 200 events in 90 countries for mostly our clients our communities and our employees all in recognition of International Women's Day So I can't think of a better way to acknowledge International Women's Day than to hear from our featured guest today Emery Slaughter and I can't think of a better way to have her interviewed than when Nina Easton from Fortune So I think it's a it's apropos that we have some Great panelists and a great interview in celebration of International Women's Day at least in the month of March while we're celebrating International Women's Day so with that on behalf of city I want to thank you all for attending this series and appreciate your your being here Thanks very much to Candy So as Candy said, I'm pleased to be here to introduce Dr. Anne Marie Slaughter who's joined us today Dr. Slaughter is currently the president and CEO of New America I first met her when she served as the director of policy planning at the State Department And she was the first and to date the only woman to serve in that post a Long-time Princeton professor and former university dean foreign policy has described Dr. Slaughter as an innovative Innovative excuse me and prolific scholar. That was hard It's hardly surprised then that she's here today to challenge conventional thinking on international relations With her views on how to integrate a people-centered approach to foreign policy our moderator today as always is CSIS senior associate Nina Easton who is also a columnist at Fortune magazine and chair of Fortune's most powerful women international summit So please join me in inviting Anne Marie to the podium for some remarks to be followed by a sit-down discussion with Nina Easton Thank you. Thank you all for coming out in the rain although it's better than the snow so so when CSIS was founded back in I think 1962 in Georgetown it was the height of the Cold War and The way we thought about foreign policy Was like a chessboard It was the world of two principle states the United States and what now dates those of us who live through that the Soviet Union My kids look at me very strangely when I say that Two principle states the world divided according to where they were On either the right US side or the Soviet side or the non-aligned side And as we thought about what foreign policy look like CSIS was founded a year after Shelling Thomas Shelling published the strategy of conflict and the strategy of conflict essentially is bargaining theory Applied to international relations and it assumes that there's a world of states There were many fewer states then remember when the United Nations was created. They were under 60 We're now at 200 and in the early by 1962 you're still around around a hundred some and what you're thinking about When you think about foreign policy is the world of chess It is the world of if this state does This move that state will respond as follows and we Then will do the following and you play it out according to how good a chessboard as chess player you are That is what I call a power-centered foreign policy It we can talk in questions and Nina's gonna bring me down to earth and ask me about very specific cases But I'm gonna play professor for my time to talk to you So to say that it's power-centered doesn't mean that it's necessarily Realist you can deploy power in the service of values just as much as you can in the service of interest So I'm not making any claims about Whether or not you are realist or liberal internationalist or any of that But what I am saying is it's a world in which when you think about international relations You assume that the objects of international relations are states of some number and a smaller number that are Great powers and you assume that the currency of their relations is power and You assume that in terms of thinking about How you're going to get the outcomes you want you are engaged in strategic Calculations of conflict and and how to avoid conflict. So that's the world of power-centered foreign policy It's the world I grew up in it's the world I've taught for many years and I'm guessing most of you who took international relations courses That sounds like the world you learned about at least for most of it now You might have had at the end of those courses a little bit on global issues right those other things, you know like development and human rights and climate change and civil war and terrorism and criminal networks you know those smaller other things Those were then by the 1990s when I was coming of age as a scholar They were all lumped together as transnational relations I remember after the the beginning of the coal after the end of the coal war the MacArthur Foundation decided it would support a whole lot of work in Transnational relations. So this was very deliberately Non-interstate right it was crossing borders It didn't fit in that category of the strategy of conflict of the chessboard world It's a world of people People in groups, but groups are just clusters of people So if you think about any of those issues as I said start with development and start of all the entire cluster of issues That are in development were from you know resource scarcity food security water Poverty reduction jobs education health just take those those are all issues that directly affect people Of course states that those people live within states But what you're looking at is how you improve the daily lives of people you are not thinking about how you augment the power of a State although we we can make we can connect them if you think about climate change Of course, you're thinking the same thing. You're thinking about individual decisions and now by individuals I'm going to include corporations, which is just a legal way that individuals do business I'm going to include civic groups of all kinds. We didn't actually call them NGO is I was learning international relations But that was part of of transnational relations that whole civic civil society transnational civil society Those are civic groups and then of course criminal groups. So yes, we think about terrorist networks But Moises naeem's book illicit, which is almost it's over a decade old now. It's probably 15 years old It's this wonderful book that says, you know really terrorists are but one global network. The others of course are money laundering Arms trafficking drug trafficking intellectual piracy And his point is those are just the underside of listed trade. So all those entities criminal networks So individuals civil society Corporations criminals and then you could add actually all sorts of nonprofit institutions like this one like new america like My former home in universities That Networked world Is the world not of the chessboard, but of the web And I don't actually mean the world wide web although if you want a physical representation of what that world looks like The a map of the world wide web is as good as any it shows you all those networks It shows you the big nodes and the small nodes But it is a world of lots and lots and lots of interconnected entities. It is a web Calculate strategic calculations don't work in that world And that is a very big problem to which I will return our entire frame for thinking about foreign policy Is thinking about states and calculations of power calculations of interest calculations of value We can do that either way But equally important Now because today nobody says they're just that extra couple of sessions at the end of your ir course They are if you're at the national security council They're at the core of what you were thinking about much of the time So that world the world of the web Exists right next to on top of below however you want to put it alongside The chessboard world But in that world, this is why I called it people-centered foreign policy You have to be focusing on individuals or individuals who've come together as corporations or other kinds of groups You have to be thinking about their calculations of power Look at the front page. What are we trying to do right now? We're trying to figure out what motivates Young men to join an organization that would have made seventh century medieval Torture look civilized All right, we're trying to figure out. What are their motivations? Why can't we counter those motivations to what extent are they religious to what extent are they the result of absence of Any other kind of opportunity to what extent are they the result of religious conflict? But these we're focusing on people So start with this overall idea of a state-centric chess board where we think about calculations of power Next to a people-centered web an incredibly dense web Of individuals and groups and corporations and criminal organizations And how do we simultaneously? Practice the craft of foreign policy in both worlds at the same time All right now again, nina is going to bring me down to earth But before she does and meaning she's going to ask me about specific conflicts I want to talk a little bit about the the tools that we use in both those worlds And also how we think about power in each of those worlds So with the tools, you know the classic chess board world Diplomats and embassies work pretty well All right, I mean the whole idea was the only way you could actually know what another state was doing Was to be there and to have people on the ground and those people were mostly talking to people in other governments Although they were also talking to the business community and trying to get a sense of some people