 Thank you Dean Blank. Today as we reflect on the unspeakable losses that our country suffered one year ago and as we remember the 18 precious lives of our own alumni struck down on that day we find ourselves bereft of speech. All words undone as the poet Grace Shulman has written in a special issue of the Michigan Quarterly Review and yet because the University of Michigan is a great center of learning. We also find that in spite of everything we must speak. We must reconstitute those undone words if we are to give voice to our nation's unanswered questions. That is why on this terrible anniversary we are drawn here to the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy to ponder the impact of September the 11th on our national and international society. Today there are other places in which we will express our grief. There are other places in which we will seek a measure of consolation and support and comfort among our friends and our houses of worship in vigil on campus in our homes and neighborhoods. We have also chosen to observe this date by holding an academic symposium to consider the meaning of what has happened. It takes courage on any given day to open ourselves fully to discussion and debate. To question received opinion. In the 12th century of the common era the Iranian Muslim thinker Al Ghazali recalled that in his youth I poked into every dark recess and made an assault on every problem. I plunged into every abyss. I scrutinized the creed of every sect and I fathomed the mysteries of each doctrine. So it was in other traditions with Abelard, Spinoza and Pascal and so it is today with every scientist scholar or artist who has been emboldened to seek a universal deliverance from error. That undaunted boldness is unmistakably a hallmark of the University of Michigan. As members of a community embracing most of the world's major cultural perspectives and religious traditions we probe dark recesses in all disciplines and unflinchingly we plunge into unexplored abysses. This spirit of free inquiry is the glory of a great university and in an increasingly challenging world we accept our responsibility to uphold and safeguard this protected arena for unfettered questions and ongoing debate. It is especially appropriate then that we have gathered today as the first beneficiaries of the Joshua Rosenthal Education Fund established by Mr. Rosenthal's family and friends to strengthen the Ford School's public policies, important work in advancing understanding of international issues. To help us wrestle with the unique issues surrounding the events of September the 11th, 2001, we look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel, Dr. Brent Scowcroft, President of the Forum for International Policy, whose reflections on the Middle East have been much in the news lately. Dr. David Featherman, Director of the Institute for Social Research, who will discuss public responses to recent policy developments, and Dr. Marina Whitman, Professor of Public Policy and Business Administration, who will speak on changes and international finance. I want to express our gratitude to the family and friends of our alumnus, Josh Rosenthal, for choosing to honor his memory in this way. It was here at Michigan, in a climate of intense discussion and debate, that Josh Rosenthal cultivated his interest in public policy, an interest that is deeply embedded in his family's heritage, and memorialized also in the Daniel Rosenthal Legislative Intern Awards at James Madison College of Michigan State University. Josh's public policy involvement led to his master's in public administration at the Woodrow School in Princeton University, and eventually to his career in international finance in the World Trade Center, where he was working on the day of his death. To tell you more about her son and the purpose of the Joshua Rosenthal Education Fund, let me introduce Marilyn Rosenthal, Professor of Sociology in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, Director of the Program and Health Policy Studies on that campus, and Associate Director of the University of Michigan Medical Schools Program in Society and Medicine. Dr. Rosenthal is a medical sociologist who has written extensively on the self-regulation of physicians, medical mistakes, and comparative health systems of the United States, Great Britain and Sweden. She earned her PhD from the University of Michigan as a non- traditional student returning after her children were in school. Her honors include a Danforth Fellowship for Returning Women, a University of Michigan Hopwood Writing Award, a Swedish Visiting Scholar Award, a University of Michigan Faculty Recognition Award, a Distinguished Faculty Research Award, a Distinguished Faculty Award from the Michigan Association of Governing Bodies of State Universities, and a Baxter Distinguished Submission Award for her 1995 study, The Incompetent Doctor Behind Closed Doors. Dr. Rosenthal. Thank you. Thank you, President Coleman, and welcome to the University. I know that the faculty is glad to have you here, and at the same time, they will do everything they can to complicate your life. Thank you to Becky Blank, Dean Blank of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and all her staff for the thoughtful and gracious way they have made this event possible. Thanks to General Scowcroft, Professors Featherman and Whitman for their participation. My family and I have the deepest gratitude to those of you who supported the Josh Rosenthal Educational Fund. And I thank all of you for being here today to help us think about Josh and think about our country. One year ago, on September 11th, 2001, at 9.06 a.m., the life of my family and the life of my country, of our country, came together in a profound act of political violence. Our much loved Josh Rosenthal died in a war for which he had not knowingly volunteered, and for cause that had not been articulated. We may say the same for all of those who died on September 11th. And perhaps many Americans feel this way. I don't believe in preordained destiny, but I do believe that history plays out in the intersection between the individual and society. And Joshua's life story is a remarkably American one. It reflects the dreams and the aspirations of immigrants drawn to our shores for generations. And it reflects the individual opportunities that America sometimes provides. Tragically, his life story ends in another intersection between where he worked and where some others see and how some others see America's international role. Joshua's maternal grandfather came to this country in 1902, a penniless 12-year-old. In the hundred years since, his family has achieved educational, cultural, and material success. Joshua's life reflects that, as did the lives of many who died in those towers. In his 44 years, Josh used his considerable grace, intelligence, whimsy, warmth, intellectual curiosity, and energy to useful purpose. Well educated, unafraid of risk, he thought deeply about his world, and he thought deeply about his personal relationships. This is a marvelous mixture that endeared him to many, many people. He found