 If you could, please take your seats so we can get off to a slightly delayed but still energetic start. I'm Jim Hoagland, and this particular session is to discuss an enduring mystery so far, the American presidential transition, the post-election of Donald J. Trump in the United States. We have a distinguished panel to discuss this question. We'll start with two previous ambassadors, two former ambassadors from Europe and from Asia to Washington, who know the American society well. That will come in very handy since we Americans are still puzzled by what we've managed to do to and for ourselves with the election of Mr. Trump. This is going to be necessarily a very impressionistic exercise since there are very few hard and clear facts yet about the transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump as president. The only rule for Mr. Trump so far in his transition seems to be that there are no rules. He will do pretty much as he did in the campaign what he thinks is the right thing to do. And we will have to figure it out in many cases post facto. I think the 60s, we have about 60 days to go, which is going to be very much a process of trial and error on the part of our president-elect. We will then move from our two ambassadors to two imminent businessmen, one from Mexico, one from Korea, who will give us their sense of how the global economy is likely to respond to Mr. Trump's initiatives as far as we can deduce them. And finally, we have two intellectuals, two public intellectuals, one from Serbia and one from China, to discuss the world of ideas in Donald J. Trump. And to conclude, we have a young American working very much in the technological blogosphere to give us a sense of what it might mean for the future. We'll have the usual presentations and then we'll move to a question-and-answer section. First of all, I'd like to introduce François Bougende-Listang. He was president of the FBE International Consultants, an old friend from Washington and a distinguished viewer of the American scene, François. Thank you for this introduction. Is this thing working? Yes, it is. Good. I'm very intimidated with the duty to start on such a distinguished panel. Everybody has heard about everything possible about Mr. Trump. But before I give you a few impressions from Europe on this election, I'd like to come back briefly to Trump's election and to give a few thoughts on what made it possible. The first thing I think we should dwell on is that it was, of course, Trump's victory, but it was also Hillary's defeat. And I think there are lessons to be drawn from that. Trump's victory, of course, Trump approached the campaign and the election as a complete political outsider. And he led a campaign against, really, political correctness against Washington, against the establishment, against the political class, as we know it. His campaign was built on the anger and frustration in the American electorate that was felt mostly by what we call the angry white men. People cast aside by globalization, sometimes having lost many things, even sometimes their home in the 2008, 2008, 2009 crisis. The neglected white electorate, contrary to Hillary, who tried to cater to the three categories of voters who had elected Obama in 2008 and re-elected him in 2012, the young people, the women, and the minorities. Trump ignored these three categories and campaigned, really, to a different set of the electorate who usually are not voting, but whom he was able to channel and mobilize with methods from reality TV, of which he was a star, more than of a typical political campaigner or orator. But that's Trump. Hillary on the other side brought with her a feeling of deja vu and suffered from the Clinton fatigue that has affected the American electorate. She was the incarnation of everything that Trump and his voters were rejecting. She led a relatively poor campaign, probably weaker than in 2008, and she was not an ideal candidate. She might have been a good president, but she was not a very good candidate, honestly. She lost the electoral college, which normally she shouldn't have lost, because if you have the total of delegates from the states that voted consistently for the Democratic Party for the last six elections, she had 242 such candidates that she could count on. She could have won one or two swing states and been elected. She didn't win one of the big swing states, and she lost several of the key consistently Democratic states like Pennsylvania, for instance, or Michigan. And I think the most impressive figure about her defeat is that she commanded 10 million less votes than Obama in 2008, 10 million less. That election leaves many, many questions unanswered. Many questions about Trump himself. What kind of a president will he be? We know what kind of a candidate he has been, but a few things have indicated that he might try to be a different president than a candidate. We can leave him the benefit of the doubt for a few weeks, at least. But there are many, many conserves. First, the arch-conservative followers that he has, some of them already appointed to key positions. The role that his family will play and his character, who is certainly difficult to deal with. So that's about Trump himself. About the divided Republican Party, we also have a number of unanswered questions. The Republican Party was sort of hijacked by Donald Trump. A number of its leaders really didn't support him. And if you think about it, many of the slogans on which he campaigned ran directly contrary to the typical Republican doxa. So what kind of real following will he have in Congress with a Republican Party that is so heavily divided, remains a mystery and might hamper his action? Many questions also about a deeply divided America that really was the background of this election. It is not new, but it is increasing. The divisions are many, and I cannot even list them. The problem of social cohesion, obviously, is a major problem in America. We've seen this through the Trump campaign. We have a deep division between the conservative right that is really calling the shots and the more moderate Republicans, and of course, we would say centrists in Europe. Hillary got one million more voters in the popular vote than Trump, so he was not at all elected by a landslide. It is a clean victory, but a narrow one in terms of voters. And it shows a deeply divided American society was Washington against the rest. And if you look at the electoral map, you see that the whole American continent is red with the exception of the two coasts that remain blue. So these are all clear indications of deep divisions. That's for the election itself. Now, if we turn to Europe and how Europe feels and how it considers the perspectives of the Trump presidential term, I would then switch to French, because I think I can speak in English about things American, but about things European, I should express myself in my own language. The victory of Mr. Trump was obviously a complete surprise in Europe, and a huge blow. A complete surprise is normal, because the polls did not let him count. We did a lot of polls this time, but also because the Europeans not only counted a victory of Hillary Clinton, but they expected a victory of Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton was seeing it in the continuity of her husband's mandate. It's a woman who knows Europe, who knows well the stakes of international relations, and they had much more trust in Obama, for example. The Europeans were often uncomfortable with Obama administration, and they thought that with Hillary, there would be a kind of normalization and a kind of return from the United States on the European scene. But this victory of Trump was actually a huge blow, because it intervenes in a context that is difficult for the Europeans, for reasons both