on the ground But they were located in capitals and effectively What I think of you know the kind of diplomacy that John Kerry has been practicing Is though that's the principal tools It's people sitting down in dark panel rooms and trying to negotiate deals and trying to avoid conflict And when there is conflict engaging in it In the web world you need a whole different set of tools That's what secretary clinton and building on what secretary rice Indeed secretary powell had done before her Trying to build up those tools that allow us on the one hand just to have functional knowledge All the functional parts of the state department where we think about economics and climate change and energy And criminal networks But also and this is the harder part. What are the tools we need to engage people? So cast stood up and said well, we're in the 21st century. So we have the hashtag smart women Who wouldn't like the hashtag smart women? That's great, right? Well, that's social media Social if you were inventing foreign policy to our diplomacy today I don't think you'd start with embassies. In fact, I think that's probably the last thing you'd do because it means something that has to be defended Thousands and thousands of miles away It is now possible in theory For a government to communicate with every single human being in the world who has a cell phone And since many human beings in the world have two or three to communicate with them multiple times So if you started today by thinking wait a minute We're in this webbed world of all these different networks And what we need to do is build relationships with all these different entities. We would not start with embassies We would start with social media But we would then think of social media and the other ways through the internet that we can now reach people We can educate people. We can engage people That wouldn't mean that there wasn't still room for diplomacy Because while we're thinking about isis or thinking about development russia's still out there north korea is still out there Cuba's out there. I mean this is not an either or this is a both and proposition But we need all sorts of different tools and even in terms of how our diplomats are trained They need to be able to run projects on the ground. They don't need to just go and negotiate They need to actually get out there and be working with people and have project manager type skills They need to be able to bring people together in various ways They have a whole it's a whole sort of different mindset and training And they need to have all sorts of partnerships, right? They need to need to know how to create public private partnerships To know how to build networks and coalitions again very different training than traditional diplomatic training So the tools that we need are very different if you think about the chess board world versus the web world or the power centered world Versus a people centered world. You need tools that allow you to deal with people directly rather than state apparatus The last thing I want to say there is The how we think about power and this is I mean that we could We could write whole books on it. Joe Nye who has a deep and from wonderful relationship with csis has written I think he has power in the last five of his book titles. So there are lots of ways to think about this, but You know the power in the State centric chess board world is essentially the power of coercion I mean joe is written about soft power and the power of attraction and that's important I definitely think it's important, but really what we're talking about is how you get somebody else to do what you want them to do And there are there's force. There's the economic Coversion of various kinds There is agenda setting I mean as joe talks about I mean if you if you are if you have enough power to be able to set the agenda You can get people to do things that way you can shape preferences But you're still essentially You're an entity trying to get another entity to do what you want And you can force off power into that you could do it by the attraction rather than coercion In the web world we're just beginning To think about power and how we wield power and how we actually formulate strategy I think this is the great Task for the next couple of decades if shelling set the framework that really took us through the cold war and after The the question today is how do you think about power when it's a network? You can't tell somebody what to do Indeed in a network the power comes from being at the center because there is no top It is the power of being most connected That's how we knew that Muhammad Atta was the leader of the 9 11 terrorists He was the one who was connected to everybody else. So the person who's most connected is the most powerful But how do you use those connections? You can mobilize You can catalyze you can Often kind of convince others To to do what they want to do and then sort of harness that in in one common direction But it's a very Understudied and underthought out field We many of us do it those people who are community organizers probably understand it far better than those of us who are foreign policy experts In terms of how you really exercise power In networks and what should the strategy be? What network should we try to create? Well, you know when we're fighting terrorists We say well you got to fight a network with you got to beat a network You have to have a network so we have counter terrorist networks So we thought the military's thought through this in some areas But if we think more broadly again about all those big problems of climate change and development issues and all the criminal networks Even intellectual property What kinds of networks do we create? Who's in them and how do we actually use them? So i've done what professors do i've asked more questions that i've answered But nina is now going to come up and ask me questions and i will try to answer them In more specific ways, but if you take nothing else away I hope when you read the paper tomorrow You'll look at an article and you'll think to yourself are we talking about the traditional chess board world? And if we're talking about ukraine and russia we probably are or are we talking about the web world? And how do we put those two together? Thank you That was great anmarie. You know you all should know that um anmarie You think of her as an academic dean and as a state department official But in fact she was a law professor for many years And she was telling us back in the green room when she thinks about running anything involving a poly-side department And how theoretical that would be that she wants to run screaming from the room tearing at her hair So um, we're going to go away from that theoretical. Um, you you're sort of veering a little into the theoretical And so we wanted we wanted to bring it down although it does raise interesting questions You look at digital um form policy is being shaped so defensively by issues like the snowden leaks by issue like cyber attacks Um, you know the question becomes how do we use technology to further our aims as opposed to just defending against them? So I wanted to get into that with you But let's I want to focus on two regions of the world and apply this you mentioned russia as still being a chess board It's also a country where part of our problem is that Putin has the support of 85 of the population That's a people problem How do you deal with that? Okay, so um So just to set the stage for it So I said at the end and I that you know anybody who thinks we're only in a web world hasn't been paying attention Right the the russia ukraine russia nato russia the west I felt when I was at the brussels forum last year. It was like oh, we're back to the future Well, everybody knows how to play this game. And in that sense. Yes, you are looking at power calculations You are looking at russia And it's placed in the world and putin's ability to play on that with its with with his own people At the same time the way to look at it as in the web world couple ways One is absolutely let's look at russian domestic politics So you said he has the support of 85 of the people Well, it depends on the questions you ask because if you ask Do you have faith in the government in russia? You get a 75 resounding no Right, that's a different question So you might like putin the bare-chested tiger wrestler But you don't think that the government's doing a decent job. Okay, and putin is terrified of What happened in ukraine happening in mosco, right? So what we know is in 2011 when nevalny was really at his height that was Putin was badly scared by hundreds of thousands of people in the in the streets and they weren't they were they weren't sort of traditional liberals There were a lot of people who had been supporting him That's the point at which he not only cracked down on nevalny But he absolutely tightens the screws on ngos and on the internet One of the ways to understand what's happening in ukraine is that the worst possible thing that could happen for him is a successful revolution against corruption Because that is what his people they may like him They are fed up with corruption and as oil prices drop He has less ability to buy people off and that is what he is most frightened of so My read from a people perspective is he's actually much much weaker Than we might think from the polls and that that's actually a very dangerous situation He might I think there's a not insubstantial