an unexpected professional path in the world of finance, although he always retained an interest in public policy. His career took him through an enviable array of economic and cultural worlds, ending up four years ago at Fiduciary Trust International, a well-respected global investment firm. The view from Josh's office on the 94th floor of the World Trade Center South Tower was stunning. All of New York City, the financial capital of the world, and that, of course, was the view of his company, and that as our American global enterprise. Other mother's sons from countries who share the planet and share the century had a different view. For them, the towers symbolize America's overwhelming global domination, both economic and cultural and militarily, particularly in the Middle East. For them, the towers symbolize the dark side of American society and culture. They were fanatics consumed by rage beyond reason. Josh had a lot of unfinished business in his life, natural, for a 44-year-old, and our country has a lot of unfinished business, shaping its role in the world, shaping the fight against terrorism, and shaping a strategy to achieve a more equitable world. We are proud to link Joshua's name to this program at the University of Michigan, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Our hope is that the lectures and the other activities in Josh's name will contribute in some small way to thinking about our country's global responsibilities. Thank you for being with me today. Thank you, Marilyn, for that portrait of Josh, and thank you and all of the friends of Josh Rosenthal who are here today for choosing to memorialize his life in a way that will be meaningful to future generations of students. I would like to, at this point, introduce our three speakers, and I think I'm going to introduce them all at the same time, and then move from there into the substance of our talk today. I am particularly pleased with our keynote speaker, who is General Brent Scowcroft. It is a great pleasure to welcome him back to the University of Michigan. He was last year on campus in 2000 when we were named the Gerald R. Ford School. When he came and participated in a variety of events, a number of students came up to me afterwards and said, you've really got to get this guy back. And he was therefore one of the first people we thought of when we were thinking of bringing someone back here for the Rosenthal Memorial Lecture. General Scowcroft is an internationally recognized authority on foreign and military policy issues. He served as National Security Advisor to Presidents Ford and the first President Bush, and he's been a member of several important commissions and committees that have addressed various aspects of foreign and military policy. He's a very visible spokesperson on international issues. Those of you who read the papers know that he's willing to speak his mind into ask hard questions. His most recent honor is the PEC Presidential Award given by the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institute, honoring his individual achievements related to the American presidency. We are very deeply honored to have General Scowcroft with us for this occasion. Following General Scowcroft, Professor Marina Whitman teaches at the Ford School as well as at the Business School. Professor Whitman has spent much of her career as a practitioner working on policy and public affairs at General Motors, though she also spent a substantial amount of her career in the White House at various claims, working on the Council of Economic Advisors. And she has a substantial academic background. She's someone who really spans all of those worlds. This gives her unique insights into how the globalization of commerce has affected both countries and corporations. Given Josh Rosenthal's involvement in the world of international finance, it seems only appropriate to ask her, one of Michigan's primary international finance scholars, to talk about how that world has changed over the past year. David Featherman is director of the Institute for Social Research here at the university. Trained as a social psychologist, David has long been interested in questions of how people's ideas and attitudes develop and change and how those ideas in turn affect their behavior. Under his direction, ISR has undertaken several studies that have explored the changes in people's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors since last September of 11th, and he will be talking about some of those studies and their results. General Scowcroft, we're very pleased to welcome you back to campus. President Coleman, Marilyn Rosenthal, Dean Blank, ladies and gentlemen, is this on? It doesn't sound like it to me, but I'll try to do without it if it isn't. Thank you for those generous remarks. It's a great honor for me to be here with you today and to inaugurate the Josh Rosenthal lecture series on this special and tragic day. I just attended a brunch in which Mrs. Rosenthal gave a touching, you can't call it a eulogy, but very touching, and it reminded me again, as you all do here, gracing the hall on this particular day, of both the tragedy that we remember today, and I hope that this lecture series will remind us over and over again, not just of the tragedy, but of the obligation we have to ourselves and to the world. We're going to discuss today the world since 9-11, and I will focus on the changes in that world in foreign policy and military policy. Now, you have to recognize that attitudes certainly infuse policy, but I'm going to leave it to David to talk about the attitudes and I will focus on the policy part. In order to talk about how things have changed since 9-11, I think it's important to glance at what they were before. And so I want just to remind you of a few things. The decade of foreign policy before 9-11 I think can be characterized as one of significant drift. We had just been relieved of the awesome pressures of the Cold War, and that relief sort of expressed ourselves in turning away from responsibility and to treat foreign policy more like a charity to which we could give or not give how and when we wanted it. So we made no deep inquisition into what might be going on in the post-Cold War world, and we did not confront really the implications for us of being the only superpower in the world. In that decade I think we can characterize significantly by Frank Fukuyama's book The End of History, in which he said democracy and market economies are sweeping the world by triumphant and in essence our problems, that is the problem of aggression, war, and so on, are at a pass at an end. On particular issues with the Russians we had gone from the notion that Yeltsin could do no wrong to Yeltsin didn't matter and neither did the Russians, except when we needed something from them. With China there was an error of pretty good feeling but little substance to it. In Europe there was a gradual estrangement between us and our closest allies. As they became more intent on integration and looked inward we reacted by becoming contemptuous and unilateral. Terrorism was a problem, we recognized it, but