European, European, and for transatlantic reasons. The reasons European, you all knew them, is that the state of the economy in Europe is bad, the growth is very low, the unemployment remains very high, the eurozone, which faced success and crisis in recent times, remains exposed to various fragilities, especially in the banking field. Brexit obviously brings new subjects of interrogation and shows very well the fragility of a European construction, which for the first time, a member could decide to leave. And Brexit obviously encourages the rise of populism, which was an expression. All of this is the reason for which the Europeans are already in an uncomfortable situation at the time of Trump's election, for reasons purely European, but there are also transatlantic reasons. Europe has been very troubled by Obama's mandate. We don't say it enough. Obama had a huge success in Europe because it was the first black president in the history of the United States, because it was a distinguished man, because it was a prestigious orator. But at the same time, Obama was the first president of the United States to have nothing European in his DNA. I would say this man born in Hawaii, raised in Indonesia, who is present as a man of the Pacific, disinterested in Europe during his first mandate, he began to re-interested for the second time because Russia, through these actions, had forced him to lean on Europe. The American pivot towards the Pacific showed the deep conviction of Obama, which he expressed himself, that the future of the United States would be played in the West, in the Pacific, much more than in the East, in Europe. And the Europeans were uncomfortable with that. Let's add to that that the climate, properly spoken transatlantic, was not very good. Negotiations on the TTIP are in panic. They are at least in intensive care, otherwise in prolonged commas. And a lot of transatlantic contentions were born from the will of a certain number of American agencies and often from Congress to exercise an extraterritorial jurisdiction, which obviously played a lot in Europe. This is the background, if you will. But the election of Mr. Trump caused a lot of concern in Europe. What will be his style? What foreign policy will he lead? No one knows anything, but everyone worries about it. First of all, concerns about specific issues. First of all, a macroeconomic issue that we begin to call to be highlighted in Europe. If Mr. Trump is launched in a massive investment program in American public infrastructures and spends billions in spending more time on the American state, he risks re-release inflation. And he says, re-release inflation, he says, raise interest rates. Other countries in the Middle East, like mine, for example, don't see the prospect of re-release interest rates without a great concern. This is a first issue of concern. But there are others. There are concerns about the commercial chapter, for example, commercial negotiations. Mr. Trump openly campaigned against free trade and announced his intention to not ratify the TPP to dismantle the arena. So all these questions arise. Will he really attack free trade? Will he adopt a protectionist policy? And if so, is there no risk of contagion? Environmental concern, too. He announced his intention to denounce the Paris Agreement of COP 21 on climate change and as it was one of the great successes of the Obama administration and French foreign policy, it is a matter of manifest concern. On security, concerns are multiple. If he held on to NATO and on NATO's security guarantee, concerns may be held lightly, but considered to be very worrying. And of course, the Europeans of the East live with the very, very serious concern that Mr. Trump could desolidate from Article 5 and show much less vigilant in the face of the actions of Russia that he should not do it. Will he conclude a deal? I'm a dealmaker, did he? I can make a deal with this guy, speaking of Putin. Will he seek to make a deal with Russia above the heads of the Europeans? Will he go all the way to dismantle Obama's heritage? These are specific concerns, I would say, sectoral, if you want, of the Europeans. This adds to a much more general concern, which is a concern about the general political climate. Mr. Trump is the last incarnation of what we call populism, a word I don't like, because it's a word that doesn't mean much, but which characterizes everything against globalization, against immigration, against free trade, all that is addressed to the poor, often felt by the electorates. Mr. Trump's election can constitute a powerful encouragement to the different populist movements that have already taken a lot of strength in Europe. There will be an effect, as they say, that is absolutely impossible to quantify, but that we will measure, as it happens, the electoral calendar of 2017. However, this one is very worrying. We will start on December 4th, next, by the presidential election of Austria, in which an extreme right candidate has the chance to be elected, and by the Italian institutional referendum. We will then have, in March, legislative elections in the Netherlands, in which the populists of Mr. Gerd Wilders are very strong, and Mr. Gerd Wilders has assisted, in a very visible way, in several electoral meetings of Mr. Trump. Then we have presidential elections, then legislative elections in France in May and June, and legislative elections in Germany in October. So it is a year that is very appropriate, to achieve a rise in the populism that has already shown their strength with Brexit. So to finish with these introductory remarks, the Europeans, of course, are faced with a lot of unknown and a lot of concern. They must first and foremost stay united. They have tried to help when they were found, for the first time without the United Kingdom, in Bratislava in September. The five presidents or prime ministers of the main countries of the European Union were found around Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Obama. In Berlin last week, they are showing unity, they are looking for unity, especially on the democratic values they hear defending. They will also have to keep it good on Brexit and show themselves in favor of the principles that the European Union will have in the negotiations that will begin in March. The second thing is that they have to strengthen their unity on crucial issues. They have to obviously work more on solidarity in the construction of the eurozone and, above all, in the migratory policy, in the strengthening of Schengen and in the strengthening of the controls at the borders. And then they will have to take their security in hand, because one of the things that clearly comes out of Mr. Trump's remarks is, of course, the willingness to see the allies contribute more to their defense and their security, not counting on the United States, not enjoying a free ride from the United States. And in this area, there is a lot to do to reach the goal of 2% of defense defense in relation to the European Union, which has already been set up by NATO, and they will have to continue to find the means to work with the United Kingdom, while also working to negotiate Brexit. All this will be difficult. And the Europeans, who did not need this additional problem, are worried because the President of Mr. Trump causes them a lot of anxiety and risks, by surprise, to complicate a lot of the issues they have, on the other hand, to deal with. That's it, my dear Jim. Merci, François. Merci. You nicely anticipated a question that I was going to ask, and that was simply what have these elections done to the image of America? And you've answered it very, very well. And I'd like the other panelists to also try to address that question as we go forward about what have these elections done to the image of the United States