>> i'm the dean of georgetown university and i'm delighted to be here with you to introduce our two afternoon panels. in keeping with the objective if -- of the conference i'm particularly delighted that we are a proud cosponsor of this event. you heard earlier this week from

one of our students. she is in many respects a quintessential representative of the almost 500 students who come from more than 70 countries to enroll in are bachelors in foreign service program. the discussion underway this week, the discussions are urgently needed because the divisions we are witnessing globally are more pronounced and disconcerting than at any period in my lifetime. we are beset by wars and bear witness to unspeakable atrocities. democratic principles and institutions including many elite universities in this country are on the receiving end of in sustained -- of sustained attacks. we know that the complex problems in humanity cannot and will be -- will not be solved by

any single state actor. yet too many of the people who we need to come to the table often do not show up or if they do, they talked down to others or at others. ironically, at the same time when not enough people are sincerely communicating, we live in a world burying beneath an avalanche of words. words that are often empty or toxic. the communications technologies available today make it also both for people on opposite sides of the world to talk instantly, yet we are more fractured and polarized than ever. in the midst of all the ceaseless talking, we have lost the ability to listen. we need to learn or relearn that vital skill and we need to start listening to people who historically have been denied a

voice, such as the palestinians whose struggle for liberation has become synonymous with freeing the world. we are here today to figure out how to get things right, how to put things back on track or on track for the first time. we are here to foster what pope francis calls a place in the mindset of conversation. the peaceful equitable world for which we are in must become engagement and discussion. the frameworks built in the 1990's and the globalized era were made in america for america, not with the rest of the world and not for the entire world. the rest of the world which has registered its displeasure at being left out of the conversation now has our attention, which is why we must create new spaces for global

dialogue and encounter. those who may be able to help avert tensions between the u.s. and china assuming the superpowers valued their perspectives, of course. we need new frameworks and spaces that invite more conversations, spaces that incorporate young people, whose anxiety over the political, economic, social, and environmental futures are understandably acute. we need to give greater voice and agency to humans and encourage them to act together across borders for positive change, which is what we are doing at georgetown. our campuses provide us an opportunity to engage with the world, to examine america's role in the world from within the world.

to study from a global perspective and provide this to future leaders who would otherwise not be able to access it. the exchange of ideas between doha and washington dc and riches both campuses. it is consistent with this university's gesso in values of caring for each other and the world we inhabit. our campus in doha and are expanding global initiatives is more important today than perhaps it ever was. i'm honored to join our faculty and students as we seek to learn from and more attentively listen to each other. and now to our panelists this afternoon. our first panel will examine the surge of nationalism around the world, how it undercuts efforts to form a vibrant global

society, and the new approaches that must be forged. our second panel involves cold war to point to, the view from the rest of the world, exploring applications for the international community if a cold war between the u.s. and china escalates. the panel will consider how other countries and transnational movements might help to avert a u.s.-china confrontation. at this point, i would like to invite our panelists, who will be in a conversation with our moderator, to come to the stage and kick off our first panel. thank you very much. [applause]

>> great crowd. thank you so much for coming out. what an incredibly esteemed group. we have a hard out at 3:15, so i'm going to be a ruthless, dictatorial moderator. and i will keep the trains running on time. already down one. . [laughter] it is incredibly fitting we are having this conversation about global solidarity when the entire country is seized with a young movement -- a young people's movement. i spent much of last week on

campus with students attending protests, hanging out with them while they were waiting for their classmates to get out of jail. it has been a really extraordinary thing to witness. i want to hear what you all have to say about that. but just a step back about -- a little bit, the early years of the millennium promised and some might say threatened and moment of global convergence, a technological age that would accelerate the erosion of physical borders and globalization was going to make us all richer and happier. the technological can-do spirit. but this narrative fundamentally relied on a continuation of the trajectory that was set by the global north and that the global south had very little say in. in many ways, it really didn't work for the global south even as the global south was

condescendingly being up -- ushered upward on the latter of "development and prosperity," supposedly more modern and egalitarian vision of how the global north had grown rich. we all know because you have written eloquently about it and how you all came crashing down. there are a couple of things i want everyone to have top of mind in this conversation. one that i sense in your work a really brave and important refusal of binaries. the idea of hardened separation. the ideas that things can be both and. that is a theme i would like to explore. the other is an abiding belief in the primacy of human agency and creativity in the face of the forces that are emergent. and i think that we have all

tried in our various fields to find these places of interconnectedness. my real hope is that we can really focus on what is the glue that we can emphasize that brings us to greater solidarity and then also what are the solvents that are dissolving the bonds of solidarity between us and how do we push back against them? so, next to me and i'm going to do very short intros because you can read all about these incredible people and i don't want to lose a minute of our conversational time. a professor of social scientis -- sciences at buenos aires. she is a feminist and political theorist and has written many books on liberalism and feminism and so on. i'm very excited to talk with you about your work. an indian pope -- poet, a

curator,'s work is deeply influential and it centers on the complex history of pluralism . he has written many books and i won't be naming all of them, but i'm excited to talk about our relationship to history with you. a philosopher at the university of tokyo, also a leading contemporary marxist thinker. his work centers on questions of growth, questions of climate, and how we can start to think about. his book slow down was published earlier this year in english. a huge bestseller in japan. a professor of journalism and

political science. he is a colleague whose work i'm proud to alongside. it is fair to say that peter, as a commentator has emerged as a really essential voice to explore ideas and paths forward in a situation that feels utterly hopeless and he is someone who i have turned to when i feel hopeless in the last few months. then we have the dean of foreign service at georgetown. more importantly, he is someone who has worked all across the globe in poverty alleviation, at the world bank, conflict moderation and resolution in kenya. he and i were neighbors in delhi. we would walk our dogs together.

