tv Senator Coons and Madeleine Albright Discuss U.S. Role in Global Diplomacy CSPAN June 30, 2017 3:42pm-4:24pm EDT
hoekstra, will hurd and pete rasmussen. thank you. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> thank you all very much for joining us today. i'm so grateful for the opportunity to be here at the capitol hill national security forum. and i'm grateful to my co-hosts, republican senator marco rubio and i are the senate and co-hosts, chairman mccaul and congressman rupersberger, are the house co-hosts and the four of us respect the best in
bicameral, bipartisan support for u.s. foreign policy. i'm grateful for this broad audience of folks across the spectrum of washington as will. i'm thrilled to have the opportunity today to talk with my dear old friend, secretary madeleine albright. i'm going to briefly introduce you, you are probably better known to this audience than any audience in the world. but i think it bears repeating on taking the prerogative of a nor to say that before your distinguished service as an ambassador to the you united nations and the 64th secretary of state you worked in the united states senate as a staffer to senator ed muskie of maine, whose desk i have. there is no other connection. she is today as you know, a professor at the school of foreign service at georgetown, a head of the truman scholarship board and the national democratic institute and contributes to our national life and our dialogue and remarkable ways and is a tireless advocate for america. around the world, thank you, madam secretary for joining us. we're going to talk broadly about six different themes.
i can't think of one we left out but we're doing a pretty quick survey of areas of challenge and difficulty in the world for us. maintaining u.s. international engagement and how do we uphold the liberal rules based on the international order. >> the utility of multilateralism. a word i now you have opinions about. a need to promote human rights and democracy. the consequences of president trump's proposed bucket cuts and the importance of maintaining a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. and to imlum nate those wur going to take a quick romp throughing north korea, china, russia, terrorism and nato. ready for some fun? >> i'm delighted to be here with this great audience. but especially with you, because you are exactly what a senator should be in terms of delving into the most difficult subjects
and ed muskie's desk is a pretty good place to be. so thank you very much for asking me to do this. >> let me be clear, it was also joe biden's desk. >> that's also okay. >> that's pretty wonderful. so if i might just start, secretary, albright, in washington we talk a lot community about the liberal rules-based world order. i'm not sure that is broadly understood. why exactly is this order so important? and how does our support for organizations like nato and the eu help support that order that we invested so much in building over the last seven decades. >> i do think that it is absolutely essential because if there weren't world order what we would have is complete chaos. and the bottom line is how do countries treatment each other. how to citizens relate to each other and the rules-based part of it is very important.
because i think that what makes anybody that's participating in national security policy nervous is when things are just kind of ad hoc and you can't figure out what you're doing and there are no rules. and i think that, so the rules-based part is important. the part that i think is worst talking about a lot and especially given the way you outlined the themes and what do americans have to do with us, we did the rules. we were the ones that created the rules. and what was so interesting was that the rules-based order was really based on the problems that had come between the two world wars, when we were not a part of something. after world war i we withdrew, we did a locate of america first and there really, the league of nations failed, there was no real system. so everything that happened after world war ii was based on our leadership and the fact that we wanted to establish the united nations and we're behind nato and we're -- it's
interesting, i just was up celebrating the 70th anniversary of the marshall plan. the marshall plan was something that came out of america wanting to help the countries in europe after world war ii. but then it also was the basis of the rule-based order in europe. because the european coal and steel community came out of that and that evolved into the european union so we have been supporters of this. and one of the things we're trying to do is have more of a rule-based order in asia. i think that is part of the issue. so that leads me to my question to you. which is how do china's actions in south and east china seas erode world order. and what happens in terms of whatever rule-based order there is and why do we need it in asia. >> well madam secretary i recently travelled to a regional security conference in singapore. i travelled with senator john mccain to vietnam first for a
memorable visit there and senator mccain and senator brasso participated in a security conference that brings together leaders from throughout the asia pacific and frankly the rest of the world we had a chance across seven different bilateral meetings with heads of state or national security advisers or foreign ministers from new zealand, indonesia, myanmar, japan, germany to hear their concerns. we also met with secretary of defense jim mattis, who was one of the keynotes at the overall conference. i will tell thaw china's aggressive actions in the south china sea and the east china sea has created a great deal of instability in the region. and china's lagging willingness to engage actively on pushing back against north korea's destabilizing nuclear weapons program is raising a real question. so op the one hand you've got china, not taking a rules-base aid approach to the international order.