considered it fundamentally an issue of regionalism or special issues and protected by our two great oceans didn't really absorb what we now know about it. Then there were of course the what I would call persistence issues, the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, India-Pakistan and the Middle East, where efforts were made, and I'll talk about that in a moment, with success. In the military field it was a period of exploration of a new world. The military likes to call it the revolution in military affairs and they're really focused on advances in information technology and in weapon accuracy. And the field that could unfold when the commander knew everything that was going on with his own forces, with the enemy forces, thus reducing or eliminating the fog of war, which was probably the main ingredient in success or failure, and also the ability to hit what you're shooting at, which overwhelmed the problem of supply in war. So that was going on, but mostly academically, and the real focus, militarily, was on what was called the bottom-up review process, and that is faced with what we thought was a notional will where we might have to fight two military contingencies at once, putatively in Iraq and in North Korea, what would be required. But all this took place in a environment of military cuts. In intelligence there were big cutbacks in personnel, and stations in embassies were closed in many parts of the world, not withstanding the kind of unknown ferment that was going on in those areas. And the focus was really on a new round of satellites, which gave us all kinds of new capabilities to look down on the earth. Then came the Bush administration. They came in, this is my interpretation, not theirs, with not with a strategic concept, but with some strategic tendency, some general notions. And those were several, as I would state. There were three principal problem states, the Russians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans. There was another bit of a different character, and I mentioned it only because of the subsequent history, and that is Pakistan. Pakistan had suffered a couple of years earlier. Another military coup with a dictator who showed no signs of returning to democracy. And so while we were currying favor with the Indians, or this was the idea of the new Bush administration, we were shunning the Pakistanis. There was a reluctance to engage in peacekeeping or nation building that our military, the notion that our military, was designed to fight and to kill people and not to build nations, and therefore that should be done by somebody or some other kinds of forces. There was a tendency toward unilateralism, and this is where the notion of the single great power did have some effect, that since we had responsibilities in the world that nobody else had, we should no longer be bound or constrained by others, but free to carry out our own interests, which after all in our eyes were the interests of the world as a whole. And then the last, there was a sense that if Bill Clinton did it, it had to be wrong. And that's not unique to this administration, that happens to every new administration. In military affairs, there was a huge push for ballistic missile defense. There was also a push toward making concrete the revolution in military affairs by looking at the procurement budget, taking out some things which were indicative of a warfare of the past, tanks, fighter aircraft, battleships, sea control and so on, and focusing on the new technology, but it was more, it was more generality than it was specific. There was also the new notion of power projection, that one of the ways we would project, protect the United States is to have forces that would fight out there. We would push conflict away from the United States. And there was also a push for a for a bigger budget, general, but hopefully focused, hopefully the administration thought on the revolution in military affairs. Then came 9-11. The initial reaction to the awful tragedy was a great coming together in the world. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in NATO's history. Jacques Chirac, sort of the Bette Noir of the Alliance, said we are all Americans. The Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, which is particularly important of course, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, a lot of Syria, a lot of unlikely people reacted by coming together against this atrocity. The president declared the war on terrorism our number one priority and seemed in his rhetoric to make it his the mission of his presidency. The focus was on terrorism with a global reach, that is the focus directly on al-Qaeda as a global, not simply a product of regional tensions, whether they be in Ireland, Colombia or other places, but terrorism that is worldwide. Some of the early strategic tendencies that I have mentioned were modified. Russia changed dramatically in our eyes. This had started before 9-11 but it was emphasized after 9-11. After all, Russia had suffered badly in Afghanistan, had problems along its southern border, had great experience with Afghanistan and offered their support. China as well began intelligence cooperation with the United States and of course China had its own problem of terrorism on its western frontier. Most remarkable was Pakistan. President Musharraf despite what you have to say was less than warm treatment by the United States, cast his lot thoroughly with the West at some great risk to himself and thus in effect made possible the military operation in Afghanistan. Nation building, we are reluctantly coming around to the notion that wars don't solve the problems, they just decide who's going to solve the problems and especially in Afghanistan it's not going to go away and one of the problems we had after the Russians left was that we were not sufficiently devoted to the issue to try to build something there and thus we laid the ground for a Taliban regime. Unilateralism is still an open issue. The president responded warmly after 9-11 and said we want coalition, we want to go together, we want to do this as a world community. We adopted the notion of floating coalition which is as Secretary Romsfeld said the mission defines the coalition which is a step in the right direction but we did not reach out to those who offered military support in the initial phases of the Afghan conflict and said no we can do it ourselves we don't need we don't need help which was I think a a mistake allies especially given that we didn't have great we didn't have significant forces on the ground allies are a pain in the neck you have to take care of almost no country other than the United States is able to sustain its troops at any distance from its homeland so we have to take care of everybody else so it is a pain in the neck but it is also a problem for us to say no we don't want your battalion we can do it without it and so we're still we still have some problems here ballistic in military affairs ballistic missile defense is almost has disappeared from public consciousness it's still going on to build it but but it is never mentioned