i think just someone who has a lot of really fascinating and important things to say about the crucial role that america can play in giving birth to the new world order. one that is not of domination, but one of collaboration and solidarity. i really need to shut up now, i've talked for a long time. let's dive in. i would like to talk with you veronica about what we are seeing on university campuses today. you were a major part of the protest in 2019, half a million people came out. walk us through what is required to build those coalitions and solidarity's for a movement like that to have that kind of size and power. and what are your reflections for the students who are out there marching today. >> thank you very much

presentation and question that is politically very relevant for us. i think it is very powerful, the image of the students in the campus, in the encampments protesting. i think it is a very powerful cultural revolt against the genocide in palestine. for me, it is a powerful image to the world and also i think today universities are spaces of political activism. in argentina some days ago, there was a huge manifestation for public education against our current government and he wants to defund for public universities and i saw that in france, the youth activism at

the universities in a moment that the right wing is an anti-intellectual project also. it's interesting to see what is a politicization of our spaces. and how we built our alliances. i think for example in argentina it is important how the political activism at universities, but also in popular neighborhoods and in collectives. the main issue is how to build expanded alliances with other sectors and to produce a very inclusive political movement. i think it is also a challenge. because all of the neoliberal activation is you have your

process and it is your demand and that is all. i think that the political challenge is to produce a political translation and tried to connect and try to produce a transnational dimension of our political demands and political struggles. for me, it is vital to see uprisings on campuses here. and also a way to distinguish what is the function of knowledge, what is also the function of social media? displaying political messages in other spaces. and how we produce a connection between very different landscapes and countries and

vocabularies also. >> so, this idea of thinking about linkages and ways to bring people together and feminism has that global dimension. one thing about your work is you work a lot with the past. we are living in a time of deep obsession with the past. that we have movements on the right, india, modi, in his case and in most of these cases, a fictionalized past that never really existed. and it strikes me that at the corner of your work is an effort to recast our relationship with the past and to use it to help us understand the present, but to loosen the bonds the past might hold on us. could you talk a little bit about that work and how that might apply to the struggles we

are talking about? >> thank you for that. i honestly never thought i would see anything like this in my lifetime. i belong to a generation that regretted not having been around in 1968. to see this primal scene of revolution playing out here in some ways at the heart of the world order has been really salyer torrey in many ways. i think it reminds us that crafting a political vocation for ourselves is not thinking

about where and how we belong, it is very importantly what we stand against and to define that and to do it in this transnational, trans regional way, that to my mind is truly hopeful. that reminds me of the kinds of worldviews we grew up with in south asia. i will get to that in a minute. i will try to do this as briefly as i can. what we are seeing around the world today, whenever we see these autocratic totalitarian regimes that want to work from a very narrow and monopolistic singular view, to my mind that only dramatizes the fundamental pathology complicit in any nation state the mother

nationstate as we all know this and sometimes forget it, the mother nationstate really stands on the ground of exclusion. exclusion and expulsion defines most modern nationstates. i think that is rather than work with a negative, destructive spirit, working out of a fictive notion of what tradition is. how do you bear witness? how do you expressly retrieve memories that complicate your sense of who you are? complicate your sense of what your past is? in our own case in india, we have inherited a colonial cartography. we tend to cut ourselves off from replenishing connections with the arab peninsula, east africa.

and this is just one example. i think we need to seek these connections out because it helps us to get away from the immobilization of historical narratives. this leads me to think about the bridge builder or the border crosser. these are crucial figures we need to keep in mind. we also need to think of a more proximate, temporal horizon. i'm thinking of the postcolonial visions of convergence and collaborations across borders. that had a much more optimistic and redemptive narrative to offer us. the solidarity congress and the emergence of the nonaligned movement.

it is characterized here as a giving up of the responsibility of standing with the free world against the soviet bloc. it was really about not losing the hard-won freedom of the anticolonial struggle and to make our own way in the world and to seek out our own destiny. i think we need to draw on those histories and it strikes me as i'm speaking that we tend to speak of the global south has postcolonial. the global north is also postcolonial. they live both conceptually and in very material terms with the outcomes of empire. they are equally involved in this enterprise. so, i would like us all to maybe think together about this predicament.

and to see how there are processes and pedagogy's we are all a part of. i'm getting to the point of anecdote, as you can see. i think of what my generation which came of age in the late 1980's and 1990's drew on. i think we were inspired and informed by very refreshing forms of pedagogy. i want us to be able to think of how these circulations from below, if you will, are still involved. how do we recover them? how do we continue with them? i'm going to leave it there, but i'm going to think of this kind of experimental, radical, redemptive pedagogy of dealing

with these questions. >>i would love to come back to that end the fallout of that experience on both the colonized and colonizer. talk about -- i think all of us are weird with this fantasy of limitless growth. can you describe why this is a fantasy and how both production as marxism and late capitalism have run us aground in this moment. one of the most exciting and challenging ideas in your work is this decoupling of abundance from growth. talk about how we move beyond the zero-sum of the neoliberal model that we have all grown up with. >> let me talk about something else. because i have talked about it in the last few days.