not respecting a ruling that said that their claims for exclusive economic zones, their building islands by dredging and taking remote rocks or coral reefs that they claim and turning them into military bases, that's been ruled illegal in an international court ruling. but the real is asking where are we. what are we doing to push back on that? and unfortunately much like the league of nations, there is a table that we built and there is a chair at the table that's empty and we're not in it. and that's the united nations convention on the law of the sea. as a member of the foreign relations committee i sat through seven different hearings. where we had four-star generals and admirals, we had ceos of major companies. we had former leaders in the bush and clinton administrations telling us the senate should ratify this and at the time the risks were hypothetical. today those risks are real and we insist on doing freedom of navigation operations which are important. which is important to keep the
sea lanes open and free and i think that's an important thing that all of our allies asked us to keep doing we could have a stronger role and we would have a stronger role had we the con law of the sea. there are other international conventions like this that by our absence we weaken while we were there in singapore. there was a recently concluded global agreement that we withdrew from or renounced our attention to withdraw from the paris climate agreement. these actions raise questions on the part of our allies about whether or not we're really there or whether or not we are determined to be a part of it in the long haul. frankly, the fact that secretary mattis dedicated his entire remarks to how the united states is committed to the rules-based world order, is committed to the regional allies and is committed to a positive relationship with china and defining a path forward where we are competitors, but not military adversaries, was an important way to set the table for that conference as a whole.
>> can i add on a little bit, but going back to what i said, part of it is there are a number of examples where the u.s. has taken the lead on, in fact, developing some rule-based thing and then we don't follow through which puts us in a very peculiar decision and the law of the sea is one of them. ed musky was a congressional adviser to the law of the sea and the role that congress plays by not being absent from the table, but being there when the rules are being put on the table, but the same thing is true of the international criminal court where we thought it was a good idea because it would come out of the war crimes tribunals of the former yugoslavia and rwanda or the land mines treaty or any number of things where we begin a process and then for some reason don't follow through, and so it puts us in a weak position in believing in rules based, setting up some of the rules and for a variety of reasons not
following through and i think that's something that needs to be -- >> we have an couldable insistence on sovereignty and not letting international organizations tell us what to do, but we are then also surprised when the absence of an international order puts us at greater risk and makes it harder for us to marshal our allies. how does our support for organizations like nato and the eu actually increase the security and prosperity of the average american? for my voters, for constituents of every member of the house and senate, it's sometimes hard for them to see a connection. why are you going to singapore, senator kuntz? why are you going to ukraine and to estonia? why would you be going to brussels? what's the point? some see our support for nato as a zero-sum game as others owe us for providing their defense and others are in our interest for us having to create and sustain
nato. >> this goes to a very basic question is can the u.s. -- the job of a president and congress is to protect the people, the territory and our way of life. that is the job, and the question is then how is that done? can we do it alone? and while we have been blessed by being behind two oceans people thought that was safe until 9/11 and by having, i would say, friendly neighbors. that is not something that other countries have a great advantage and so then people think why should we worry about all those people in faraway places with unpronounceable names? partially, the truth is we are more protected -- well, our people actually like to travel. our territory, as i just discussed and our way of life does depend on what happens in other countries. can we trade? can we educate our children abroad, can foreigners come here? any number of things that improve our life, but nato is set up for security reasons and
we have been concerned about being attacked ourselves, but also we have alliances. it is an alliance and the heart of it is article five which is in for one, one for all and all for one and it is a collective responsibility and the interesting thing is article five has only been invoked once and that was after 9/11 when we were attackeded and so then, i think it is a sign for those who might help us and it's not where you pay dues to us. it is a plan that works in order to help develop the forces, the systems, fighting terrorism and all of those things together on nato. the eu, i think, is very important to us because we do want to trade with europe. the people in brussels help to make the rules in terms of what happens on a digital market or how do we -- what happens to our agriculture. none of those things are easy,
but ultimately one can make an argument that various congressional districts really benefit by some of the things that happen both in the eu and nato, but it takes explaining because we do have a tendency as americans to think, well, we know what to do all by ourselves and we're strong and we are the most powerful country in the world, but i do think that often we need allies to help us. >> so, i think that there are serious things going on now that do, in fact, have a question in terms of how do we benefit. so how does the u.s. presence in asia deter and defend against north korea's provocations? because i think they're not members of nato and eu, but what is the system and what do ywe have to do and you've been there. >> we have a different setup in asia. we don't have a collective security agreement with two dozen or more countries.