with respect to Iraq now despite the fact that ballistic missile defense was supposedly designed for the rogue states so there but overall there has been a significant change in attitude in the attitudes with which the bush administration came to power the military response was swift and brilliant we utilized technology we tested these ideas about information technology together with unarmed aerial vehicles why we call them that i don't know but anyway we used to call them drones but now it's much more exciting it had been neglected by the military because the air force can't imagine anything flying without a pilot in it I'm an air force officer so I can I can see that but anyway we the technology was phenomenal it used to be that you would have little spotter airplanes out and so on and they would see something and they would call back in to a headquarters who would then call the b-52 squadron and they would come out and they would have coordinates and they would drop their bombs now you have a uav circling around flying out there piloted by somebody a thousand miles away not by somebody right there a thousand miles away and can pipe in to the b-52s of the c-130s or whoever is up there on alert the pictures that the uav sees so the bomb droppers see exactly what the people who are picking out the targets see it's an incredible system and and operated almost well it operated virtually flawlessly the flaws were when what we saw wasn't what we thought we saw but anyway it was it was terrific we were probably better against the Taliban and al-qaeda because I think we we really didn't fully appreciate this was a different kind of war and what we had was al-qaeda what we were going after but al-qaeda was being protected by the afghan government which we call the Taliban and so we really focused on the Taliban and but they you know they quit when it was clear that they were being defeated like afghans do they change sides and and went away al-qaeda did not we didn't realize that until until later and we let a lot of them slip through through bribes and all all other kinds of things that was a process of learning what war on terrorism really means but that I think on the whole was a successful phase it's winding down now we're still going after some so but it is winding down but that phase that is a military phase is probably over I think there will not be probably any other nations who will want to be the next Taliban and that's going to change the character of the war it's going to change it to be fundamentally a war of intelligence with some military operations probably very small in the areas where al-qaeda is likely to flee to from Afghanistan or it still has strength either in weak countries or the weak government like for example Indonesia Yemen or a non-existent government like Somalia where in fact you may have to send forces in but I think there there's going to be another afghanistan in the war on terrorism now one of the things that means it's this revolution of military affairs and it's high-tech weaponry which we displayed so brilliantly in Afghanistan is virtually useless we don't need it and we can't use it to go after the shadowy networks that represent al-qaeda terrorism also changed the nature of intelligence which this is now the nature of the war we have always had since the national security act of 1947 a big line representing the border of the united states and the CIA operated on one side of it and the FBI on the other side of it and that was a pretty strict border and it worked it worked pretty well despite the fact that no two organizations get along completely well it it worked during the cold war and it worked primarily because the problems were all outside that border other than a few intelligent counter intelligence problems where there were difficulties unfortunately in a war on terrorism there are no borders the terrorists don't care the border means absolutely nothing so we have problems which you've seen in congressional complaints congressional investigations were we ready for 9-11 did we miss something was there an intelligence failure well the problem is you've got these two organizations and you have to hand off from one to the other when you come to the border of the united states now that's not an easy problem bureaucratically but it's a worse problem culturally because the CIA and the FBI have different cultures and they come at problem at the problem from opposite ends the law enforcement culture the FBI starts with an issue starts with a problem you focus on something you know about a crimesman committed or something and you build your evidence you're looking for particular things that will support your case and you protect your evidence that you gather so it will be pure to present to a jury the intelligence analyst does exactly the opposite he looks at a chaotic bunch of things happening out here and he says is there a pattern that i can find in all these seemingly disparate events that i can put together and see something before it happens and prevent and that's the real problem we have with messing our intelligence uh it's not stubbornness it's not resistance it's a very different cast of mind and the question we need to ask is do we really want to change our law enforcement officers our FBI into intelligence analysts and you don't do it incidentally just by putting a different label around his neck and saying you're now an analyst you're no longer a law enforcement officer that's one of the things that we are that we're grappling with right now the terrorist networks uh and i say are very shadowy indistinct the cells are very loosely tied together some of them are for all practical purposes autonomous but what al-qaeda and the name means the base what al-qaeda has done is take these discontent malcontents whatever you want to call them uh and give them training so that they know how to build bombs so that they know how to evade customs so that they know how to falsify documents it turns them from run-of-the-mill scruffy malcontents who might throw a stick of dynamite somewhere into skilled operatives who know how to do things more skillfully we cannot win this war by ourselves we cannot do it we need help we need the help of every intelligent service who is willing to work with and we hope all of them are willing to work with us in this case uh just take money laundering for example and i hope i'm cutting into yours marina uh what can what can we by ourselves do about money laundering insignificant not insignificant but can't begin to attack the problem of terrorism that way so we need help from everybody that's the first thing we have to we have to reach out not because we believe instinctively or don't in multilateralism as a concept we need it in our own self-interest to be able to effectively prosecute this war now the conceptual nature of the intelligence problem is is fairly simple every time the terrorists talk every time they move every time they spend money every time they receive money there are traces all of these involve some activity uh the task is first of all to pick out that activity and to pick it out