chance. He will he will be Overthrown by somebody of within his circle If not or even if he's afraid of that the danger of course is that he becomes more and more aggressive because he's weaker and weaker at home Is there anything though that we can do from the outside to affect public opinion in russia? Nothing as much as what the saudis are doing. I mean the single Biggest way you affect public opinion in russia right now is oil prices absolutely What we can do is something slightly different. I think the administration has been pretty good about this Which is to avoid making ourselves the enemy so early because that plays Absolutely to his strengths, you know the united states that we russia is back on the world stage the united states is focusing on us so right after He invaded Crimea and then eastern ukraine the united states immediately jumped up and said we're negotiating with you my Feeling there was no no no you want to make this more a european issue You do not want to make it so that he can say it's once again the two superpowers. It's russia and the united states And what about the ukraine? I mean you or somebody you talk about tools in a toolbox you're not somebody who's shy about using military force as a As a tool and we'll talk about that a bit later But talk about applying your people-centered approach to the ukraine and should we be arming ukrainians So I first point is I have never called for using force in ukraine. I mean the the the For many reasons, but We are we are still talking about a nuclear state and that that does change the calculus a great deal I think the starting point with ukraine is once again to ask Not whether ukraine the state wants to be part of the eu or part of the of the russian Near abroad What do the ukrainian people want and what the ukrainian people want more than anything is just a decent government Right they tried in in with the orange revolution. They're trying again They want a government that delivers the basic things that the government's next door to them Right in poland and the Baltic states are delivering It if you look at it that way and more about what they want and less about well Is this ukraine going to be part of the eu or part of russia's sphere? Then you're focusing much more on the economic side much more. I mean, yes It's a major problem for them in terms of investment that russia's destabilizing their eastern front But that is still less important than getting their first of all battling corruption and getting their economy back in shape So the most important thing we can do is economic is also putting every kind of condition that we can To help the young people in that government create a decent government Then so I will answer your question having dodged it now for a couple minutes I I've wrestled with this my initial reaction was the last thing we need to do is fuel this conflict further more guns more conflict more More destabilization that actually plays into russia's hands That said ukraine is a sovereign government and as a sovereign government to the extent the ukrainians want defensive weapons That we would supply to others It's hard for me to say we should not be supplying them with at least that level of defensive weapons But I would not so this is this is somewhere between john mccain's position and the administration's position Which is to say no, I do not think we want to fight a proxy war with russia by arming ukraine I think that is not the that is not going to help the ukrainian people at all On the other hand a I would make you do want to make clear to russia that you are standing in the government's camp And that there is there is some limit there And you also want to treat the you want to give the government what it needs to defend itself, but not not offensively And is there more that we should be doing in terms of development aid aid Economic aid to the ukraine. Absolutely despite the corruption. Yes, but the here again the question. I mean I At davos this year I met with a number of the the people in the government. They're really extraordinary They're young and they are doing You know, they really see themselves more the way the the polish government did after solidarity after We're really trying to Turn that country around and it can turn around right? We've seen other countries in eastern central europe turn around There's no reason that it can't but again the the issue there is less geopolitics and much more corruption and basic economic growth And so that's where we should focus the eu should focus the eu is even better than we are So before we move regions, um just to follow up. I mean the the thing about the people-centered approach I just keep coming back to in my mind. What happens when you come up against a well armed bad guy? Yeah, okay So so let me make clear again. This is not either or and this is what happens to those of us who Want to talk about people we get immediately painted into that nice little idealistic unrealistic corner I'm I completely recognize the relevance of geopolitics You'd be nuts as I said not to think that geopolitics weren't still important But I won't Allow what what happens then is geopolitics takes over and we because it's so much easier Right, I mean there's only 200 states and there are only about 20 of them We have to think about and it's just a whole lot easier to play that out than to deal with really ugly naughty problems Like how you get rid of corruption in ukraine. So what I want to say is absolutely, you know when you get to a point where you russia is Rattling its sword for one thing security will trump economics I mean I've I won quite a lot And with my corporate friends by saying you know what angla Merkel's going to apply those sanctions and lots of corporate folks No, she's not going to do that. That would be terrible german energy german trade No, no, no she is right when it comes down to its security will trump trump economics Just the way politics will trump economics, which is why the euro is still there So there is a point at which you make that jump to the chess world no question But at the same time you got to walk into gum at the same time You've got to be able to think about the complexity of the human issues or the people centered issues At the same time that you're recognizing yet, you know The bad guys are still out there and there's going to come a point where you're going to have to say, okay, we're back to jess So let's move to a country that I know is you feel very passionate about in that syria, of course i'm so calm You know, this is the four week anniversary of the uprising there and we're talking about 200 000 people dead An estimate of 9 million displaced I know um, I you when you and I have talked in the in the past you supported arming the syrian rebels a couple years ago not now And you were also very strongly of the opinion that Assad's Air bases should be bombed. He shouldn't have the ability to attack his own population And you've written that You know you wrote recently why is the threat of isis in iraq a sufficiently vital threat But not the rise of isis in syria Where do you see things stand there apply your People centered theory to both what we should have done and what we should be doing now so You know, I I was reading last week that the turks are insisting on protection zones on the turkish border as the condition for uh fighting isis The way we want them to and I thought you know, it's been three years ago I wrote a piece in the new york times calling for no kill zones right on exactly the same grounds that fundamentally You had to provide The syrian people with a place where they could be safe at that point, of course, you didn't have a david al-nosrah You didn't have isis you you still largely had moderates In the syrian opposition. You'd only had a free syrian army even Even carrying arms for six months. You had a lot of opportunity And here we are three years later 200,000 people destroyed over half the syrian population displaced internally or in jordan Destabilizing the region and we will never put syria back together again the way it has been and on top of that We are watching the world's cultural heritage be destroyed. So You know, do I know that had we done that three years ago? We wouldn't be where we are now. No, absolutely not. There's no way you can say that Maybe it would have been worse, but I'll follow hillary clinton. I'd rather be caught trying than not trying and So here's where the people-centered approach comes because most people when they hear me say this think i'm talking about Humanitarian considerations. They think my heart is bleeding for the syrians, which it is and i'm not ashamed of that But as in fact as a human being when I look at this and I think Any ability we have to stop that we should try not at the cost of killing our own people but in ways we can But i'm not thinking about it just in a humanitarian way. I'm thinking about it in a strategic way I am thinking exactly as I said before that all sorts of bad things happen in the world when people are killed Mamed their property is destroyed. They're displaced their worlds collapse when that happens They tend to either take sides to fight back or they go to refugee camps and All sorts of terrible radical extremist things happen in our own cities Those tend to be gangs in think about the great lakes think about what happened after the rwanda genocide We are still fighting the great lakes lakes war. We are not the central african countries