we have close alliances, bases, troops in a number of asian country, south korea and japan, principally and a longstanding treaty relationship with a number of other countries. the forward deployment of american troops and our extension of our nuclear umbrella of our protection for japan and south korea, particularly in the face of the threat from north korea at previous times other threats has reduced proliferation, has avoided the possibility of countries like japan and south korea feeling the need to develop their own nuclear weapons in order to keep themselves safe through deterrent. it's also, frankly, given us a strong footprint in asia with two of the strongest, most vital economies over the last half century. there's also something that i think is an often overlooked benefit to the average american which is the democracies share our core values.
they believe in the peaceful resolution of contract disputes and the rule of law. these principles allow our companies to be more successful and the fastest growing economic sector of the world and they also help set some of the ground rules. as china has become ascendant, and they are not a flourishing democracy, there is a real tension and with their one belt, one road program where they are increasingly becoming the major trading partner of the investor and infrastructure, i think we're at risk of having them set commercial expectations of rules and standards of political conduct and that that begins to deflect away from an emerging global consensus around societies that are organized around human rights, free elections and a commitment to journalism and a free press. the sorts of things that allow democracy to align with each other and democracy is messy, noisy and inefficient, but democracies very rarely go to
war with each other. >> i think what is interesting is that there has not been a structure such as in europe. when i went to college which was some time before the invention of the ipad and the discovery of fire, we were actually studying a lot of alphabet soup and there was cto, which was supposed to be like nato and one of the things that we tried to figure out is what was the structure in that part and it is not exactly the same and the question is why and is it the role of china? but i think it's something that needs to be explored in terms of looking at the world order. >> what sort of leverage against russia in ukraine and russia's aggression in europe and elsewhere does having a collective security entity like nato, give us, and then why is that something that we might pursue or might want in southeast asia or in the asia pacific? >> i think that's the whole question about collective
security. i mean, it really does show the predominance in agreement where they can defend themselves from an armed attack and also something that we've been talking about which are hybrid attacks and these are ways of trying to find common ideas which would make us find common goals. >> it's difficult, for instance, having just been and i've just been in georgia and ukraine. they are not members of nato or the eu, but they are kind of have affiliated members and that helps them, even, and the hope that they would be a part of it and you were talking about democracies, it gives a sense of confidence to democratic legislators within their countries that if they moved the process forward in term of value systems that they could be a
part of a club that really reflects those kinds of values that then leads to a liberal world order. so it builds up. >> i'll take us off topic for a minute, but i think it's worth exploring. certainly over the last 50 years, certainly over the last 25 years, one of the most important factors in europe is what you were describing, after the berlin wall fell and the warsaw package became free of soviet domination. they had choices to make and they had very difficult choices to make and what pushed their political leaders, their economic leaders to make choices that aligned with our world view, with the liberal rules based world order to insist on less corruption and more transparency to support human rights and to tolerate journalists and even celebrate them were those were conditions of admission to the eu and/or nato and the pull of this enormous stable, prosperous market was a very attractive force. >> a question a whole group of
us have been debating several republicans and democrats is for the arc of fragile states that are on the edge of either stabilizing and advancing or being in worse shape, what is that poll for nigeria, for senegal, for egypt, for -- you can think of a whole crescent of states that are significant for this half century, but where there isn't currently a comparable club of countries, certainly not on their borders which they might join, and i think there's something to be done there in terms of thinking of how you incentivize. that's what the millennium challenge was designed to do. >> it was, because it was conditional in term of the country's -- and another thing, if i might say, one of the things we did when i was in office was create something called the community of democracies, where, in fact, was there a way of combining best practices and working with democracies in various stages in order to help them try to figure out what -- i mean, let's be
very frank. countries, how does governance work and it works in a way that the governments provide something for their people, the social contract, and the question is how do you get support for it so that you're not creating authoritarian countries, but countries that are democratically based because the u.s. is more comfortable when there are democratic countries. >> there was a great deal of debate during secretary tillerson's conversation and subsequent both in our committee and publicly about the privacy of human rights and openness as opposed to national interest and security. how does insisting on, advocating for, pressing forward, and democracy and free press. how does that reduce the space for terrorism and extremism? >> i think that we have to, and i assume this, and i know you do, we're all the same and people want to be able to make decisions about their own lives and be able to live in peace and send their children where they can to learn whatever language and so the question is what kind