people will be bored to listen to the same thing over and over. thank you for people coming to this global dialogue today. georgetown today. i would love to join but i had to come today because i did not come yesterday. i participated in a demonstration with students for the palestinian people and i walked down these students to george washington university, stayed a couple hours, india. it changed my perception of divide, which is a topic of our session, so i want to talk about it, because when i usually talk about divide in the context of this, it is, as you mentioned,

infinite growth, and the global north is associated with the imperial model at the cost of people in the global south, which leads to further divide, so that's why we need a different idea of abundance and so on, which kind of assumes the divide is actually between the global north and south or it is located in a divide between the u.s. and china, russia. so the divide is outside. it is projected somewhere outside. but that kind of perception of the divide hides the true divide within the u.s., and this divide within the u.s. is associated with republicans and democrats

and how authoritarian fascism might come to the u.s. and someone. this is not particular to the u.s. it is everywhere in europe. yesterday, student protests and actually arresting those students, i came to the conclusion that the divide is actually within our own group or class, because, you know, the president of columbia university, supposedly a super liberal university, ordering their own students, which is really a different kind of accident that's going on. and a professor of economics getting arrested. this is a different kind of police action, you know, it is not like black people getting

arrested by the order of donald trump or something like that. these are people for whom i ordinarily have respect arresting students who are in a peaceful manner arguing for, you know, or demanding a cease fire or something like that. these are the basic ideas of democracy, human rights, diversity, and these are ideas that i really endorse, and that's why i came to the u.s. 20 years ago as an undergraduate student, to study those ideas, because i thought the u.s. was much better place -- place than japa. i wanted to come to the u.s. to study about those things but now after 20 years it seems democracy in the u.s. is also in a kind of crisis, but not because of trump. that is my point. this is new and we have to think

about it because otherwise countries like russia and china will say this is a double standard, democracy does not exist and someone, but that is not something we want to do. concepts like justice and human rights, these kinds of ideas must be preserved. we cannot have some kind of relativism or cynicism. so in order to do this, i think we really need to think in a different way. in this sense, i wanted to express my solidarity with those students, who were trying to bring out a true universality instead of simply rejecting that kind of idea of universal freedom or justice or simply being satisfied with very

eurocentric, almost hypocritical idea of democracy and diversity. >> it's fascinating because i think one of the things i have seen in these protests and among the people who are -- let's call them us, educated progressives, well-meaning people, is this strong desire to draw a very clear line between college students and, you know, other elements who are protesting, in to see this as a, you know, yes, you know, we can be supportive even if we have some questions of the college students who are protesting, but, you know, not the anarchists with them or them were kind of radical elements, so there is an interesting binary thinking at work there as well and this sort of -- and the sort of insider/outsider questions with that.

peter, we have seen you live through the part of the questions and discussions in a personal way since october 7 so i would love for you to reflect. i will not even attempt to serve up a question. what do you want to talk about? >> i guess since we are in the middle of the holiday of passover, i have been thinking about the way in which jews but also other people tell certain stories about ourselves which have certain implications, and are not -- and need to be open to different kinds of stories. one of the things i have been thinking about is that the story of passover can be told as a very nationalistic story. i recently came across a supplement that david ben-gurion wrote, the passage you read on passover, for his kibbutz, and

it was during the 1966 war so it was about imagining the egyptians of that story as the egyptians of nassar's government, but they also imagined a story that many of the jews did not leave egypt because they decided to essentially accept their bondage and that whole group of non-israelites actually left. this exodus is not an israelite exodus but includes a multitude of people who take the opportunity to leave. the mizrah suggests that in the 10th plague, the killing of the firstborn, it imagines that as many firstborn egyptians being killed by their own parents because they were in an uprising against pharaoh's subjugation. so those stories seem to be what these people in this movement

are trying to do, which is tell a different kind of story about what it means to be jewish and palestinian, think behind the notion of -- beyond the notion of a kind of tribal conflict. we were talking earlier about south africa. i am the child of south africans. it also rehearses an old jewish conversation, which has happened in various different places, about where our security lies. i think when i watch this debate between these republicans in congress who basically are in line with the american jewish establishment saying security for jews lies in an alliance with us, in the building of an ethnic nationalist, white, judeo supremacist estate versus the students protesting in the encampments. it brought me back to this moment of south african history of a trial in 1964, when mandela

gets sentenced to prison for 27 years. all of the white defendants are jews. two of the five white lawyers are jews. that's the part south africans tend to think about. what people focus on less is that the prosecutor, the deputy attorney general, was also jewish. he was a prominent figure in jewish circles in johannesburg and he prosecuted mandela and he prosecuted mandela.. what was happening in this debate was a question about who jews would align with for safety. is it to look upwards towards a kind of dominant group that offers you whiteness -- not all jews, but many jews whiteness -- and a security of the powerful or is it to join in with the