when there are millions of other similar activities and transactions going on by innocent people and there are a couple of problems there first of all how do you sort it out and how do you especially when they're talking a variety of strange languages how do you know what you're getting when you get it uh and secondly how do you sort out the ones you want from the others without invading the privacy unacceptably of all the innocent people doing these transactions uh that is a problem we're still working on i think it is probably not impossible to do it by using technology rather than people to do uh the the sorting we we uh the congress passed shortly after 9 11 the patriot act to help us deal with these issues of privacy and and the intersection between the fbi and the cia but i'll be honest the privacy act was more it was done in a hurry and i think most of the lawyers in the justice department reached in their desk doors and pulled out all the stuff that they had they would like to get through the congress and threw it in the patriot act it was not focused on the problem that we have in the war on terrorism homeland security isn't it interesting that we've gone 200 years and have not needed a department or whatever you want to call it of homeland security that is an indication of the new world that we're in we have never needed a department of homeland security never needed it because we were secure but behind our to uh uh oceans or we had the technology that could keep conflict from us uh we do need it now we need it has three missions really the threat what are what are the terrorists trying to do to us the vulnerability where are we vulnerable and what can we do to reduce that vulnerability and lastly what do you deal if what what do you do if there is an event how do you respond efficiently and effectively uh there were brilliant acts of heroism on 9 11 but the fact is that the police department the fire department couldn't communicate on their radios with each other so it's that sort of thing uh one of the things we don't know is how homeland security will relate to this new military command being set up the northern command but the important one of the important thing is to remember is the however useful homeland security will be in reducing the opportunities for terrorists to wreak damage as they have it is not a solution to the problem you cannot win the problem on terrorism on the defensive by cleaning up afterwards or betray we are so open there are so many points of vulnerability in our systems which most most of which have been built without a thought to this kind of problem that we can't possibly cover them all so homeland security can mitigate the effects it cannot solve the problem we can solve it only on the offensive can we win it yes what does that mean it doesn't mean winning it like a peace treaty on the battlefield Missouri it means reducing it to the kind of situation we have with organized crime it's still around but it doesn't prevent the average citizen from living with a sense of security but we can do that we can do that by breaking up the networks and destroying what we can find and at least reducing the skill levels of the others where are we now this will be a long struggle it's very hard we don't really know how to do it well we've never done this before our great military machine is your largely useless in this kind of a conflict uh and the questions are will a national mood hold i'm encouraged one year later to see the outpouring around the country hopefully we can sustain that for as long as it takes which is has to be reckoned in a matter of years not months another problem we face is that international cooperation is waning our focus on things like the axis evil and iraq have led others to ask you know what our goal really is because they don't see the connection that we point out in these different kinds of conflicts our relationship with europe continues to deteriorate not dramatically but fairly steadily with russia we still have a good relationship but it is fragile and when we do things like sending troops into uh sending training troops into georgia to help them fight terrorists on their border uh it gives the russians pain to say the least and we're also deep in central asia right now with temporary military bases but that also gives the russian problems uh the persistent issues but i mentioned china before uh we're okay with china we've gotten we're still getting intelligence cooperation with them and they're supportive uh what they will do in the un is is another problem uh the persistent issues there have been ups and downs korea india pakistan the administration did a brilliant job that is probably the worst potential crisis in the world today it is still a crisis but there's been a calming effect thanks to uh our intervention taiwan middle east where we have blown hot and cold well that's what's happened over the year let me end with a cautionary note we cannot just deal as i have this afternoon with the terrorists and the consequences of their acts we must also go after the roots of terrorism and that is a long-term problem and not just one of poverty it is much more complex but it demands our attention as well thank you very much the general is not an easy act to follow as clearly the people are departing know that before i focus on the subject that i've been asked to talk about today sort of what's happened in the international economy i'd like to mention one thing and that is i started today by attending a singing of the mosart requiem in one of our local churches by a group community group and this was a very moving event but what is particularly significant about it is that it's part of what was has been called the rolling requiem that is all through this long and difficult day all around the world in some time zone at exactly 846 in the moment in the morning the moment that the first plane hit the world trade center some group will begin to sing Mozart's requiem started in american Samoa when we were all still asleep and it will end just west of there i guess when when we're going to bed 24 hours later and i thought that this was a some a bright note in this difficult day that groups literally all around the world have come together to remember the people who died that day in this way now to say a little bit about the economic side of what's happened both in the u.s and in the world since last september 11th the two big economic questions after that day of course were one with the u.s economy collapse and two would the movement toward the integration of the global economy survive the shock and those two questions were actually very closely interrelated because at that time virtually the whole world was in either slowdown or recession and it was pretty well agreed that the united states was the only available locomotive to pull the world economy out of that slump well the answer a year later is i believe no to the first question that is the united states economy did not collapse and yes to the second question the progressive integration of the world economy did survive the shock actually at the time