of a system allows that? and i do think that the value system that does really respect people's rights is something that provides that, but one of the things that i've said all along is that, you know, there are a lot of young people in the audience that have studied in political science classes what comes first? political development or economic development? they go together because clearly, people want to vote and eat, and the bottom line is how you make democrat see deliver. and so being a part of both of an economic system and the political system that provides some way to do that, i think is very, very important, and so the draw is there. i also think that human rights, supporting human rights is in u.s. national interests because it creates -- and then the other part that we all study is our foreign policy idealistic or realistic? >> i have always thought it's a false dichotomy mainly because i couldn't figure out if i was an
idealistic realist or a realistic idealist? so you need both. our policy needs to be like a hot air balloon which is the hot air of idealism which is to get the balloon into the air and the ballast of realism to give it direction. i think we need that in order to exactly draw countries and figure out how to get them into a position. >> when you were offering up a metaphor involving a great deal of hot air i thought there would be a met for for the senate in that some way. >> let me, just on that theme, let me say one of the things on a bipartisan base, there is support for in the senate is increase our advocacy and our financial support for things that project these values into eastern europe and into the arc of countries that are most at risk for russian aggression. objective journalism, and voice of america. to push back on some of the miss
information which is the hybrid warfare where they're not just preparing for military conflict along the engagement line with nato and they're actively undermining the baltic countries and ukraine, georgia and a dozen other countries where they're partially occupied by muldova, georgia and ukraine or where there's active efforts to financially support or support through so-called fake news or misleading journalism and misinformation. parties that are committed to breaking apart nato, withdrawing from the eu. these are very will cha efrjing dynamics and in conversations at a security conference earlier this year with european allies i was haunted by a question from a diplomat from an eastern european country observing that our election had beena, tacked by the russians and under mined and that they saw no concerted action at that point by the administration or congress to respond to that. the question from this polish
leader was, if you won't defend your democracy, how can we have confidence that you will help defend our democracy? in democracies where they're more fragile and is more directly and immediately under threat from a power with alternative vision for how societies ought to be organized, that's a significant question and in leading a bipartisan delegation to the czech republic, ukraine and estonia, i came away with a simple conclusion that was shared by others which is that citizens of those countries, average people of those countries need to be able to show russian citizens or citizens in the parts of those countries that are most at risk that they are flourishing, that they are enjoying better economic conditions and more political freedoms because of these core values of open societies and not in spite of. the counter argument made by china, russia and others sort of authoritarian capitalism and the alternative argument is you will develop faster and farther.
you will have a better quality of life if you don't insist on all that messy real elections and human rights and democracy and minority parties and that debate is playing out around the world in the developing world, in europe and in asia. >> i think, if i may just ask you to follow up more on that in terms of when you go to these countries and you talk about this. who do you meet with? how does that work in terms of at a conference or the codels, how does that all work? >> that particular codell, we had a bipartisan group. we had two republican house members and two democratic senators and me, i'm a democrat in case you don't know that, so we were 3-2, i guess. in every country, wield typically meet with, of course, the u.s. ambassador and get a briefing from the united states embassy. we'd meet with high-level officials whether it's the prime minister or the president or the foreign minister of the government, but we'd also meet with opposition parties. we'd meet with journalists with human rights activists and
dissidents, and i think it's important for leaders from the united states whether they're executive branch or legislative branch to show that they're not just going, for example, to cuba or to ukraine, to china or to vietnam to meet with the government and government officials and they're also going to meet with dissidents and minority party members and opposition party members and they'll also do interviews. do interviews with the press where they take tough questions. it is by modeling this behavior that we demonstrate in other countries what it is that leaders ought to be doing. i haven't -- i will never forget at the first u.s. africa summit that president obama hosted in washington and i was sitting with seven heads of state and president obama comes up and is interviewed by a 22-year-old blogger from, i think, zimbabwe, from a southern african country and this young man asked very direct questions. not disrespectful, but pointed.