mixed multitude of people from many different backgrounds who have their own stories of oppression? and i think that -- thinking in those terms is something that is being done by young people. often very much against -- in very much open conflict with their own communities that they were raised in and their own parents. and i think it's a really remarkable thing to see. and with all of the horror the last six months has seen, what i have found is the most powerful and moving thing to me is to see the way this group of young american jews is perceived by palestinians. and by other people. and the way i talked to a doctor in gaza a few weeks ago and asked him what he had noticed about the things happening outside in the world. this is a man who you might imagine was practicing medicine under the most unspeakable conditions. he said i came across this group

called jewish voice for peace, you know? and all of us were talking about it in our clinic. so to me that's a vision of a kind of global solidarity that certainly was not produced in my generation but maybe will be by this generation. >> that's incredibly powerful. i mean, when we think about the world that we are living in now, we think about the world that was in many ways created by the united states and the united states, you know, the nice way to describe it is we have been engaged in trying to kind of pull other countries up with us, and, you know, had complicated relationships with different places for particular reasons, but, joel, you know, i think you have a sense of how the united states is missing opportunities and perhaps really just making a complete hash of the opportunity to manage the transition from

one world to another, so maybe you could just walk us through what is that transition that's happening and how are we screwing it up? >> yeah. i'm happy to talk about it. i'm trying to think about which half of the global north you want me to -- which hat of the global north you want me to wear. i have seen many vantage points of the global north thinking about the world. but i think the hashup, if you will -- and actually, the challenge for us to think about in terms of understanding narratives, is a recognition that the period we have lived through in the last 30 years has had some absolutely extraordinary sort of shifts in the well-being of humanity around the world. now, whether the narrative is that america pulled that up is

not a narrative that i would share, but nevertheless, the recognition that 1.5 billion people in a 30-year span have moved out of extreme poverty, and with that, extraordinary, just truly extraordinary shifts and almost -- shifts in almost every indicator of global well-being, still excluding enormous parts of the population, with that extraordinarily important caveat, but nevertheless recognizing that these 30 years, for all of the exclusions, all of the conflicts we have had, all the division, nevertheless produced this extraordinary sort of shift in global well-being. now, the problem i have is that the narrative, because there is no alternative narrative, is that this was a pulling up from the global north. it was a consensus about how things should happen that was spread around the world. and we know that's not true.

this extraordinary sort of shift in global well-being has come about through extraordinary efforts that have happened across the global south in china, in india, indonesia, turkey, brazil, pakistan and bangladesh. name the group of countries who have i think and have had the privilege of living and working in indonesia, india and kenya, and watching this extraordinary effort in those countries of borrowing in a kind of almost brick collage way -- almost bricolage way ideas, some from the neoliberal consensus -- and we should be clear about that, that there are aspects of the neoliberal consensus they have adopted -- but they have reshaped it for their own benefit. you see the extraordinary growth in china, india,

bangladesh and elsewhere. it is still something we don't fully understand. therefore we cannot fully understand how to continue to build upon that and engage others in that process that these countries have done. that gets me to wear the u.s. is because they are still living in a world in which it believes the story that is progress all happened because the u.s. kind of -- because they came to the u.s. vision, the neoliberal consensus, rather than saying there was this extraordinary period of creativity that has done remarkable things for human well-being that still have enormous challenges ahead and how can we learn from that, how can we build on that, how can we create a new understanding of a global order that engages in that and build on that? and i think the u.s. is trying

to preserve an order in which it believes it was the dominant sort of power that shaped this rather than accepting the fact that, in fact, we could be harnessing the energy of this progress at a moment in which that progress is coming to a very hard stop if not a decline. and the thing that most worries me is we are now at the pivot point, and really, 20/20 was the exact pivot point, where for the first time global poverty increased, where, if we start to project out what is going to happen in the next 10 to 15 years, we will see a dramatic slowing in that well-being and change in well-being, and we are not seeing the usb innovative and saying how can we bring in the experience of these countries that have done such extraordinary things and give them their rightful voice in a new global order that recognizes

and builds upon their success? i don't understand. i wish i had an explanation of why the u.s. has not done it. i think partly -- not partly -- if i had to give an explanation, it is domestic politics. it is because ceding american leadership in the world is less damaging to the world and more damaging to america's perception of itself and the tiny sliver of consideration in voting america gives to its international affairs. and rethinking the global order in which those voices had their rightful say, i actually think it would be extraordinarily strengthening to the united states. >> this is a question i have for the group. is there a presumption in that that it's even up to the u.s. at this point? are we at a stage where the united states actually lacks the

strength and moral authority to retain that leadership and to even manage that process or are we sort of -- and what other forms of global leadership do we see emerging that might take its place if the united states -- >> one thing, i think the problem is america still has the veto power over others. it's less imagination and more preservation of its strengths and using that veto power to stop change. >> anybody want to jump in? >> yes. i think that nowadays, and argentina, a place where i came from, a very rich company in terms of policies and so on, 50% of the population is under the poverty line, so i think we

cannot talk about progress, we cannot talk about postcolonial scenarios. i think we are living nowadays in a recolonization of our region, especially the countries that are part of the so-called lithium triangle, chile, bolivia and argentina, and i think the role of the united states, at least parts of the u.s. that are now in argentina, for example, talking about the lithium triangle, is in a very traditional colonial way to approach the question. we have the south commander in our country two weeks ago. and the idea of obstructive is -- and the way of developing our country, i think it's a horrible idea, because we know