and what are the consequences? Our next speaker is the former Ambassador of Japan, to Washington, Mr. Ichichiro Fujisaki. I always say that the presidential election of the United States is a bit like a Christmas gift. It means you say nothing, just the day. And the Christmas Day, as you can say, you can cry. That's what I wanted, isn't it? And it's not exactly like that, but, in any case, Mr. Abe was able to have the first interview with Mr. Trump. And, no, it wasn't on a specific subject. He spoke, I think, that how they see the old world, the relations with Russia, China, Korea, Philippines, India, and also the economy. And I think it was very important to bring the view of Asia, the view of the allies of Asia, directly to Mr. Trump, as soon as possible. To not put the place of demand. It was very important for us. And like that, I think that both of them could build the relationship of confidence. And Mr. Trump, on Twitter with us, we started a great friendship. So I will now change to English from here. I think Mr. Trump's election was very different from all other elections I have seen before. That was a menu, in short. So many different things on the menu. One was that lose the weight. The other was you have a rich dessert. It doesn't add up. Economist financial times have written that it's not logic, but important thing was that ordinary people don't read those magazines, don't read those newspapers. It didn't matter at all. He was able to sing a song, music, which was good to each people. Now it's time that he has to cherry pick. I think there'll be three groups of policies. One, he will have to do it. Second, he will have to modify and do it. Third, he will postpone it. These three groups. The first group, I don't know which will be that. Second group we are already seeing. The walls is changing to fence. 11 million changing to two million. So maybe we could do that to second group. Also about Obamacare, maybe that's going to be in second group. So we have to be seeing which one would go to group A, group B, group C. As for the foreign policy, I think maybe I'm too optimistic, but relations with Russia, China will not change fundamentally. Even if you like, if there's a personal chemistry, the countries relations are more important than personal chemistry. And it doesn't change fundamentally. If you levy China, it's not only against WTO, but your American consumer price would go up, American competitivity would go down. You cannot do that so easily. Russia, you have more than 1500 nuclear arsenals both countries. You can't just go hug and forget about it. So in that case, on that premise, alliance is important to United States. It's better to cope with others just by Americans, not only by Americans, but with allies. So I think he's already indicating the importance of NATO, Korea, and Japan to all those countries. We are going to continue to go along. Of course, there could be discussion of burden sharing that could come up, but the fundamental relations will not change. Then what will happen? I think on three fronts, policy may have to be watched. One environment, as often people say, one trade, third, Middle East. Relations with Iran, the accord with Iran, one with the relations with Syria, IS may change. So I am personally watching those three elements and that is not that predictable at this juncture. But the whole system structure, I am maybe a little optimistic, but would not collapse or shake or tremble as a lot of people now like to say. Now, of course, we can't still write clear picture, but I think we could be counting on his businessman instinct or sixth sense saying, which is better? Which is better for America? I think the answer is obvious. Thank you very much, Jim. Mr. Ambassador, thank you. And thank you very much for keeping within the seven to eight minute timeframe that we've established. Our next speaker comes from Korea and is the chairman and CEO of one of the most important industrial groups, the Pongsan Group. And we're listening now to Mr. Jinroy Yu. Well, I'm a CEO of the company, CEO standing for chief entertainment officer. Now, Mr. Trump, who was also a CEO from has to change from the chief entertainment officer to the president of the United States. So that would be something worth watching on. I would like to start by coding some lines from this year's Nobel Prize winner in literature, Bob Dylan's song called The Times They Are A Changing and I code, come senators, congressmen, please hit the call, don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall, for he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled. There's a battle outside and it is raging. It will soon shake your windows and will rattle your walls for The Times They Are A Changing unquote. This song was written by Bob Dylan more than 50 years ago. And yes indeed, The Times They Are A Changing. Finally, not only in the US politics, but in the political and economic landscape around the world. We had the Brexit, the election of Duterte in Philippines and of course, Mr. Trump in the US. And what's next? Maybe President Lupin in France, who knows? C'est vraiment possible. As an outside observer and not a participant in US politics or election, I was fascinated by the outcome of the US presidential election. In broad stroke, it revealed a couple of things. One, the American people are deeply concerned about the direction that their country is taking, especially economically, where the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. And even in the middle class, where the middle class is finding it difficult to make ends meet. Two, the desire for an outsider for president was more palpable than ever before. The American people were undeniably looking for a change in the economy, a change in immigration and a change in addressing terrorism. So, since our topic today is about post-election or more accurately, post-Obama, I would like to share some of my thoughts. First, internally, when President Trump takes office in January, you will see an immediate shift from a more liberal Obama policies to a very conservative Trump policies. As president, President Trump will be choosing at least the next two and maybe even up to four of the next Supreme Court justices. He has said that he will appoint someone, some Supreme Court justices that are pro-life. And I'm sure he will also be against more gay rights, but it will really not make any difference because as some of the individual states in the US allows abortions and gay marriages, I know President-elect Trump has said that he will leave it up to the states for these. I know many Americans were not happy about the election results and they all inquired about the possibility of immigrating to Canada, but I don't think that will happen. You may see a lot of people moving to different states like California, Alaska, or Hawaii as far as you can go from Washington, D.C. But probably the biggest change will be the Second Amendment where there will be no major changes in the rights to have guns of any kind. I just wanna add that my company makes bullets and our company stock rose almost 20% since Trump got elected, so nobody's perfect. Since this is an international conference, I would like to focus on what kind of an impact incoming President Trump's policies will have in the world. President-elect Trump's campaign slogan, make America great again, capture the hearts of those who voted for him. Make America great again. Literary means America comes first. It's great news for those who live and do business in the US, but a big challenge for those who live and do business outside the US. As President, Mr. Trump will demand a level playing field, especially on trade issues. He has said that he will not do the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and even threatened to pull out of