are two million dead So what i'm actually looking at is if you're worried about radical islam and terrorism in the middle east And you are now looking at an entire half a country that is having their lives destroyed and the united states Said that we wanted Assad to disappear, but didn't do anything. You're just harvesting more trouble down the road you Have to think about The people and what the people are going to do strategically and not just in terms of humanitarian Concerns and from that point of view the idea to go back to your isis point of view that we are all upset about isis And isis is terrible. I understand isis is terrible If i were a mother whose child were killed i i'm not sure i'd distinguish between Assad's barrel bomb and isis I'm just not sure i would think that was such an incredible distinction that the united states should mobilize completely In the one case and do nothing in the other nothing We are not willing to even bomb his air force so that he can't drop barrel bombs on people That is something we could have done the israelis have been in his airspace three or four times without any problem We could have done that we might then say we can't put boots on the ground This is not something where we are going to sacrifice american lives directly We also don't think that'll work, but we would have tried that would have at the very least Reduced the suffering and said we don't just care about people dying when they behead americans We actually care when Equal atrocities are being visited on hundreds of thousands of people so what now So what now i still would go for protection zones i still think i think the turks are right I think there is no way out of this Without addressing the syrian civil war so that's the starting point And that is infinitely harder to do than it was three years ago And now would i send arms to syrian groups now no i mean i don't even know where Where i'd start i mean no now i would not do that would i try to create Some kinds of safe zones. Yes Would i above all again Try to force a side to the table by i still would bomb his air his air force I would but i would do whatever it took to get him to the table And i would make clear that there isn't going to be a solution to isis until there's a solution in syria as well That may take a long time to get there, but i don't see us solving this problem in general anytime soon so um I want to go further into the whole terrorism issue, but just still on syria And using your people-centered approach. This is a question from lori burtman who's a who's in baton rouge Hi lori, and she's a great supporter of a csis, but she points out rightly that usaid Notes that syria is the biggest humanitarian crisis of our era. Yes, right? So how do you get people Aware of the long-term impact, but i would even take that to a different step. What will be the long-term impact? oh, i mean I mean just to say again syria is the rwanda of this administration I mean the syria and this was foreseeable. This was completely foreseeable. We saw it happening It it is the greatest humanitarian crisis You could see that this was a government that was going to stop at nothing right you have to remember the syrians started marching non-violently right they marched from march 2011 until october 2011 before they even took up arms You could see this government would do whatever it took and you could see that unless somebody actually took on the government It wasn't going to stop Where do we have now? You know now it's become a common place I remember saying this of a year ago on at freed zikaria's show Hearing and agreeing that we were facing a 30 years war in the middle east Well, that's now that's sort of the start and people say that all over the place You know the 30 years war killed a third of the europe's population Yeah, and I don't think this war is going to take 30 years, but the lebanese war took 16 We could easily be looking at a decade of war and think about the toll In terms of the the human cost the strategic cost the economic cost And conceivably, I mean we'll see whether they're nuclear weapons in the mix one would assume not But I think we're going to be living with the aftermath of this or the ongoing problem of this for the next decade and you Are also of course seeing the rise of a powerful player in all of this iran. Yes How is that going to play out? What do you see? Okay? So once again from the geopolitical point of view iran from the chess board iran's our enemy, right? And our our adversaries say our enemy. We're the great satan. They We don't have diplomatic relations. They certainly sponsor terrorism against us So from the chess board point of view this is Okay, we are aligned with saudi arabia With egypt with israel with the enemies of iran iran is our adversary When as we move closer to iran that makes people very nervous you play it out All true all important We you know, this is a this is a state that can do a lot of damage and is fighting directly against You know obviously supporting Assad in syria From a people-centered point of view the iranians are the most pro-western Group of people as a whole in the middle east They are a civilization and with a history that are far more likely to be pro-western over time than saudi arabia So how do you use that? So how do you use that you buy time? You buy time you understand that iran if you just look at the demographics The the huge proportion of population that are under 30 who are digitally connected who are largely pro-western unless we Actually take out their nuclear installations in which case we will we will change that you buy time and you let demographics take their course and you understand that Over time we are more likely as I said to be closer to iran because of what's going to happen in iran Then we are lots of other parts of the but that's assuming that young people Are more tolerant and young people fill the ranks of terrorist organizations Well young people do but again if you look at the population of iran And you look at the degree of education and their own sentiments, right? This is I remember once talking to an iranian about this and I said well Why is this I mean why are young iranians much more pro-western? And he said do you have a teenager and I said yeah, and he said why are you asking me that question? I mean it is he was flipped But his point was you've had a whole generation that's been raised on the idea the united states is the great satan And you know not surprisingly you got a lot of people who who also are isolated who questioned the the we saw the green revolution And i'm not saying there's going to be a revolution. I am saying just over time Young people will start holding power and there's every reason to believe that iran will moderate And it goes back to this earlier question about russia. I had it's an interesting question. Is there a way to reach Populations in these hostile These these countries that are governed by hostile governments, right? Digitally, I mean is there a more creative way to reach and shape public opinion So that falls exactly in the category of what I said about The strategy of connection and I don't have a great answer what I would like to be able to say is There are three or four different kinds of networks you can build Here's the kind we ought to be building to build those kinds of relationships that will last over time Here's the way we do them. Here's here are the the tools with which to do them We don't have that yet often our efforts to reach the people backfire, right? I mean so we know if it comes from the state Absolutely, so we we now know better. That's why I said with it with russia actually the best thing we can do is not Is is a sort of negative strategy of not Intervening in ways that allow putans Allow us putan to set us up as the enemy The way that you try to support. Well, yes, we support NGOs again that often does backfire How do you reach? actual russia, you know russians who you think support you You know, i'm not sure at least in russia and now that there's any sort of immediate way you can do that I think long term you can do that you can think about russian students who've gone back you can but again Then you come back to the tools that can't be the state department That has to be ways in which you're either working through universities or NGOs or or businesses In ways that you you could do with a with a very light footprint Some of this we did do during the cold war, but it was all cia funded now We would be trying to do this quite differently So let's talk about oh before we go um iran the nuclear negotiations. What's your view on that? Well for the real i mean i We have to see the deal assuming that the deal pushes The iranian breakout ability to a year or more And assuming there really are the kinds of guaranteed Investigation examination access for the ia ea i would support the deal You know i buy the the position that bob einhorn put forward in the in the new york times I thought was right and you have to be really realistic that they're not great choices In the time we haven't had a deal the iranians have moved from a thousand centrifuges to five thousand to ten thousand And guess what if we don't have a deal they'll they will just be that much closer To the kind of iranian they need to have a bomb very quickly. So we're we're talking about playing for time I again think I think there are lots of reasons why the iranian government does not want to move to actually make a bomb I