what obstructivism is and what kind of violence against territories and bodies, especially indigenous populations who are really the owners of the land, but they are completely expropriated. so it's not an abstract idea of this idea of progress and leadership and successful development. we have a very concrete, violent experience of that kind of policy. >> you in your writing -- i almost have this image of neoliberalism enduring as a kind of nuclear fallout long after it's been discredited. it continues to -- go ahead. >> just to add to that, as you

were speaking, it struck me that -- i will consign myself to india, but there are of -- obvious analogies with other places you mentioned. in places where it looks like the economy has done brilliantly , there has been growth, what i see as a citizen there is a complete leaching away of equity. i see a diminishing of rights and opportunities. i see that the older as well as aspirational elites have become more powerful. their consumption is more conspicuous. we are constantly told that poverty has been dealt with, we know from lived experience and from unrest and discontent and the unemployment figures that that is not true.

fewer people have benefited from these processes of growth and a large number of people have been left out and that has political consequences. a reservoir of resentment that then plays into the worst possible forms of identity area -- of identitarian politics. i would also think also of coming back to our theme, fostering global solidarity, i don't know that we can simply talk about a genteel rearrangement of what is ultimately a west feeling in -- a westphalian order. i don't think there is much to be hoped for in terms of a rearrangement. we have to look at what's happening below, to those without equity or entitlement

and see what we can develop in terms of solidarity of those who are most vulnerable. >> yeah. i wanted to also say that there should be some cards circulating for questions in a couple minutes. we will turn to questions. i'm curious about -- i think there's a lot of discussion about u.s. leadership right now and i think that there are lots of questions particularly in the context of israel and palestine and the biden administration in particular and its policies. but i'm curious more generally how this kind of bubbling up from below might look like and where the most interesting and exciting possibilities are. andy, i don't know, you know, maybe this is a question for you or, peter, feel free to jump in, you know, what are you seeing that gives you some sense of possibility? there are other things outside

in the broader world that are -- that perhaps could offer an alternative to the rearrangement of the existing institutions. >> yes. i was happy to see young students who participated in my workshop and these panels and they really expressed serious interest in degrowth communism, and i would not expect that. when i was an undergrad in 2005, no one was really talking about socialism anymore. that was a university. a discussion of class was quite absent because the economy was, you know, still quite good, the age of great moderation and so on, and even on a global scale,

inequality was getting better and so on, so no one was really questioning capitalism, but it changed after 30 years of globalization. economic inequality growing, climate crisis gets worse. we have so many crises narratives today. it is great that it is bringing some more radical ideas in the discourse that young people are interested in. this is really bringing some kind of the crisis of the liberal ideas and the establishment. this is why after a certain point this power is directed against those students who are being radicalized. so this is what we are witnessing today. i think this is, you know, a moment of transformation, i would say, because we used to believe in a kind of narrative that the future will be better, so why don't we just, you know, patiently wait for next 10

years, then everything will be better. in another 10 years, things will be even more better. so this idea is commonly shared that the idea of socially -- the idea of social democracy is based on this presumption of progressive development. i think this moment of crisis is different. it's going to be worse. the climate crisis will get worse and worse and wears. there will be more concentration of wealth, more disasters, instability and someone. this is a progress of degradation. i don't think in that kind of situation the old -- i would say it is now old -- the old social democratic ideas are no longer shared by many people anymore, especially by the younger generation, because they are the ones who will experience more

suffering. so they are demanding more rapid change. we cannot say it will change only gradually. i think they are right. they know more correctly what is wrong about this system and they are correctly interested in the idea of degrowth, socialism, communism or whatever, and it is welcome because this is changing faster. we did not have that kind of thing but now is changing. >> it's interesting. there were a couple of phrases that i wrote down from all of you that really kind of stuck with me, and one from you on the subject is -- you just evoked it -- the possibility of a solidarity of the vulnerable. peter, you and i talked about the difficulty of being a "loving critic" and being in

community but also trying to stand up for things in that community in a way that could engender some solidarity or at least keep the conversation going in the hope of building solidarity. what does that look like, being a loving critic? >> often it's in the eye of the beholder. you may think you are loving but it may not be perceived like that by other people. this is something that i really struggle with a lot because the question is what is the vocabulary that is available to try to show a sense of solidarity or commitment that will make -- that will mean anything to the people that you are trying to speak to when ultimately you want to say that you believe that they, you know, as a collective, have very, very

badly gone off course. in my own writing, i'm constantly trying out different things that might be some way of establishing that sense of love and solidarity that does not cost me the actual criticism i want to make or does not blend the force of the criticism i want to make -- not blunt the force of the criticism i want to make. it is difficult to do that because, you know, in the case of israel and jews, and it may well be there are analogs in other cases, what you see when you scratch the surface is the establishment, whether it's the israeli government or the american jewish establishment, its own discourse of solidarity actually turns out to be not actually come as it looks to me, an actual defensive jewish safety but a defense of a certain power position. so you have this very strange situation where there's a

discourse that tries to delegitimize and criminalize these pro palestine protests because they are a threat to jewish students, but anyone who has spent time on a who has spent time on a college campus will know about this. but suspension, expulsion, sometimes brutal arrest of students, a disproportionate number of whom are jewish, in the name of jewish safety, right, so basically you are -- you have a definition of jewish safety and solidarity that cuts out an entire group of people who essentially become made un jewish because of their political position. that is an important lesson for a lot of people to learn, you may think you have safety within a certain identity category, but actually, if you move outside of it, and this goes to your point,