NAFTA. One thing for sure is that there's going to be a lot of adjustment in the existing trade agreements US has with many of the other countries. He will also be strict on currency manipulations as well. Regarding America's military bases around the world, he will ask countries like Japan, Korea, and Germany to pay more of the cost in the US presence in the countries. He will also ask NATO countries to pay for most of the cost themselves instead of relying on the US. The biggest change that could happen in my opinion will be in the area of immigration. The Trump administration will be very tough on immigration, especially coming from Muslim countries and illegal immigrants from Mexico. The US may even lower the quotas for immigration overall, as well as curtailing visas to travel to the US, not only for security reasons, but to preserve the jobs within the United States. So there isn't much good news for those outside of the US compared to those who live in the US. But this is the reality and the platform on which Mr. Trump got elected as the 45th President of the United States. You mentioned about how the world feels, the US feels about Mr. Trump getting elected. I don't think Americans are like Mr. Trump, we're the gifts of them, it's all about America, so who cares what the other world thinks. The good news is that I think since his victory President-elect Trump has been speaking with more caution and in a more considerate tone and demeanor. I'm hopeful that this changed approach is indicative of his desire to bring America together again and to be president to every Americans. I am also hopeful that after understanding the reality of what America faces in the world, President Trump will come to a realization that he and America will need the support of its allies and its friends to succeed and make America great again. For those of us who are not Americans, let's stop complaining about the outcome. Let's instead try to find out and see how we can work together with the new America to make this world a better place. I would like to conclude by my impersonation of Bob Dylan, if your time to you is worth saving, then you better start swimming all your life. You're gonna sink like a stone for the times they are changing. Thank you. Thank you very much for working both Bob Dylan and a very strong dose of pragmatism into your remarks. We now have by audio link from Mexico, one of Mexico's most prominent businessmen, Juan Gallardo, who will now take the floor in absentia. Mr. Gallardo. Thank you. Yes, go ahead. Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much and it is indeed a great privilege to share the with such a distinguished panel. And as was already said, the time is impeccable, though the decision is still in process. So many of the things that we can comment at this point that has already been said are an amount of, I might call sort of educated conjecture but over the next six days we'll be much more clear. To understand sort of North American and I mean the North world, I think I would like to divide it into three comments. One is a date of ago, skin would be a comment on the border and how it's operational walled suspense and finally more importantly going to the very distinctive piece of NAFTA and its future. In the case of the Mexico update, very briefly and quickly, Mexico has undergone massive transformation in the last three years. Reforms that we had been searching for and fighting for over the last 25 years have all been now put in place, opening up of energy, labor law, a new application vehicle, telecommunications, et cetera. I mean, there has been a massive legal and structural change within the country, which of course will take time for things to work themselves through the system, transport, but that are already setting stage for a future that I think is aligned with all of us are interested in. A very interesting part of this is the next couple of weeks when the final bids on deep drilling will be opened and we'll have a chance to have a real sense of just how much interest we were able to attract. Mexican growth, reasonable, balanced budget despite an oil significant fill up, Mexico has undergone from being in the economy three percent of its interest to down to 14% and that was achieved in terms of balance by a new reform, which was a lot of cost. Anyway, basically news on the financial side, good solid news. Where are the challenges? We have a great battle undergoing right now with major legal challenge in terms of corruption. We've continued to have tell adults in terms of the drug force, political positioning for the two of the 18 elections and of course, the big challenge transition in the US. Let me address the border situation. I'm sure many of you, but just to give you sense of its eyes, one million people cross that border every day and more than 300,000 vehicles. So there's also more Mexicans coming back to Mexico than going to the US now for at least two or three years running. So the idea of having an efficient border, a well-controlled border, a properly monitored border has been alive and working strongly. I have her list of 15 very specific initiatives that are all occurring, the agreement of Homeland Security and underway now for a couple of years. So in the same direction, we all wanted efficient border and we are thinking of strategic, what we call strategic and obviously a lot to do with custom harmonization. So there are solutions beyond the wall or fence. There's a clear understanding that we won't make sure that we'll have an operational efficient border. Now, in terms of immigration, we will have a very strong stand in terms of things being done in a humane way. The figures have been dropping in terms of how many may not be the border we shall see. The focus seems to be on it and who has a criminal record which sounds perfectly just fine. As long as things are done in a very humane way and I think we will be able to work our way through the famous wall discussion. We are very much aligned in the interest of making sure that both sides are comfortable with what it needs to be done. And we'll see as the different appointments occur in the next few weeks, we'll see how much it needs to be done beyond what is already underway. Now, NAFTA question. I think it's interesting just to mention the fact that three-way trade between Canada, US, and Mexico is more than $1 trillion a year. $1 trillion a year. 30 of the 53 states of the United States have Mexico as its number one or two trading partner. More than 6 million jobs in the US are directly attributed to trade with Mexico. There is $250 billion investment in Mexico. Mexico buys more than $250 billion from the US every day, every year, I'm sorry. And more than 40% value added of products leaving Mexico for other markets incorporate 40% of US. When we first discussed NAFTA 20-plus years ago, we were dealing with promises that we were dealing with realities. And I think there is a level of integration between the three countries that is extremely important not to ignore. As you know, there is clause. When the clause was discussed years ago, there's clause for exit. And that clause is, well, called at the time, the nuclear solution. The reason being that you could, within six months, notice, step out of NAFTA, but it was all or nothing. And the reason for the all or nothing is that you do not want to generate a sort of a trickle down effect by little of undoing, but rather make sure that all of those who have invested who have integrated, who have benefited. We're on the line also at the same time. So all that is where we stand right now. I think that as we look at NAFTA, as you look at any document that you reread after 25 years, there are very many clear areas that we can do, prove, modernize, deepen, expand, et cetera. What was the original