think they're not going to give up their ability to do that at some point So what I think we want to do is buy time I also think that if there's a deal and we're the ones who Are seen as blocking it we're going to lose our coalition I mean we're going to see the russians and the chinese and the europeans Reducing sanctions and that's that's not going to help anybody the iranians are going to get lots of support And we're we're not going to get the benefit of the deal So let's talk about Terrorism more broadly. So just we've got isis al qaeda yemen bokeh rom You told me at the fortune summer last fortune summit last october the white house refused to recognize both the spreading and fueling of extremism But the white house did not want to get involved in another middle east war So we effectively limited our assistance to human just to humanitarian aid in syria. I was probably in syria. Yeah So and then I you know to contrast that with um national intelligence director james clapper recently saying Terror trend lines now are worse than at any other point in history Again, let's let's take this people's. I mean there's the military aspect to this But is there a people approach that might be more effective you started you started talking about that, you know How how young people become terrorists? What would you do to add another component in our fight in the war on terror? um Well, so let me let me try to situate that so in in I was talking about syria and I was saying look We basically just wanted to seal it off and we wanted to kind of just let whatever was going to happen in syria Happen in syria and now that it spilled over which was again quite foreseeable now We can't now we have to actually address it But now as I said we're in this crazy position where we're addressing isis in iraq and we're not doing anything in syria And of course people you just can't can't separate it out that way I mean with respect to terrorism long term. I do think that Your best strategy against terrorism long term is development. I mean, I really think development is it's a long It's I've called it realism with a longer time frame Right, it takes it does take a long time on the other hand if you just look in my lifetime the countries that were You know really desperately poor that are now approaching middle income by some definition You know development is is happening. So from my point of view a lot more of investment in the kinds of things that usa does but also the kinds of things that state does increasingly in terms of of working for women's rights on entrepreneurs on civil rights of different kinds actually engaging populations in various ways The question that I don't have an answer to In terms of Explicit not terrorism, but radical violent islamist terrorism Is is the question that was posed in the atlantic cover article recently, you know, what does isis want? You know you read that and you read a kind of This just desperation for a code a world a family a certainty. It's not I mean, I remember attending a Google ideas summit on violent extremism where they had neo-nazis Crips and bloods former members of al-qaeda and what came through they were young men who were Radically displaced radically Disaffected and looking for something all-encompassing. I don't know what the answer is Do that I mean we know that in the micro we there are programs that work in terms of letting people come out and trying to Resocialize them, but that's a problem as I said that we see in our own society People turning to violence and now we're seeing it on a mass scale with a religious veneer That can be extremely appealing in the sense of a completely Co-current worldview, you know that you're going to follow the the the Quran in a fundamentalist way and how we Fight that as a matter of foreign policy. I don't have an answer and how you inject Female values into yes, well, I should have said yes. No Supporting women in in across the board will help I mean in the in the sense of Engaging women in thinking about how you counter terrorism engaging women in peace Negotiations of every kind engaging women to even look at what's happening in their communities and And help you think about it and help you address it. Yes, absolutely that that for sure And your people-centered approach China. Let's talk about China, which um, you know Just arrested five women protesters You know, there's sort of continued clamp down on dissent. You've obviously have Aggressions in the South China Sea and so forth How would you how does that fit into the So the theme so that's another great one. I think for both right So you start from the chessboard and you see a rising power and you see status quo powers around it With japan and korea in the united states And you see a pretty classic geopolitical case and the question everybody says is well Well, you know, is this germany in england or is this england in the united states? And we know how to play that out and we want to deter them without encircling them And then we're we're right back into the world. It's not easy, but it's familiar It's so and we know how to Think about The coalitions we have to build in east Asia. That's again what this administration I think has done very well in the sense of of our being present you can you can Disagree with specific things we've done, but I think being there Making clear that this is something that's enormously important and we're not going away. I think all that's right That's so that's the the the geopolitical world That's the chessboard world at the same time You have to be focusing on the insecurity of the communist party, right? So again shijin ping is consolidating power in all sorts of ways But he's consolidating power at a time when the authority and the legitimacy of the communist party are Fraying enormously, right? They've they've they haven't had a communist ideology for decades They've had a capitalist ideology wrapped in a marxist wrapper that has delivered a steadily Improving standard of living now you have tons of young people You have you have tons of young people, but you also have an aging society. So it's a it's a very dangerous Combination and you have the bonds of family that once would have held that together have been ruptured in so many ways You have rising expectations. You have Millions of college graduates who can't find college graduate jobs You have a whole young population of nationalists who feel like okay China is the big country in the world and we need to be treated that way And you've got a government that has to ride that tiger and you have an internet Yes, right not particularly friendly, right? So so from a people-centered point of view You're actually you're a looking at that constantly and analyzing what Xi Jinping is doing In terms of how he's responding to domestic forces More as much as or more than how he's responding to international forces And those are the two that's a people-centered and a state-centered view simultaneously And you've got to constantly be looking through both lenses But then when you start thinking about all right, well, what are our tools though from a people-centered approach? Some of them we're using very well all the educational exchanges. I think that's all to the good And and I would go further. I would make it possible for I mean the US educational system is locked into our You know two semesters or three-quarters system. It's very hard actually if you're a former professor To teach part of the time in China and part of the time here There are all sorts of things we could do that would make it easier to create those kinds of educational relationships In ways and that that would not just be corporate. I would absolutely do that The environment right the environment is probably the the best way we can engage the Chinese people It is the huge the biggest problem. I lived in Shanghai for a year. I couldn't imagine having lived there longer I had an oldest child with asthma and even for for my husband and me I was worried and this was 2007 2008 I never would have kept my kids in that environment later and Chinese parents obviously are very worried China and Japan a have an incredibly intense economic relationship But Japan and Japanese Chinese relations in terms of environmental assistance. It's the closest It's the area in which they're closest. That's where we should be building. That's interesting right that those are the places It's people to people, but it's more than that. It's economic. It's people Things like also thinking about how you engage the Chinese on the stewardship of water Right in the entire region where again, we did some of this in the state department with the Mekong river initiative Thinking about what are those issues that affect the Chinese where they live In ways that can help dispel some of the distress or just create the human relationships that we're we're gonna we need to overcome crises Should be the parallel foreign policy track It's not that we don't do some of this. It's just that that's always secondary Right, my point is to make it equal. It's not to pretend We don't ever do this and it's not to say the other is not important. It's to say they're equally important North korea. Yeah. Now that one's much harder I mean that one I it's very hard to think about from a people-centered point of view because that is still You know a deeply closed unless you can reach those people somehow I mean other countries do right if you were in sweden you could travel to north korea It's