it is part of the picture of this economic suppressor at emory university, why it was so jarring. we see pictures like that all the time in america, but we do not usually seek economics professors, people saying i am a white economic professor, and you step outside of this and you realize actually that maybe these identities do not actually protect you if politically you veer too far off. maybe it makes you think a little differently about where your solidarity actually lies. i think that is a question some younger american jews are having to face. as it happens, today, there was a protest led by friends of mine in israel who were arrested, a group of american and israeli rabbis trying to bring a flower to the border with gaza, arrested, very harsh repercussions. in israel, there sing the same point. how does a jewish state build on

the claim of jewish safety? how do you challenge that in the name of the beliefs you have? moderator: that video was incredible, sort of crying, oh, my god, oh, my god, that is what is like to discover your position in this order. i am going to go to student questions, obviously from very bright people in this room. first question, and you can volunteer or i will pick on you. do you see a and digital communication as reticle tools in fostering global solidarity or -- s article tools in fostering global solidarity? who wants to take that on? >> go ahead. >> go ahead. [laughter] >> of course, digital technologies have a very good with communicating with each other, and it has increased in certain movements like me to

come up black lives matter -- like #metoo, black lives matter. we all know social networks and media are full of hate speeches, fake news, propaganda. it is just, you know, i cannot say anything very unique on it. >> i think it is very interesting to think in one sentence on this digital communications, it could be a tool for political communities. so i think we were discussing how a practice of political communities could be built and how the communication tools can be used inside this objective of building a political community. so i think it is useful to think

in that kind of connection, rather than the theme of isolated technologies itself. >> it is interesting because my primary relationship with social media, not really talking about a guy, so we can put that to the site, was one as a young correspondent who just moved to india and suddenly i had access to so many interesting people. i had to locate them somehow somewhere. and then sort of the world turned and everybody was like garbage fire, garbage fire, don't spend time on social media. it is not the real world, you're just talking to people like you. then a lot of us kind of pull back from social media and said we are not going to be involved anymore. it has been interesting in the context of the protest movement for palestine. whenever i tell people, oh, what is your twitter handle, but i tell them i am not active on

twitter anymore, they are kind of shocked and a little bit disgusted. i think they associate -- they are like, it is really important to us for organizing. and i think they associate my refusal of it as a kind of haughty superiority. like i am much more concerned about the neoliberal preservation of my time and not getting sucked into -- or like limiting my screen time, etc., etc. so i have been thinking about my own kind of assumptions and the journey i have been on and i find that maybe i should go back on twitter. ultimately, twitter, those of us who experienced it at that time, i think, and some of you, we all experienced it together, perhaps a little too much, it was a truly exhilarating thing. i sometimes wonder if we gave up too much and bought into ideas

about the role of technology that made us more passive, rather than active. ok, how can we emphasize the importance of global solidarity given the trend toward isolationism in the u.s.? are there ways for the u.s. to pull back but remain engaged? you have some thoughts on this, also missed opportunities. >> it sort of surprises me that the u.s. doesn't take the opportunity to say -- especially in light of its fixation on the topic of the next panel, the shift to a new cold war, it would seem to me this is an extraordinary opportunity for the united states to engage with other countries in a true dialogue about what reshaping

the institutional order, some kind of multilateral system could have an impact that actually, even in old cold war mentality, if it was a country going to say this is time to change these institutions that were created 75 years ago in a completely different global situation have run their course, and we believe this is the most opportune time at a pivotal moment in global history to start to rethink these institutions. and for us to be an important player in that, i think there is very little domestic, if you will, opposition to it, mostly because i do not think this is a very important issue in that area in the united states, which gives freedom for the u.s. to

play a very different role on the global order. that would ultimately, i think, do a much better job in engaging the rest of the world in this competition that the u.s. is so worried about in the cold war. to say, look, we are a country deeply open to rethinking this in a different way. so i think it is frustrating why the u.s. doesn't take the opportunity to play that leadership role in saying we are open to having this, open to forums that re-create and rethink these institutions, and put that on a global agenda. moderator: yeah. question -- please, yeah. >> i think one of the things i worry about is that i do not think -- we do not have pipelines to areas that are very effective to actually, for ordinary americans with the kind of diversity of american experience, to influence the making of american policy. to me, one of the critical

moments that i look back to is the moment of the bernie sanders campaign in 2020, both of his insurgent campaign, the way in which those came out of the occupy movement and became a transition mechanism for some rethinking in the democratic party on economic questions, a bit of a move away from the ideas that were prevalent during the clinton administration, even the obama administration. there was no pipeline through the sanders campaign to influence the biden administration's foreign policy at all. so you have a president that in some ways looks like a latter-day lyndon johnson. to help internalize certain progressive tendencies from below on domestic policy, but on foreign policy, really locked into a very rigid, seems to me, kind of cold war vision. and i think you're are right, that the american public has not bought into and that there are a whole group of americans out

there who i think could think about foreign policy and really different ways. one of the most disastrous things about the israel palestine debate is it serves as a filter that filters out people who might have more views on foreign policy in general. i read ohana mark's transcripts on how she behaved on the house foreign affairs committee -- i lhan omar's transcripts, and they were literally the kinds of questions you might get if you put someone from niger on the committee someone from south asia on the committee. she is asking those questions, why is america having troops here and what are they doing? as opposed to russian counter influence. we do not have strong voices in congress who are warning about american policy on china and taiwan, which is the potential greatest calamity of climate change i have seen, a massive third world war, and we do not have those voices there.