agreement? Things related to enforcement, the dispute settlement system can be clearly strengthened. Environment and worker rights clearly strengthened. In fact, already contemplated in the TPP. Everything that has to do with simplification, kind of paperwork that is required to establish the rules of origin is just outrageously low and deep, and it can be very simplified. Things like commerce and energy will work in the original NAFTA and e-commerce, it didn't even exist, are obviously enhanced. So there's room, there's plenty of room to discuss constructively a more efficient NAFTA, and we certainly look forward to doing the new infrastructures. I think that what has been heard, what I think is would be very sad is if the TPP were to be lost in my way, because the last two or three years, enormous community effort from the countries involved in TPP have gone into place, and I think that at the moment, as I understood in the eight meeting in Lima last two days though, clearly everyone would like to see that and can be maintained without participation at this point of time, so we'll see what happens there. But I think all in all, in the case of North America, it's all about North American competitiveness, I think all three have been able to integrate the strategy precisely because of that, and we certainly feel that there's room to discuss and constructive discussion with whoever comes into those positions in the next transition. I share the concerns that have been voiced before, hopefully the rhetoric that occurred during the electoral process changes to a more pragmatic and constructive discussions, but I will go and we are ready. Thank you very much. Mr. Gallardo, thank you. I'm struck again by the very pragmatic tone of your remarks and the willingness to find a way through problems that have been raised mostly on this side of the border. We now move from the world of business to the world of ideas. Our first speaker will be Vuk Jeremic, who happens to be from Serbia, which according to public opinion polls, holds a rare distinction of having supported Donald Trump about 90%. Vuk, perhaps you can explain that and many other things to us, so the floor is yours. Well, thank you, Jim, for this introduction and it's a great privilege and pleasure to be back at the World Policy Conference. I do come from Serbia and Serbia is not your typical country when it comes to the analysis of the post, when it comes to the analysis of the, of the post-American elections. The brand Clinton is not a terribly popular and strong brand in Serbia and therefore this outlying data point that is called Serbia. So I'd rather try and concentrate on the broader European view and perhaps certain other parts of the world. The previous speaker has put it succinctly. There's a lot of uncertainty as to what's gonna happen. It is really, really difficult to predict but one thing that looks more or less likely is that at least there is going to be an attempt at a different kind, building a different kind of relationship with Russia. And that is causing consternation in certain parts of Europe, especially in the Eastern part. Also people in Western Europe are terribly comfortable. Mr. Dostan spoke about the upcoming referendum and elections in Western Europe. Of course, one can see how the election victory of Donald Trump may serve as a boost to populist movements, ideas, candidates in those elections. And that's certainly true. I was, I'm sad to say that despite having written a piece on Brexit prior to Brexit when I argued very strongly for Britain to remain in the European Union, I did predict that Brexit was gonna happen. Something very, very similar happened with the election of Donald Trump. When I run for the secretary general of the United Nations earlier this year, I put in my platform policies that are totally opposite from the things that Donald Trump has been advocating for in his campaign. I did also, nevertheless, one day before the election say that I don't think that Hillary looks too strong. My friends from Britain and my friends from the US were telling me, oh, don't be such a Serbian. It's never gonna happen. Well, I am sorry to say that I was right. But I would not underestimate what Mr. Dostan was saying. I think that we might be heading in Europe for more electoral victories that until recently we could not have imagined. But there's also a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy in the European attitude, which I hope is going to wither away as we move forward. I don't think that it necessarily has to be a disaster. First and foremost, I don't think that trying to make a different kind of relationship with Russia is necessarily a bad thing. There are probably going to be people who win more and people who win less or lose out of that new relationship. I think it's gonna work at least short term. I think this is something that Donald Trump is going to try. And I think that Mr. Putin is going to do his best to make sure that this attempt is successful at least short term. I'm not talking about the long-term. Long-term, of course, previous speakers spoke about personal relationships versus countries' interests. Of course, countries' interests and strategic interests are something that in the end of the day usually prevail. But probably one of the first repercussions of a Russia-US rapprochement would be the two countries working more closely together in Syria. And that thing is going to bring about, in my opinion, a world of opportunities. And despite the fact that this is opposite kind of attitude to the one that Barack Obama had with regard to Russia, effectively it's not strategically very different when it comes to the context of the Middle East. Obama spoke about the balance of power in his latest big interview to Mr. Goldberg. I think that the balance of power just gets accelerated with the Russia-America trying to work closely together in Syria and beyond. If they're successful in bringing to a halt the Syrian debacle, and I'm not gonna get into the details as to what could be the parameters of that closure. But if there is something that looks like armistice, if not peace, it's gonna open a world of opportunities. It could open up a possibility of looking again at the Israel-Palestine situation. Don't forget that Donald Trump mentioned that once that this is the toughest deal in the world and I'm good at making deals. It's not inconceivable that he might try and do that upon starting a different kind of relationship with the Russians. One can talk about the whole world. Others are here much more knowledgeable about other parts of the world. But I think, and this is the last thing that I'm gonna say, we should try and wake up to the new reality. We shouldn't be lamenting about what could have gone differently. Our friend from Mexico spoke about his hope that the TPP is not going to go away. It's dead, it won't happen. Let's not continue behaving as if nothing had happened. There was a very, very decisive result of the American election. We are going to live in a different world as a result of that. Let's try and concentrate on the opportunities and not fall into the trap of making negative self-fulfilling prophecies. Thank you very much, Fu. We turn now for a final view from abroad to our friend, Mr. Wang Xi Xi who has at various conferences that I've been to over the past few years has proved to be a very reliable guide to what China is likely to think about something and do about something. So the floor is yours, sir. Thank you, Chair. Coming from China, I would like to say that the last election in the United States was not only controversial and divisive in the United States but it is also divisive in China. A country which is politically remote and politically dissimilar to the United States. Well before the US election, China's