not you know, it's not as isolated as it is from us But overall, yes, that's the way the government wants it But I'll give you one example on north korea though from a people-centered point of view We have we had the most influence on the north korean government through the banko delta initiative Under george w bush at the end of his toward the end of his tenure. What did we do? We choked off the north korean regime's ability to pay for fancy goods Right for liquor for For the things that make it nice to be in the north korean regime And we did it so effectively that it scared the chinese very badly that the regime could collapse and and They put various pressure and we stopped that was a great example of thinking about not the north korean regime as the government But thinking about those individual people and how how they lived and applying a tool It intersected the chessboard world in ways that were complicated when we stopped But it was a way I think a much more creative way of thinking about uh smart sanctions right essentially So what do you think the us Leadership role in the world should be and are we possibly moving to a g2 world of china and us as the the superpowers and But again, especially the first question. What should the us um leadership role in the world be? so I like leading from the center um That that's just me, uh, but What do you mean by that? So what I mean by that is we are In both the chessboard world and the people world in either case in the chessboard world They're multiple powers, right? We are not I mean that joe and I always does is his three dimensional chess where there's the military chessboard and the economic chessboard And the transnational chessboard and military were number one and economics. It's multipolar and I don't I can't even remember how he does transnational I would say in the world of great powers Even militarily, although we're still You know vastly ahead of any other given country The amount of usable military power we have it's much harder, right because there's an awful lot of the power we have We can't use or we're not going to use And in terms of usable power to being able to actually deploy troops special operations all of that in all of those in in that world We're going to lead best. We're going to work best when we're working through partners and coalition partners So even there I'd say leading from the center means I know that it The aftermath has been Unsuccessful, but if you look at the libya intervention, you have a very good example of where Actually, europe had much more at stake than we did in terms of migration in terms of economics and the europeans led that effort That was an example of leaving from the center. We were there We as the president said we created the conditions and the coalitions for others to step up So we were absolutely there. We played a central leadership role, but we were not out front That was leading from the center and that means we have to have skin in the game One of the reasons I'm frustrated with us in the middle east was serious. We're not doing anything We want other people to do things. We want them to do what we want to do. That's not true to say We're not doing anything. We are but we're not doing enough It's very hard for us to then assemble the coalition to do what we need it to do And in the so in the in the geopolitical world It means working through coalitions and partners and being willing to do enough But also willing to let others get out ahead and willing to do things their way some of the time which is hard for us Are we showing enough leadership on russia? on russia Yeah, I've actually been I really give the give the administration high marks I mean to the extent that you there's a lot of other terrible things that could have happened that have not and Aside just avoiding straight conflict in some I thought it was quite likely after sochi when the Before the russians invaded Crimea and we were still talking about the ukrainian government yana kovic was still in power I thought there was a very substantial chance the russians would send troops into bolster him Right. I mean, I really thought we were back to the you know prog or or hungry in 1956 So from that point of view he invaded Crimea But the rest of ukraine actually got a revolution and a government that was favorable to europe That was not a given and there are any number of ways that once that happened you could have inflamed that crisis As I said, I thought we initially led from the front And then we backed off and have helped work with the europeans who have far more at stake in terms of trade And and other and energy relations, but we're there. I think I give us high marks there But then I would say leading from the center in the web world in the people focused world is absolutely thinking about What are all the networks we have to be a central node in? Think about the financial networks. Think about the energy networks. Think about the You know the the counterterrorist counter criminal networks the economic networks Think about it that way and figure out not how we're the only central node. That's impossible. This is not hope hub and spokes But think about we're one of three or four central nodes We or one of our cities, right? It doesn't have to be the whole united states could be new york could be la could be chicago Could be austin or miami Or houston or miami, but think about how are we always sure that we can We're connected to all the folks. We need to be connected to we can mobilize deploy convene catalyze make things happen And that in both worlds is I think a role that only the united states can play It's a different kind of leadership than 20th century leadership. It's a leadership So we're talking about smart women that I often find women nod their heads when I discuss So let's say it's a leadership that women leaders may be particularly adapted exercising So i'm going to ask you about what worries you most and I want to do short term long term. So short term Um You know this time last year were we talking about isis barely it was a jv team. Were we talking about russia? Well, I think we were talking about let's so let's stick us back a month. We weren't talking about we're talking about the olympics We thought about russia So, I mean the point being that these were not these the most um The chief um danger events of this past year were not much on our radar screen a year ago a year prior What do you worry about in the next year? So i'm going to disagree with the premise of your question because I was deeply worried about syria then and i'm deeply worried about syria now I mean as syria itself and syria as the cancer that is spreading across the middle east And I would say this time last year. We might not have been talking about isis But you could see that the chances of getting to a political settlement of any kind were we're getting lower and lower and lower and that Jordan was being destabilized and lebanon was being destabilized and I still think we I I think it'll be amazing if we get out of this without serious problems with the curds With the turkish curds actually wanting To to connect in some loose federated way with syria and iraqi curds and that's going to create its own Set of issues. So I am still deeply worried about The the core of the middle east not simply because of isis But because I see a region in flames and I don't see how we're putting it back together. So that's still very much There and long term. So we'll throw into these threats. We've talked about pandemics climate change issues energy issues Any what black swans do you see on the longer term horizon that worry you? So I have to say I Pandemics are very high. I always I always locate this in terms of So they're the kinds of things I worry about as a foreign policy expert and I have you know all these lovely books at night You know, I I generally put them aside and turn to a novel, but you know, they're all there Um, and then there's the things I worry about as a human being as a mother, right? I think what is it out there that I that I would read in the paper and be frightened for my children And that's pandemics, right? It's you know, I remember when the h1n one from mexico was the same week that The the pakistani taliban were within a hundred miles of islamabad and the world Economy looked like it was going into a w-shaped recession. This was in may of I think 2010 And then that with h1n one we thought it was that flu that was deadly And aerosolized, right? That's the thing that terrifies us right for somebody who travels as much as most of us do The idea that you're on a plane and that virus can be transmitted by the person who sneezes on the last row And that you would then would carry it and you know That terrifies me and the ebola you looked at it and you you saw the panic it created And it was not exactly america's finest hour, right? I mean we had somebody, you know in maryland in In a secure facility in maryland and a dc practically came to a halt and I just think All it takes is this is the kind of sars, but a deadlier sars So that's that's a big so i'm gonna in i'm gonna ask one more question But i'm gonna let the audience get their questions ready. I should note that Since anmarie is also famous for the work life balance. You can't have it all argument yet. You can't have it all yet Um She claims she won't answer that question because she has a book coming out, but I dare any of you to try that's a Go for it So here's my um