that the world trade towers fell the u.s economy was already in what some people say is a slowdown and some people as a say is a recession and of course it was momentarily stopped dead in its tracks by what happens as you know no planes flew people didn't go anywhere and things kind of ground to a halt and some industries were particularly devastated airlines, tourism, hotels and so forth and those particular industries have not yet recovered either here or elsewhere in the world but on a overall scale that drop was very short-lived our economic overall economic activity declined only in that one quarter of last year since then growth in our country has picked up though slowly and although it's not at the rate we'd like to see most people feel that a double dip recession is unlikely although never impossible of course there have been of course some significant economic downsides costs have increased for producing and distributing goods security costs insurance costs the difficulties of logistics uh president bush and prime minister hetian may hear the day before yesterday to talk about speeding up the progress of trucks across the ambassador bridge which is very important to uh the economies of michigan and an ontario and in particular we've returned rather faster than anybody thought possible to government deficits and while in the very short run the government deficit probably helped keep our economy afloat for the longer run it's a complication that we hadn't expected to have to contend with for quite a long time to come and it certainly turned on a dime well it was more than a dime but it certainly turned quickly um and of course there was the stock market collapse but i have to say that the stock market collapse was apparently much more due to the harm that we did to ourselves through scandals like and ron and all the ones that followed then to the harm that other people did to us through uh the events of nine eleven so our economy while you know people still suck their thumbs about uh how well it's doing seems to have come seems to have been remarkably resilient now in the global dimension again in all aspects but one this sort of pulling together rather than pulling apart of the global economy in the economic sense and i'm not talking about the issues the general skullcroft was addressing um it's been i think doing okay world trade of course dropped a little bit uh again right in the aftermath of nine eleven and in the aftermath of that kind of world slump but it's picked up substantially and is actually expected to grow quite quickly maybe as much as 10 percent next year uh against a good many odds the members of the world trade organization managed to agree on an agenda for the next round of world trade liberalization called the doha round and the significant things about that is first of all there was a lot of concern after about after the debacle in seattle whether it would happen and secondly it's been dubbed the development round now we still have to deliver on the promise implicit in that title but at least it was a good place to start and more and more countries countries like china like russia have been scrambling to join the world trade organization and president bush got what's colloquially called fast track the authority essentially for american negotiators in in trade negotiations to negotiate effectively um although he got it by a squeaker three votes and he had to give away enough in the way of added protection for the steel industry and for american agriculture that there's still some controversy over the game was worth the candle and that still remains to be seen american investment in so-called emerging markets uh building plants and starting um businesses is holding up and surveys in fact indicate that most multinational companies expect their foreign operations to expand in the next few years and actually a larger proportion of companies have said that after 9 11 than before and even the so-called anti globalization protesters are really protesting more about how globalization is taking place than about the fact that it is occurring financial markets which were josh rosenthal's particular focus recovered extremely fast after 9 11 though latin america is still having some significant problems there's been some real contagion from the contagion from the argentine debacle uh into other latin american countries like brazil and uruguay but the international monetary fund has stepped in to prevent disaster this administration in the united states has changed its position on that and has um supported that that intervention by the international monetary fund and the basket cases of few years ago the countries in southeast asia are in fact doing quite well as far as foreign aid goes president bush has committed us to a 50 percent increase in our foreign age which is nothing to be brag about because we have one of the lowest proportions of foreign aid in proportion to our gross national product of any developed country and finally after a lot of squabbling the issue of providing drugs affordably to poor countries for their catastrophic diseases is finally beginning to move the one area where the integration integration has taken a step backward i would say is an immigration and it's not surprising obviously that people that the insecurity we feel uh president fox's initiative in which he tried to institute a dialogue with the united states about the movement of people across the u.s. mexican border has ground to a halt universities like this one and many others are concerned about the impact on foreign students of tightened up immigration rules and that is one area where the movement has been in a pulling apart direction inevitable but i hope we will be able to find a way to protect our security which we must and at the same time maintain the flow of people and of ideas that has always been a hallmark of this country so putting up the picture all together i would say that in the economic and financial sphere the world is pulling together rather than pulling apart we have learned once again shockingly painfully the lesson of john dunn the 17th century divine and poet that no man and by the way no country is an island at home we have had a renewed sense not only of vulnerability but of community and david will be talking more about that and how durable it is uh in the immediate aftermath of 9 11 wall street firm competitive wall street firms which usually were ready to scratch others eyes out actually helped each other and lent each other people and facilities and there is still the sense in this country i think uh some of that globally the u.s has been reminded that it is not an island of security that as the general said for the first time we feel we do need a homeland defense and furthermore that social and economic developments in the rest of the world and particularly in poor countries which have not really become part of this integrated circle do affect us and are the lessons that we've so painfully learned worth the lives that were lost of course not but if we learn that lesson well then at least some good can come from this tragedy the 