what we think of as appropriately aggressive journalistic questions and looking up and down the aisle of the folks we were sitting with you could see them brisel and they are not used to taking questions like that. one muttered to the other, why is he doing this? he's setting a bad example. i thought he's setting a good example. the head of the biggest country on earth taking questions and who has no official role, who is simply trying to hold him accountable to a broader audience. >> and i think the power of our example is stunning, and so having just been in ukraine, and i was talking about the that democracy requires compromise so they did actually say like you guys, but the bottom line is i do think that going there and talking to them is a fantastic
example. i think we're at a point where we ought to talk about budget cuts and those two stand in distension. you tell me if you'd like a bipartisan consensus around foreign policy or what will the consequences be of the proposed cuts? >> i have been a beneficiary of a bipartisan foreign policy. we started talking about that with rules based. that was established, marshal plan, nato, and senator vandenberg, a republican supporting president truman's policies and i think, we've all benefited from that. i've also been a bit of a creator of bipartisan foreign policy because the person i worked with really well was senator jesse helms and it was a result of trying to figure out how to do things together and we were able to expand nato and so i do think that a bipartisan foreign policy is absolutely essential in order to be able to get anything done, but also
again to the example that you were just talking about when you travel in terms of how you get various people with some disagreements to find a place where it's win-win and not zero sum, and i think that a bipartisan foreign policy needs to be the hallmark of american foreign policy because it has worked very well for us, but i know it's not simple and it's a matter of trying to figure out how you put yourself into the other person's shoes which the is hallmark of diplomacy, actually. >> we had a bipartisan lunch last tuesday. yes, we do that several times of year and i sat next to corker and this was immediately following a vote. i said bob f you'd asked me a month ago when was going to happen on iran's sanctions and russia sanctions, given my experience of seven years i would have predicted that we'd end up with an e ran sanctions bill too aggressive, too tough
for any democrat to sign off on because it would be designed to destroy the jcpoa and russia sanctions, too tough, too aggressive for the administration to support and thus most republicans would oppose and we would tragically end up going to the floor and denouncing each other and denouncing each other for being weak on russia. instead, six senators, three democrats, two republicans, sat down and came away the differenceses and it passed by 98-2 in the senate. on the other divisive questions and i think that's in no small part where the senate feels an allegations and members with whom i speak with fit a regulation and find a way to produce meaningful results and only a room full of folks into foreign policy would appreciate this one. we had a hearing just a few years ago with military force and senator flake and senator
kaine and we had a constructive hearing with witnesses from both the bush and obama administrations. we did not have an administration witness, but we did have, i think a recent bipartisan conversation about what our troops, their families, our communities should expect of the senate as we are conducting war against isis and we are seeing an increasing range of geographies and adversaries in the ongoing war on terrorism. this has bedevilled us for a number of years and the difficulty in crafting an exact amf and i'm feeling optimistec about the path run and i think i'll get this done in the period. >> i have a view on it which is that having been a staff or the hill, don't you think that the staffs have a lot to play in terms of helping develop the background for a bipartisan foreign policy? >> yes, i'm looking at my staff over there smiling and saying
they for everything you do to make this possible. >> the codells, the congressional delegation trips overseas are a good and an important chance for senators and spouses to get to know each other away from the hill and the daily pressures and the will cha efrjes that we r here and they can say i want to work with someone on this, but it's the staff who actually do the work, who actually exchange drafts and who find a way towards a consensus document, who figure out how to get it on the agenda on the committee and get it marked up and moving to the floor, without a staff relationship, and it starts with senators indicating they value that and they want that and it's the sort of thing that they will recognize and reward, but staff make or break bipartisanship. >> can i ask an additional aspect, and i think one of the issues of having a bipartisan foreign policy is how does the congress work with the executive
branch on this? >> that's a challenge. i'll put this more broadly, it seems to me that at least the senate, probably the congress more broadly has ceded its role in foreign policy over several decades. we may be at a point where the senate is going to assert itself more in foreign relations simply because of an absence of clarity about the administration's real positions on several key issues, but we have to work together with thea administration. the administration is the face to the world of the united states. the state department and our ambassadors and when the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, the president and the vice president visit another country ands have a nato summit in brussels and visit southeast asia, when they speak that has enormous consequence. there are a few senators who have a comparable profile being with senator mccain in southeast