question before I turn to the audience you worked with hillary clinton If hillary clinton asks you to come join her campaign and or administration. What's your answer? I need how hillary clinton does such a good job of not answering those questions I I'm I I am completely committed to new america for the foreseeable future. How long is that foreseeable future? How far do you see? Okay questions Right here The mic is coming to you. Oh, hi. Hi. I'm kevin winstein. I'm on the board of finn church aid from finland Quick question for ngos So much money has been put into helping people around the world africa south america So a lot of corruption happens and over on the world How do we how do you combat the corruption so that the money actually gets to the people? And we pour trillions and trillions in and you don't see as big a result as you hope So thank you. I mean you don't see as good results as you hope, but it's you do see results I mean, I think it's important for all the You know exposure of the corruption And and there's certainly places where flooding the zone with money as in afghanistan other places have has created Corruption, I think that's that's absolutely true But I also think it's important to see there are plenty of places where ngos have made a difference on the ground And have helped help people You know on the ground then then build their own Society I have a lot of faith uh in new forms of technology In terms of corruption. I mean when I opened my wallet and realized that even in five years Probably two years and my kids already mom. What's that piece of paper? Like what is that? What why would you you know hand somebody a piece of paper and get coins back? Here's my phone Right, and I was looking just just this morning at you know a virtual wallet I walked in the Trenton train station. I walked past PNC bank. It said here's your virtual wallet And I thought you know i'll be using a virtual wallet So once you can track everything as an electronic pulse It's just going to be a lot harder It doesn't mean that human ingenuity can find ways you know to get money But honestly the idea that you could just siphon off money By moving cash, uh or by suitcases or swiss bank accounts or whatever I really think it's gonna Some of that is just going to be technologically solved for and I would add to that We have a smart women's smart power podcast app right now But it's about mobile money and how it's going to radically transform foreign aid From the and the our interview subject is the former innovation Official for usa id and it's fascinating Over boy, there's lots of people right here Quickly Identify yourself and keep it short Sure. Hi, dr. Slaughter. Nice to see you jenna ben yohuda from the women's foreign policy network You spoke in your remarks about how the current state department configuration is just not cutting it So in a blue sky non constrained resource environment, what does that ideal? Look like oh goodness. All right. I'll get myself into lots of trouble. So, uh If I could wave a wand I would completely overhaul the foreign service Completely, I mean the last time we changed the foreign service was 1925 All right, we had minor reforms in 19 the 1980s But the real one we merged the diplomatic service and the consular service and we created the foreign service in 1925 So let's say by 2025 Just radical thought We ought to have a have a foreign service that is not a 30 year march to an ambassadorship that you can go in and out of at regular intervals Five years 10 years you can go in and you can come back out. You can be in a business You can be in an NGO. I think most people who do public Policy work ought to have experience in the private sector the civic sector and the Government sector you would be able to make you know be in business and go in in your mid 40s or your mid 50s Or your mid 60s that there would be ways that you could represent the country Get the training you needed. Yes. I mean it's important, but it's not rocket science You don't have to spend your whole life doing it You would then have the ability to build these networks, right? You would know people in business You would know people in NGOs. You could you know construct partnerships public private partnerships Coalitions and you would represent the best of this country. So it's not impossible to do we need congress to act, but it's time Hi, thank you for coming and speaking with us. Laurie Watkins Truman project. I have a question for you regarding the Malaysian Airlines airliner that went down I in my day job. I deal a lot with aviation and especially civil aviation. So That would never happen here. I mean if that ever happened to any plane anywhere else I'm just still fuzzy and would love to hear your opinion on why has nothing been done about that Here you had, you know, which which one sorry in ukraine that shot down a Malaysian airliner that had passengers and people citizens from all over the world And yet it was like swept under the rug Nothing ever came about no no consequences ever came and so from a long-term standpoint How can we allow that to happen when we talk about terrorism and things like that and not do anything about it? No, it's a very good question. I was thinking about the other one. I was thinking well, you know, we're searching but You know it was a It was a terrible terrible thing But there it's not without precedent remember we there was the shooting down of the korean airliner in over russia also um, and there A couple things one the dutch government itself, which was definitely the government you would have expected to lead did not And it was very hard for other governments to be more outraged than the dutch government itself and I you know, I don't know what the calculations were there other and I don't know what may have happened behind the scenes in terms of Compensation for families. I I don't know but I remember at the time thinking, you know, this is just absolutely outrageous But thinking thinking a couple things one it has happened before and compensation has been paid and essentially that's that to Again the dutch government the eu They would have they had they decided to try to attribute it to russia Without question we would have rallied but they didn't and we didn't and three and it's a much deeper issue The attribution question is one of the another one of the great questions We now have to face right this whole we know russia's fighting in ukraine But they're denying it and we don't see you know little green men really i mean But but that's a real issue for us right as long as they say we didn't and we have no absolute way of saying we did It's very hard to know how to respond and that's a much bigger question. Okay. I'm gonna go over right here Identify yourself and make it short. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for your presentation Looking at Africa you mentioned about ruanda genocide comparing to syria We now have Boko Haram in Nigeria Al-Shapa in Somali and others coming in in africa What would you say about this? Is this terrorism headcrime or international head to each other? And how is this poverty or how could you talk about this that is happening in africa and here And other countries compared to terrorism. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and just today or yesterday the Link between Boko Haram and and isis. I mean again this And Boko Haram to the extent What I know about it is similarly this kind of all-encompassing You know rejection of all things west, but also Ideology, I mean part of it So they're links. I think one of the links is a deeply corrupt environment In which in in africa more But also in parts of the middle east certainly and in afghans and where there's a sense that You're not getting justice from the state. You're not getting that what the state is supposed to be delivering to you This is sarah chay's new book called thieves of state, which is really Very very good and she makes a very powerful argument that says when corruption gets to a certain point You often see religious extremism Because it's this alternative universe that you can live in that provides what the state's supposed to provide and so that In fact, we're fueling extremism by pouring to go back to your point by pouring money in and and Making corruption worse. We're actually making the terrorism problems worse the very problems. We're trying trying to fight There again, I you know, I I think The thing that I I am The only silver lining it's impossible to say there's real silver lining But the only slight good thing is that Because there's now a connection to isis and it's seen as more global people are going to pay more attention To groups like boko haram that we should have been paying more attention to all along Sorry right there Gentlemen Sorry, there's a lot of questions Hi, I'm john rothenberg afghanistan specialist One of my Closest old time. I've been in off and on for night since 1988 One of my closest and oldest afghan friends Is also one of the only people I know there that's always optimistic And the reason he's always optimistic is because He says six more years Of female education and there'll never be any problem here again And And and his daughters in university in india but From what I see from iran from what I see from china and the abortion of females And the uneven population, I think there's a great deal to that Thought everywhere And and to me the long-term solution to instability Has to always include education of