official media had carried numerous editorials and commentaries in a familiar tone. In the people's daily, the most authoritative newspaper of the Communist Party, a few very simple words were frequently used who would describe the election process. Nasty, chaotic, bad, low, conspiracy, vote-buying, corruption, demonizing, unpopularity, et cetera. A commentary published in the People's Daily on November 8th argued, whatever wins the US, whoever wins the US election, it will by no means be the victory of democracy. The message to Chinese people is clear. America's political system and values provide nothing for China to admire or to follow. Unlike most other countries, probably with the exception of Serbia and Russia, the majority of China's media and political elites appear to chew toward Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton during the campaign. They have made the right prediction of Trump's victory. With very few exceptions, most of those sympathetic to Trump have no direct access to US media because of the internet firewall and the language barrier. Mr. Wang, could I ask you to just pull your microphone in a little bit more? They get information only from the Chinese media, including social media. Those who made the right direction did not have access to American media. Those Chinese scholars and analysts, including myself, who watched the presidential election closely by way of following US media and talking to their American counterparts generally got their predictions wrong. These three reasons can be found to explain why many Chinese people preferred Trump. First, some like Trump's ideas of protecting indigenous industries and trade protectionism all were fond of his expressive defiance against political correctness in America related to feminism, homosexuality, multiculturalism, ethnic and religious diversity, et cetera. These Chinese noticed that Trump tended to speak on behalf of the older blue collar workers in rural areas. And China also has population suffering from similar gaps between rich and poor and between cosmopolitan cities and the countryside. They argued that China should learn something from Trump's insistence in protecting manufacturing capacities and preventing financial assets from going out of the country. They though loathe what is known as LGBT. As the LGBT is against Chinese traditional values. According to their understanding, China should resist the tide of immigration from Africa and the Middle East into China when a large number of Africans are now residing in the city of Guangzhou and many merchants from the Middle East have found their homes in Southeast China. In addition, some Chinese argue that national minorities in China, like American blacks and the new immigrants, have injured too many privileges at the expense of the mainstay of the population. To put it simply, Trump's supporters in China are using his ideas and slogans as reference to China. The second grouping of the Trump supporters in China took note of his ideological color in comparison with Hillary Clinton's emphasis on promoting US values in the world. Trump's America's first slogan sounded inward looking unlike Clinton's internationalism. What is more, Trump said he liked the Russian leader, Putin, who is arguably the most popular foreign leader in China. Trump's statements during the campaign seemed that he might be less committed to US security alliances with Japan and South Korea and would rescind the TPP negotiations, making the president-elect likely to depart from traditional US security and economic policies toward Asia. Therefore, many Chinese believe a Trump administration will be less hostile if not more friendly to China. On top of all considerations, as these Chinese understood, Trump is a tycoon who loves money and China has a lot of money. Thus, it must be easier to make a deal with Trump. Some other Chinese held Trump's victory not because they like him, but because they dislike the United States. It is their expectation that the Trump administration with a Republican Congress may do a lot of harm to the US by making it less unified, less powerful and more isolated in the world. A weak in the United States, they hope, would not be able to interfere forcefully in China's domestic affairs and constrain China's international space. Most of those Chinese who did not express delight at Trump's victory also look at US election implications for China. Some in business circles are concerned that a new surge of protectionism in America might hurt China's business interests abroad. More broadly, as a few leading Chinese economists argue, the world after the US election and the Brexit will witness the increase in resistance to globalization in different regions, especially in Europe. China has been one of the largest beneficiaries of economic globalization, and the next step of reform and opening will continue to depend on open markets and free interflow of capital. Any reversal of globalization may impede China's economic growth. It is noted among Chinese analysts that uneven distribution of wealth reflecting higher genie indexes everywhere in the world has been a root cause of rising populism. But they see no easy solution to this inequality, and there is not much the United States can do to ease the popular anger and anxieties. On the political side of the Trump phenomenon, sober-minded scholars in China point to the possibility of the world moving into a renewed period of strongman politics, which could result in more strident control of society and information interflow. As a veteran US soldier in China, in the last three decades, I was numbed in Beijing when I got the news that Trump had won. It shattered my confidence in analyzing US politics as the vast majority of US media, as well as all the Americans I had talked to about the election during the campaign had been somewhat misleading. What stunned me was not only the outcome of the election, but more importantly, how the United States has been politically divided and wounded in different dimensions, cultural, ethnic, racial, social class, religious, gender, age, and partisan. I used to be consistently confident that the United States, despite all the problems it has, would not be a declining power, but I'm not too sure of it today. Would the election be the birthday of this United States of America, or would it mark the beginning of revival of the United States or making America great again, as the Trump slogan says? I don't really know. Finally, I don't want to spend too much time to discuss US-China relations in the post-election era. Nothing is certain at the moment. Whatever Trump thinks about China, his China policy is likely to be handled by some hawkish officials and advisors. So there's a contradiction between what he thinks about China and what his advisors think about China. There will be about six months ahead to figure out who they are. I would be surprised if Beijing appeared to be proactive during this transitional period. Thank you. It will not surprise you to know that Henry Kissinger would agree with your closing remarks, absolutely. China will take at least six months to study what you have outlined quite perceptively as probably an opportunity for China. Our next speaker represents a different segment. As Mr. Wang went through the list of reasons why he perceived the possibility that Donald Trump would win, I thought they were the same reasons that we in the media establishment in America saw the reasons why Hillary would win. So it's been a period of real soul searching in the media in the United States to figure out how we got the election results or how we didn't get them right to put it mildly. But how America has changed so much that there are parts of America we in the media didn't seem to recognize. So our final presentation comes from