asia was an interesting experience because his record, his role has resonance beyond a typical senator, but the executive branch really leads our global engagement and so the legislative branch needs to figure out a working relationship where our values and our priorities can be heard and where we are working in tandem. i had a very encouraging conversation with our u.n. ambassador yesterday about our shared concern about south sudan and a very difficult and tricky country where there is a humanitarian crisis and a governance crisis and someone who i did not support in her confirmation has been gracious and responsive and has workeded with me in a way that makes me question whether or not i made the right choice, and i look forward to partnering with her on that issue. you can find these moments and places of cooperation from the legislative branch if you just keep trying and it's my hope that we'll have legislators who
are seeing the difficulty and the importance of this moment will keep engaging and keep trying with this administration particularly on foreign affairs. >> i think it's e special because what happens and i can talk from previous experiences. foreign countries do not understand our executive legislative approach to things and for instance, during the carter administration, and with the salt treaty and he had negotiated a lot of it and nothing could happen unless it was -- there was advice and consent. at that stage, senator byrd had to explain what the legislative role is and back and forth on those kinds of things and that's the magic of our system, and i do have to say i worked here and then i went into the carter white house to do congressional relations and if i can tell a funny story which is true and we'll go back to the law of the sea treaty, senator musky had me
write a letter to jimmy carter saying i really support the law of the sea. it's real le important, but i've got some fishermen and we've got some problems with that and so i need your help on this, and so i wrote the letter and put it on the auto pen and i went to my new job in the white house and there's this new letter and my job was to answer it and i put it on light green paper which jimmy carter used and said i am so glad you're a supporter and so sorry about your fisherman, but the law of the sea treaty is important. so where you sit is where you stand. the bottom line is, i think, to see what the cooperation between the executive and legislative branch and one-party foreign policy is important. >> madam secretary, we are just about ut on of time. i just want to thank you. >> aren't we going to talk about the budget? >> we'll take two minutes to talk about the budget. >> no, let me because i want to ask you --
>> i do think that the issue at the moment is what the budget looks like because it does determine what foreign policy and national security will look like and you are in such a key position. i mean, do you see the way that the budget is going to develop to be supportive of the kind of tools we talked about on human rights and democracy and a variety of aspects? >> let me try to be both specific and answer your questions and try to conduct in the spirit of bipartisanship on this one, if i can. the proposed budget makes cuts particularly in usaid and the state department which are among the deepest cuts in any agency that if fully enacted, i am convinced would lead to a significant retreat from the
world by the united states, and the closing admissions for usaid and the withdraw of our investment with programs that have had bipartisan support and significant layoffs in usaid. while i recognize no agency should go without tough budget review and virtually every agency has a few percent, you can find it is not being spent appropriately, 30% on the a side and that's not trimming and not correcting and that's not slashing. there is a bipartisan expressed view on the foreign relations appropriations subcommittee which i serve that that budget isn't what we're going to be doing and that the, pro appropriations committee would be to next year's level and
we'll move ahead with the appropriations we have made. that's not a done deal. in visiting a number of the embassies in asia, in africa and europe since the budget was announced, there is real concern among the rank and file and people make career choices and if the budget this year and next year and the next year contain cuts of that magnitude and we continue over several years, fighting over cuts of that magnitude, it will send a signal overseas to our adversaries that we are not serious, and it will discourage a generation of promising young diplomats and development professionals and secretary mattis himself and the secretary of defense has previously testified that it creates security risk for us to not have complimentary investments. it puzzles me how we can have a stated strategy with regard to north korea's nuclear weapons program of engagement through our diplomats, of as many allies
and partners as we can in a collective action using sanctions and other multilateral means to put pressure on china, to put fresh ur on korea and to put pressure on north korea. >> how can we do that and cut the budget by a third of the same time. i don't understand that. i've said in some settings that one unexpected outcome of the trump administration may be to make the senate great again by having us find a bipartisan way to find a budget that we think reflects america's values and national security interests. >> i have said it's article one time. i do think that that will make a big difference. >> i will say, in closing, recognizing this is a bipartisan event, i am grateful for the range of leaders we have in congress, republican and democrat who dedicate themselves, whose staff dedicate themselves to engaging with the world to advocating for values and to celebrating what it is that has made us safe, strong
and free, and i think that is centrally rooted in our commitment to open societies and to democracy, and i want to the thank you for a life time of leader someone and the very hard work. >> thank you for all you do, and i do believe this is a great forum and i do believe in bipartisanship, and i have now testified in front of the appropriations committee and foreign relations committee, and i respect people with their views and i want to be able to work with everybody, especially with you. thank you very much. >> thank you all very much. [ applause ]