moderator: and on india, she was a really important voice. and then when she checked out of the committee, it was a tremendous loss because of the lack of sophistication of the american approach to india is mind-boggling to me. >> america needs to take the responsibility of the mess they created. at the same time. americans do not want biden or tromp to take that leadership. it is really hard. moderator: i think we have time for one more question. i know we have a hard stop. this is a good one. how can transnational solidarity realistically evolve beyond the nationstate, especially considering current global fragmentation and the appeal of nationalism? your microphone. >> i will build off of the trope

you just put into action. i tend to be a great connoisseur of irrelevant things, but i wanted to talk about that idea of traditional and organic intellectuals. i think there is room for that discussion here. with certain policy, it is completely to preserve a dominion of expert culture. they tend, not always, to be open to other kinds of criteria and questions about what might define the relationship among countries. so the entire mood tends to be competitive alliances with elites with whom you share certain core values, which are always geopolitical or military terms. and everything else is somehow characterized as somehow soft, questions that have to do with

some of the things i was talking about earlier. what do you do with the rights of women in other nationstates that you're dealing with? what about the rights of minorities? what do you have to say about ways in which you might build capacity to fight the climate catastrophes that are upon you? push into the scenario were -- i do not want to make a caricature of it, but there are elites that will not give up their power, and there will be alliances that bring the powerful together. the challenge is how to get these together and how to find was of participating in larger political processes. i do not have a prognostication for how this is to be done, but i think this is something we need to recognize, which is one reason why this cannot be business as usual. moderator: davos of the

disenfranchised, that is what we need. i am going to call it time because we are at time, but what a fantastic conversation. so wonderful to spend some time talking to you all. [applause] >> taking a short break in the

discussion for about 15 minutes. when this resumes, participants will discuss u.s. china relations and the role of the rest of the world in that relationship. you are watching live coverage on c-span.

host: perhaps they will kick the case back to lower courts for more nuanced tearing, still would be a victory for trump who has sought to delay a trial in the january 6 case until after inauguration day in 2025. his lawyer, john sawyer, told the justices that he former president could not face criminal charges, even if he had a political rival assassinated, and less he had been impeached and convicted by the senate. let's look trump's attorney john sawyer delivering a portion of his opening remarks in front of the court yesterday. [video clip] >> mr. chief justice in may it please the court, with a presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts.

the framers of our constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. if a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. the implication of the court's decision here extend far beyond the facts in this case. could president george w. bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq? could president obama be charged with murder for killing u.s. citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden some be

charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? the answer to all these questions is no. prosecuting the president for his official acts is an invasion with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. host: now here's a portion of the opening argument delivered by michael dreman, counselor to the special counsel and the u.s. government case against former president trump's claim of presidential immunity. [video clip] >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official act and less he was first impeached and convicted, the theory would immunize former president's from criminal

liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election to perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. they therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. here, the executive branch is sourcing congressional statutes and seeking petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about attentional abuses but established legal safeguards, provide layers of protections with the article three courts providing the

ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. host: we are taking your calls on the question of former president trump's presidential immunity. we will go to the calls. beverly is first in wesley chapel, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. president trump needs immunity and the right to have no one take his election interference away from him. the president, when he was president, did a good job in the four years. right now, we are all in fear of a war with president biden in

place. and the reason that president trump did question the election for president biden was because when we went to bed the night before we were supposed to get the totals, president biden was not in the lead in georgia. it was president trump. and then we saw that video of people saying -- the volunteers weren't --went home early because of a water break. host: i want to make sure i understand, you think all presidents should have immunity from criminal prosecution or just president trump? caller: yes, i do, because the way they are handling it now, the next one we will be bringing appleby president biden, because we know he is not following the constitution or any amendments. host: do you think president biden should also have immunity from criminal prosecution? caller: well, right now, yes,

because if they bring these charges and they hold against president trump, all the good work he did for the united states of america, president biden is the worst president we have had. they certainly can bring up a lot of charges on him once he is out of office. do we want to go down this line? i don't. host: to robin, cleveland, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. and there goes the problem right there. nothing she said was true. if anything, this shows the two-tiered justice system and reaching the poor, because the poor people he told to go to the capitol, they were going to jail, so why would donald trump not have to go to jail? that is the two-tier justice system and you have fox news and newsmax lying about it every day. donald trump lied about the election. he knew he lost. everybody told him he lost.