females and I don't think we Funded enough elsewhere And and and I want to your your comment on that So let me just the no ceilings report is out that shows, you know, the actually women are getting educated That's a good example afghanistan It's relatively new but women are getting educated women and girls at a higher rate not in the workforce They're the workforce participation is actually stagnated. So over the past 20 years So, you know, that's a you know, what are the both opportunities and limits of Having girls educated So I I mean, I do think just as a matter of of History and economics the more if you use all your talent and if you are educating women who are educating their children And who are providing the anchor for families In ways that that create opportunity you are developing if you look I mean, you can look at european history You don't have to look at afghanistan You can look at european history and see that the countries that educated women the most and the used women the most actually Flourished The most so I I I do think you know I we will have arrived when we're no longer talking about women's issues as part of foreign policy when we are simply Talking about educating the population Employing the population when I talk about people centered. That's obviously part of what I mean You're you're including different groups of people and women are are the biggest The one thing I will say though is I think we make a real mistake When we focus on women to the exclusion of men and when I the I took a trip to Liberia and Sierra Leone in 2011 in March I led a state department delegation And we we were there. We were all women. We were thrilled. We were an all women delegation We're all women tech del and we were talking we had women from google and and twitter and other places And I kept looking at all these young men who had been disarmed and demobilized not disarmed They've been demobilized. They still had plenty of access to arms Hanging out on all the the street corners thinking, you know You can be an educated woman in the society, but you're not going to be either safe Nor is there going to be a you know an economy that you can function in unless we get these guys jobs Right and so part of what I think we need to think about is Yes, we need to educate women, but That alone Will not Get a society where it gets to go Well, you could the last thing you want to do is to make the same mistake by focusing on women and ignoring men That we've made by focusing on men and ignoring women We want to be thinking about women and families and care for each other and and Investing in others which has been traditional women's women's work, but it's human work All right, this is hillary clinton and women's rights are human human rights So we want to and we want to think about that in terms of our sons and our husbands and our fathers and our Brothers in the same way we want to think about that as our sisters and our and our mothers Uh and our daughters So I I worry that we we may tip too far as much as I also do want to see women educated Make yes right here. Thank you Identify yourself and make it a short question. We only have a couple minutes. Uh, my name is Rita heron adkins I think my question would be quite a good segue to the gentleman's Question regarding education Miss lauder you had in your article regarding why women can't make it In the atlantic apparently it's got almost about a quarter of an about three quarters of a million readers all over the world So my question is that you had also written that or suggested that a shift in work hours Uh, which is sort of kind of carried by women and that is a deterrent to sort of their progress Uh, you had recommended that there is also talk about equities so far as Wages of concern. My question is what would be you think would be the effect Of this policy if pursued In the developed countries as well as in the developing countries Which policy I'm sorry In the developed countries, which policy I'm sorry about The shifting of the work hours and responsibilities to women to men also as you had suggested And also there is the thinking that equity also enrages. Okay, great. Thank you And I have a short question about that's it. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you So I just have to correct the records So the title of that atlantic article was why women Still can't have it all. I've never argued that women can't have it all By which we mean women should be able to have the same combination of career and family that men do All I was saying was that we still need to make a bunch of changes And i'm perfectly happy to still say that Uh, and one of those changes is I mean, yes equal pay for equal wages. Absolutely But honestly the changes I would make would be to be to create a universally affordable high quality daycare family leave and Deep flexibility and deep flexibility meaning that we would focus much more on results than we would on time served In her in jobs that we would think about work in the ways that Um Either in the ways that you do in sales where you got your numbers and you make your numbers And if you make your numbers, it doesn't matter where you are What time you're working you let will you let people do it? Or more generally just specifying here's what needs to be done and it needs to be done by this time And it needs to be done of this quality and you let people do it I think women and men together. This is actually where we're moving in terms of technology This isn't just about about women And the companies that do this including companies that are much lower wage companies not just high-end Are finding that it gives people control and the ability to fit together Caregiving and bread winning in ways that there are million different ways to do it So I think there are a lot of changes we could make That would help women but would also help men and when I talk about Being able to to be a caregiver I think men should be able to be caregivers just as much as women should be able to be breadwinners And for the rest you'll have to read my book So as we come to a close here, I want to ask you a question about leadership. Yeah, um, you recently Said or wrote i'm not sure which uh leadership styles are very personal And it's because everybody's always giving you leadership advice. It's very personal But I loved this comment. You said I can chart my own career as a leader exactly in terms of how much confidence I had And you said and then you talk about your husband putting your Convincing you to put your name forward for spots when you really weren't confident You were ready. Yeah, so talk about that a bit. Yeah, no, it's it's uh, I actually wrote my own story for Cheryl's lean in website was that my it was my husband in 2002 who convinced me to put my name forward to be president Of the american society of international law or 2001 and I was suggesting male names and he said, you know, why don't you do it I was a tenured professor at harvard law school. I mean, I wasn't I sort of had a name And I was like, I can't do that, you know, so absolutely. He was like, why not and then I couldn't answer that question So I put my name forward And I also tell people it's true that until I was almost 40 Sometime into my late 30s. I was terrified of public speaking Which most people don't hardly believe I know but it's true Um, so I did you get over that just by doing Just by doing it and doing it and doing it's like anything else, you know At some point you realize talking to you is not really any different than talking around the kitchen table And I don't generally need notes at the kitchen table. So But um, no, I think absolutely, uh, you know, and this is again an area where I agree with The confidence gap book and I agree with Cheryl Sandberg's work that There are so many ways in which our confidence is undermined and they're the all these subtle little micro behaviors where You know, you're talking and the guy is impatient for you to finish right those little tiny ways where you know, he fidgets or You know, it's the the equivalent of you walk into the cocktail party and the person you're talking to looks over your shoulder And you immediately, you know, you talk a little less articulately You shrink a little it's it's those those ways that human beings give each other status cues And we're very attuned to them and as a woman in what is still a man's world. It is very hard to To get the confidence to assert yourself the way you would say if you were in your family or with your close friends To be that person that you know, you are But you know as I I wrote in my book Even at 50 when I showed up at the state department the first morning of the secretary's early morning meeting And i'm the dean of the woodrow wilson school and i'm the first director of policy planning and You know and I walk in and there's the secretary of state and there's a whole Room full of people the two deputies and all these people and every single one had been in government before And I never had and I think it took six months before I uttered an intelligent remark Well, I I mean others I wasn't I wasn't I didn't have that confidence that you do when you know you're you're relaxed So yeah, it's not all of leadership, but it's a big piece of well on behalf of this entire audience We are so glad you found your public voice because you truly are brilliant and we love hearing your insights and vision on foreign policy Thank you. Thanks to see us. I ask for the city