19th century satirist ambrose beers want once wrote that war is god's way of teaching the americans geography well in this case through terrorism we learned a particularly painful lesson in geography including how to pronounce the names of some countries that we had never heard of or thought of before but also a very tragic lesson in the dark side of globalization because the terrorists are just as much a part of globalization as increased trade and investment and foreign aid but global economic development since then i think have at least given us a slate on which to etch its brighter promise the brighter promise of globalization if we have both the will and the wisdom to do it thank you of course i want to begin by thanking the rosenthal family for this uh most inspirational intellectual commemoration and i'm really honored to be part of it i want to address three dimensions of american life that were affected by the events of september 11th and also by the continuing specter of imminent terrorist attacks over the past year and i'll do that with the benefit of an isr study how americans respond which started four days after those attacks by interviewing a representative national sample of over 700 americans by telephone we've been re-interviewing the same individuals and households at six month intervals since and we're just completing the last of those as i'm speaking and if you're interested in the the charts and information that i'll be drawing from they are available on the isr website and i want to recognize my traugat and my colleagues all of whom have been uh inspirationally dedicated to this study over the last year the first thing i want to address is the slowly healing american psyche throughout the nation the events of september 11th angered and wounded us as individuals nearly half of us when asked how much is the attack shaken your personal sense of safety insecurity set a great deal or a lot and only 14 percent of us said not at all when asked if we experienced what mental health researchers believe our key indicators of depressed mood and stress perhaps even depression many of us revealed higher levels of personal distress than isr researchers had measured in decades and not surprising these symptoms of mental stress or distressed mood were more extensive in those who felt less secure or safe as a result of those attacks these psychological impacts were also more prevalent and deep among those who paid closest attention to the news about the attacks and of course we remember the repetition of all those images children children were affected too and not only those living among those who suffered direct losses or who resided in the east we asked parents and other adults living with children under 18 if a child showed signs of distress increased nightmares more easily annoyed or startled had unusual trouble concentrating reports of children's distress tend to lie below what adults say about themselves on similar indicators but then we know from research that children suffering trauma seem to to actually tell us they suffer more than their parents are able to see and report on their behalf six months later now i'm talking about february or march of this year our sense of pay personal safety and security had improved but barely so there were anthrax attacks real and imagined the closing of post offices and of government buildings in dc official warnings and alerts of various colors were pervasive when measures of mental distress or depressed mood there were some early signs of resilience then and the economy including our confidence as consumers in the economy's future seemed to be slowly on the rebound but whatever psychological recovery we gained after six months has not accelerated much in the past six months we've not gained that much more ground today fully 40 percent of us say we feel less safe and secure now than before the attacks and that compares to 47 six months ago and 49 percent just after the attacks fully one third of us fully one third of americans we interviewed now three times still feel modestly or deeply shaken by the attacks and nine percent say they are even more shaken or insecure parents parents say of their children that they show some fewer signs of distress and that's terrific and that they need less reassurance about their safety than just after the attacks that's good too and we hope these improvements continue but why this persistent psychological burden recovery from trauma of the scope of 9-11 even among those not directly touched by it is slow as psychiatrists, child psychologists and pediatricians report from clinical research about past disasters quite different events like Oklahoma City or the Challenger disaster and if you saw the New York Times this morning there was extensive coverage of the slow recovery post trauma this slow recovery this persistence is also common among adults and children exposed of course to repeated traumatic events such as those who live in the Middle East and maybe that gets exactly to the point Americans believe a terrorist attack is imminent even if not in their own communities when asked last March to forecast the likelihood of an attack of bioterrorism on the U.S. in the next five years more than half of us gave it better than a 50-50 chance and those who then felt most shaken thought it even more likely most of us then however said that the attacks were much more likely to occur somewhere else in America it's going to happen but it's not going to happen where I live now as an aside this is an interesting displacement of apprehension and its source and it challenges public health and safety officials in this new Department of Homeland Security to prepare communities of households and citizens for their mobilization and response in the event of a localized attack if they're constantly thinking that it's going to happen somewhere else as of today as we're now completing the last round of our surveys nine out of ten of us think a terrorist attack or some similar act of violence will occur somewhere in the U.S. relatively soon just as in this past March today more than three-quarters of us say there is a greater than 50-50 chance of a bioterrorist attack in the next five years so therefore in this context of impending threat however real or imagined the psychological burden of 9-11 weighs heavily on the American psyche of adults and of kids too a second theme and now in the form of a question a new national unity in spite of this persistent psychological burden and impending threat there's some good news and the good news may be related to our need to come together in our time of recovery and healing September 11th brought us together in new ways as a nation and evoked the sympathy and empathy of the world in new ways in surveys of all kinds Americans expressed unabashed patriotism pride in living in the United States an appreciation for the values of freedom and inclusiveness that stand us apart as a unique democracy and despite the connection of the attacks to terrorists mobilized out of the near in Middle East Americans reject an isolationist foreign policy and importantly even