a younger American who is very active in the world of blogs and of online journalism. It's Ryan Evans who is the founder of War on the Rocks and the chief editor of War on the Rocks who will give us the perspective of perhaps a different segment of America. Thanks so much for having me. I'm gonna try to make it interesting. Unfortunately, I'm not gonna sing like my co-panelists. I think to be pretty candid, we have to be prepared for a range of outcomes. It's very difficult to predict what can happen and I think that range of outcomes is very broad. I think it starts with something akin to the George W. Bush administration but perhaps more disorganized and with an extra side of mayhem and on the other end of the spectrum I think we actually have to be prepared for the breakdown of democracy in the United States and perhaps even the introduction of some sort of autocracy. And if you think I'm being too extreme, witness President-Elect Trump's recent comment on how we absolutely, it's his word, need to register Muslims living in the United States and think how, just think how new of a problem that is for us to be dealing with to have an American person that is about to be the United States president saying something like that openly and have his chief of staff then go on TV the next day and say we can't rule that out. And I think something we've seen in the development of past autocratic systems which is not to say that's definitely what we're seeing now but again we need to be prepared for the possibility is you don't just see top down policy changing and hardening society but you see people that consider themselves the followers of the leader working towards what that man says and Donald Trump says a lot of things and then he contradicts himself the next day and then he says it again. As he says he quote unquote has the best words but when you constantly say extreme things and if people are working to realize your vision that makes many things permissible not just in the federal bureaucracy but in American society. So I think a lot of this really hinges on whether the answer to two questions. Is Donald Trump the megalomaniacal borderline psychopath that he plays on television? Yes or no? And can our institutions restrain him? And if the answer to that first question is yes and the answer to that second question is no then we have a problem. Maybe I'm being alarmist but I think these are valid questions. As far as how it affects US policy towards the world again we have a range of options. I think what we're already seeing develop in the transition and the appointment of the national security team are two factions and this is consistent with how Trump has run his businesses as he creates these sort of two internal factions and pits them against each other. We have what I'll call the previous faction named after the person he's appointing is his chief of staff and the Bannon faction the head of Breitbart who's the chief strategist. The first faction represents the more Republican the more establishment part of the Republican party and the second represents what's come to be called the alt-right more extreme voices and I think I predicted my predictions have been worth pretty much nothing in this election cycle but I predict he will split his appointments fairly evenly between those two camps which will create a lot of internal tension on major questions of policy and then which ever faction sort of wins out will determine policy in that area and I really think a lot of the major policy questions have been discussed on this panel but I think the biggest one are the United States attitude towards approach towards international trade and its relationship with China which I actually think will be far more determinative of what the world looks like than its relationship with Russia and I don't think Donald Trump has an ideology on foreign policy I think he has strong antithopies and that makes him all the more unpredictable he's expressed a lot of antithopy towards China he's accused China of doing everything from destroying industrial America, fabricating climate change which is my favorite but he also doesn't express a huge amount of discomfort with what China is doing in the South China Sea so it could very well be that we see an administration that is very aggressive on trade and waging some sort of a trade war trade protectionism targeting China but is also willing to accommodate what China views as its interests in the South and East China Seas I think all options are open at this point and a lot will be determined by the fights within these factions between these factions and the cauldron of Trump's ego and finally I wanna say I was asked to say something about how someone of my generation views this issue I'm just barely a millennial I was born in 1983 I don't like to admit to being a millennial but I suppose I am but I will tell you that a lot of my friends and I'm an independent I'm not a Democrat or a Republican but a lot of my friends on both sides of the aisle of my generation sort of express the same profound disappointment with those who came before us and particularly the baby boomers who we don't really view as being good stewards of our country's power and general affairs I was well I'll skip that story but I do think that is something that there's a real generational divide in the United States and how we approach politics and how we approach the economy and how we approach entitlements, benefits, social issues and I think you're gonna start seeing that come into sharper relief over the next four years. Finally I'll just close with one question I had the misfortune of being around a table with a bunch of political scientists before I came here if this was an audience of historians you all would have laughed at that one but one of them made the really good point is this really puts the test the sort of great man theory of international relations is a country's trajectory and choices really about agency of the man on top or woman on top or is it about structural issues and the structure of the international system and I think the next four years will perhaps be the best case study we have for that question that we've had in a long time and so I'll just close there and I look forward to your questions. Ryan, thank you and thank you for skipping the... Thank you for skipping the story since we're very short on time. We're gonna try to work in 15 to 20 minutes of question if I can borrow some time from the next panel but Cary's indicating perhaps not so let's keep it short. So if you could identify yourself and we'll start right here and keep your questions as brief as possible and please don't use your time to make comments. Just ask questions please. Thank you, I think the panel was extremely interesting particularly that after the post-U.S. elections. What I want to ask Mr. Hoglund in particular last year you said about the U.S. disengaging completely from the Middle East and Mr. Obama has underlined this in the Obama doctrine in his interview with Goldberg. As you know and I don't know if you know but in the Middle East the reactions to Mr. Trump's election is totally different from the West. In fact, he was acclaimed. One of the first ones to congratulate him was the Egyptian president and people are cautiously optimistic, let's say that relations with the Arab world will be different than what Mr. Obama has said. What do you think it will be with Mr. Trump? Is there reason for optimism or is it just wishful thinking? Thank you. Thank you Monop for that question and I'll briefly respond and then see if there's anybody on the panel who wants to take it on. I did talk in the past about Obama treating the Middle East as a burning building that he wanted to flee after his experiences there. I think in general we're gonna see a continuation