in regions of the country more heavily populated by new immigrants Americans express positive sentiments like these immigrants make the U.S. more cultured immigrants are good for the economy immigrants do not increase crime rates six months after the attacks in March we we re-asked a series of questions long by used by ISR to assess both positive and negative feelings and beliefs about American ethnic and racial groups we call them the feeling thermometer questions compared to national studies during the late 1980s onward mainly from ISR's national election studies our post 9-11 data indicate a far more positive feeling toward hyphenated Americans if I may use that phrase a warmer more inclusive embrace of common fate perhaps the inclusiveness applies to Americans with ancestry in the Middle East too but for some mainly Muslim and Arab Americans at somewhat more modest levels however for those who live in the Middle East who are resident in the Middle East including Palestinians Arabs and Israelis as contrasted to Jewish Americans the feeling thermometer is less positive so the good news is that some new national unity seems to persist at least for now we took a hip from political terrorists from the Middle East but our response as patriots and citizens to now has avoided jingoism and isolationism having said that I don't want to under overstate a new civic engagement or unity it is at best partial and possibly ephemeral for example president and mrs bush put out a call for volunteers to help America indeed for many months after the attacks on new york random acts of kindness and more organized volunteerism seemed part of the daily news and it buoyed us and yet recent social science data indicate that volunteerism across the country is not up and whatever blip may have occurred in local communities just after 9-11 seems to have diminished except for one group and that is from the minority of long-term committed volunteers and that's many people in this room I'm sure who increased their hours of commitment by about 38 percent since September so in some ways to use Robert Putnam's now well-known caricature of civic engagement in this country we're still bowling alone and there's still a gap between what we say we feel and believe in these feeling thermometer questions and what we're willing to do that is the kinds of hours we're willing to spend on behalf of others outside our family but the seeds of a new national unity and locally active civic engagement seeds laid in the sorry aftermath of 9-11 may yet come to full flower and now just a final few questions a few comments about national values and their preservation during the war of terrorists and the war against terrorists and I call this reasserting national values just after September 11th Americans expressed strong but qualified endorsement of policies to stem further acts of terrorism in America in our survey those more shaken and less secure were more likely to support a wide range of security enhancing measures for the rest of us however there was less support for things like random searches wiretaps and for broad scale targeting or profiling of Arab Americans six months later March those who were still shaken were the stronger supporters of these measures but then too also with qualification and what I want to emphasize is this Americans have remained cautious in sacrificing their own and also their neighbors personal liberties even at the moment of our greatest tragedy and threat to both national and personal security this trade-off of personal liberty for personal and even national security runs to the heart of American values of who we are as a people in a nation these trade-offs we guard so carefully speak volumes to the world watching how we live out our democracy even under our psychological burdens and even with our fears of future terrorist attacks in America so on this day of commemoration I would reflect on how we are seen from abroad and now I'm not going to be talking in closing about ISR surveys but some taken by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC over 40 countries are involving over 30,000 individuals in those countries research still ongoing early results while it is regrettable in those surveys that some have said we deserved what happened to us in New York and Washington the overwhelming view the overwhelming view from abroad is that those attacks were not on our culture instead they were about our power and how we use it in the world to some perhaps we use it to unilaterally they say to others perhaps we use it to the disadvantage of poor nations some fewer say it was about our foreign policies about Arab nations but ironically even in those Arab nations indications of a love-hate-hate-love relationship complicate the claim of those who would see us inevitably in a war of civilizations so what I want to emphasize from these international data what the voices from abroad seem to be telling us through the data is so important on this day namely what we were admired for as a people and nation is our openness the opportunities we afford to citizens but also to immigrants our extraordinary technological capabilities and our system of higher education that's what they emphasize however we respond as individuals in America to 9-11 or even god forbid another domestic tragedy we must never lose sight of the values of this great nation that are so well captured by that statue that now stands even taller in New York Harbor thank you my last comment was that the solution to terrorism is not simply to deal with poverty that it's more complex than that 15 of the 20 I believe were Saudis now not all Saudis are rich but there aren't any poor ones I think we have to look at a couple of things at least and this I'm going beyond whatever expertise I have one is education and that is in much of the region poor people get education and get their children fed by sending them to madrasas many of whom preach hatred and the extreme form of militant Islam but I think more fundamental is an issue of globalization and the alienation that it has brought we were surprised by Seattle and rightly so because I think globalization to us to the Europeans to the Japanese and so on gives the promise of greater prosperity and cooperation in an integrating world but of the 190 nations in the world well over half are poor weak and really unable to provide some of the very basics that their citizens require for those countries and those people globalization represents an onslaught of forces that they can't even comprehend much less cope with and I think for them it looks like an assault on their family values their cultures their way of life and they feel alienated they feel resentful and many of them feel hatred and if there's a symbol of globalization it's the United States and so I think we need to find a way that globalization and advancing technology can bring prosperity to all rather than alienation to most thank you in closing I'd like to thank again Maryland Rosenthal and the friends of Josh Rosenthal who all made this event possible and ask you to join me one last time and thanking the speakers