under Donald Trump of the tendency to have less America rather than more America in foreign affairs. Trump is going to be absorbed by the internal divisions that the panel has described very well, has perceived very well and so far has not shown a lot of interest in the classical foreign policy games, the balance of power games that we know about. I think again the Middle East should look on Trump the first six months in particular as an opportunity to get in there and to influence him and to try to get him more involved perhaps, but I'm not sure you'll be successful. Did anybody want to take that on? Let's move on to the next question then. Did I see a yes, yes ma'am. Thank you so much for your interesting comments. I have a quick comment and a question. I think the problem isn't just Trump, it's Trump's fix. We have Mike Flynn, we have Steve Bannon, when we have Mike Pompeo, they're all hard, halkish war advocates and some of them even was criticized and President Obama for ending the interrogation technique, the program of interrogation technique. I'm wondering how would that influence US image when you have people like these three gentlemen who advocates interrogation, waterboarding and amongst other things. How would that also influence the war and terror since you may have read or heard ISIS have been cheering for Donald Trump's when saying that it's gonna make their job easier. So I was wondering if anyone has an answer to that. Thank you. Ryan, that falls right into your wheelhouse if you could give us a quick answer. Yeah, I think that's a really important question. What's interesting about, so a few months ago Trump gave a big form policy speech, his second big form policy speech and it was billed as how he was gonna see the world and it was all about terrorism. All of it, the single organizing factor of how Trump at least seems to view the world as terms of global strategy is about the issue of terrorism which I think is really interesting and dangerous. As far as the sort of moral and questions that you bring up about torture and things like that, I think it's an open question. I can tell you that in Washington there are a lot of people talking about the ethics of serving in this administration and it's mostly playing out publicly among people likely to be political appointees but I can also tell you there are a lot of people in government, civil servants in our agencies who are talking openly about well what's my red line? At what point do I resign? Because we're not going to go back and do these things again but if the Trump administration just decided to go in that direction and reinstitute torture, Trump has said publicly many times that actually not only does he think waterboarding is not, not only does he think waterboarding is torture, he thinks it is torture but he thinks it's not enough that we need to go further and while I do think there'll be a lot of resignations and a lot of public pressure as a result of that and hopefully some congressional pushback which will be more likely after the midterms if the Democrats are able to win back some more seats, I still think he's able, going to be able to find people in the federal bureaucracy willing to carry out those policies and I think that will be terrible. Just a complete catastrophe and I wish I had something more, more comfortable to say than that but I just think a moment about a president who sees the world entirely through the prism of counter-terrorism. He doesn't really understand or maybe care too much about the idea of great power competition and I think that's a pretty scary situation to be in. Hope Jeremic has a very... Well, I think we're definitely moving away from the attitude of liberal internationalism of the United States of America and by extension of the wider world but that is the way it is and I understand that people are eagerly expecting for the first speech of President Donald Trump but again, I wouldn't put too much premium on speeches. Arguably one of the best speeches in history was Cairo's speech of President Barack Obama and very little came as a follow-up to that speech. I believe in briefly addressing the first question which I also tried to answer. I think that there is an opportunity here and that the attitude that he says that he is going to have towards resolving world affairs is probably something that would work well with at least the number of actors that are currently present in the Middle East, the Middle Eastern actors, as well as the external ones who do have influence together with America. Thank you, Mr. Hoagland. And as I have a question too, this Mr. Hoagland and Evans, the presidential campaign this time is very much exciting and a lot of money is spent but finally the number of votes in the United States are less than the previous presidential election. How do you analyze about that? And in addition to that, I wasn't aware but I found that the Supreme Court decision of 2010 saying that the legal corporation has no limit the spending money on the campaign or for the political activities. Does it really affect this election? And I don't think this Supreme Court decision will be overruled anytime from now on since because of the Republicans, the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives both. At that time, such a Supreme Court decision may have a certain impact for the coming elections and so on. Thank you very much. I think in this particular case, in this election, the Supreme Court decision on corporate donations to political candidates did not play a significant role because Donald Trump spent very little on traditional campaigning methods. Hillary spent a great deal but it didn't produce the results desired. I think this vote by and large has to be seen as a rejection. A rejection by the nation of the way things are. A rejection of experts, a rejection really of institutions as well and of these two particular candidates and I think that explains why the vote was down, these candidates and either of whom stirred a great deal of enthusiasm in my view. Ryan, did you wanna briefly add to that? Yeah, I'll just point to what I think is a larger issue that encompasses what you asked about. So sort of two complimenting issues actually. So the first is we have in our country a very powerful executive and we also have norms where sort of things that you wouldn't expect to be regulated that you would expect to be regulated or not regulated. So for example, when foreign visitors come to observe American elections, they're always surprised by the fact that Americans do not have to show identification when they vote. They show up at their local polling place, they say who they are and they vote and foreign visitors are always surprised by that and then we say well, our system's just so strong and we have these norms in place and we all trust each other and everything's fine and that's why it works. But the sort of trust that underlies that system and those norms are starting to wear away and at the same time, we have less space between the passions of the masses and the legislative branch and any people that get voted into the executive than we ever have before what I mean by that is the rise of the primary systems, referendums being used more commonly. You can even go back to early in the 20th century when direct election to the Senate was instituted instead of state legislators picking senators. All these things are diminishing the space between popular passions and the state actually deciding on major things and I think that as that happens and it's trust and our norms erode, we're starting to see the larger system erode. I want to thank this excellent panel and the questions from the audience. Be assured that we will carry the word back as to your impressions of the United States at this point. Thank you very much.