and he tried to steal it. fox news tried to help him. newsmax tried to help him. yes, he deserves to go to jail. why wouldn't he? if it was barack obama, he would already be in jail. they need to act like it was president obama that did it, and quit acting like we don't see what's going on. what acting like donald trump did not expose how many weird white people are walking around here. host: sonny in boston, massachusetts, is next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to say i think the former president, donald trump, should be immune of prosecution because of the fact that -- one of my reasons is when other leaders from other countries come over here to visit, whether it be a year or however long they stay for the visit, they

get diplomatic immunity. so why shouldn't donald trump, the former president, who served our country as president of the united states for four years? why shouldn't he be safe with immunity? host: diplomatic immunity is different because they are not american center representing a foreign government. donald trump is an american. caller: ok. i still believe he should be given immunity. host: got it. ann in michigan. caller: good morning. i believe that former president trump should not have absolute immunity. we have had 44 presidents before donald trump, and we have had 247 years of american history

since the declaration of independence, and we have never had cause to have to reach this issue. we have had many presidents who have done things that may be considered criminal. i know in the hearing they brought up that fdr put japanese americans in internment camps. we know five presidential administrations continued to send american soldiers to die in vietnam even though they knew we would never win the war. yet, none of them have ever been prosecuted in retrospect. that is because what they did, they did in furtherance of our national security, at least to the best of our ability, even if there were certainly political reasons, as well, wanted to get reelected, did not want to be the one to have to say we were going to lose a war or that kind of thing. overall, i think they were making a good-faith effort to do something that was in

furtherance of us as a country. whereas, what donald trump did in trying to meddle in the election was basically something that was solely beneficial to himself, to try to keep himself in the power even though 61 of 62 court cases had shown that he could not mount the evidence necessary to prove that he had won or that there was sufficient fraud that occurred in any state that would have changed the outcome of the election. host: so you would draw the line at personal gain? caller: partly at personal gain. i think every president, of course, is hoping they are going to get reelected, and there is some element of personal gain in it. i think if overall, what a president does, especially if it is in furtherance of our national security or -- because i know justice clarence thomas

brought up operation mongoose, and i had to look that up, but it was apparently back when president jfk sent our cia to cuba and they actually launched terrorist attacks on civilians in cuba, which seems really shady. but what he was doing was still something that he thought or the administration thought was in furtherance of protecting or promoting democracy or our national security in a communist country. host: got it. let's look at some tweets that came in from lawmakers. senator chuck schumer says this, today, trumps ridiculous claim of total immunity, he is obviously not immune. scotus is only protecting trump and slowing his trial. scotus should have frozen the district court. scotus speeds of trials when it wants, but not in this case. richard blumenthal, senator, justice thomas's refusal to recuse himself at this morning's

drop immunity hearing marks another historic low in the high courts ethics. this moral decay affects the entire court and demonstrates a need for a code of ethics mandated by congress with a real enforcement mechanism. here is senator marsha blackburn, republican, president trump cannot attend oral arguments in his own supreme court case tomorrow because an activist judge is requiring him to be in new york. this is a coordinated takedown attempt by the left. here is a professor of law, in light of the urgent political implication and the single issue before the justices, should decide his immunity claim no more than two weeks after hearing oral arguments. i think it should not even take that long. representative donald's of florida, listening to the oral arguments over presidential immunity, one thing is clear, the democrats and their law fare against president trump is incredibly damaging to the institutions of our republic.

back to the phones. angel in yonkers, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. yes, i am a democrat, and i voted for the first time for ronald reagan. ronald reagan did a great job in this country. and president trump should receive immunity. he has done a great job in four years, has taken care of, all the other countries also, and has also done so much for us that i cannot believe that they are going toward this. in the democrats, what they are doing is, essentially schumer and the democrats in new york are going after him because they

do not want him in power anymore. host: angel, you said he should get immunity because he did a great job. is that how you would decide immunity, if you feel like the president did a good job, then he should be immune from criminal prosecution? if he didn't, he should be prosecuted? caller: yes. not only has he done a good job, but i have evidence of people that received -- a wife and husband that received -- either their wife or their husband died, and they received voting cards and gave them to other people. i have a godmother, my god father died, and she did not give his away. what the democrats did in the last election was take all the names of all the dead people on the lists, and they gave those cards to the illegals coming in here.

host: so you know that that is totally illegal, so i would hope that if you know people that did that and having noncitizens voting, that is absolutely illegal, and i hope you reported that. dave in adrian, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking the call. the guy who just talked to said something about his wife and cards -- well, my comment is about my wife actually. i was watching c-span yesterday when the hearings were going on. i was a bit disappointed with them. this is a quick side note, because of the way that the justices talk, it is just too legalese for me to follow all the time. but my wife walked in and came home from an appointment and was telling me about her

appointment, so i muted the tv. and at that point, along the bottom left of your screen, and said oral arguments, trump versus united states. and i thought, ok, that is what this is all about, this one guy against the country. and i suppose it would be fair if trump was granted immunity, if you could strike his name and put mine in there too or yours or anybody else who is going to call in. since that is never going to happen, i have to say, you know, this is totally ridiculous, and these justices like cavanaugh who are argue mean -- arguing that we have to protect the position of the presidency and trump himself was arguing this is not about him, this is not about me, he would say. that is ridiculous. i saw january 6 happen with my

own eyes, and that is what this trial is about. as much as i could not follow the legalese, i could follow it. after your show ended, liz cheney talked in the national cathedral about january 6. that is what this is about. he is not immune. he's not like some figure that did not take place in this whole thing. that is what this is about. host: and we got a text from virginia, any president should be immune from these highly organized and singularly targeted attacks. somehow president trump just continues to thrive politically throughout all this interference. and this from troy in wisconsin, the president should not be immune from criminal prosecution. the current system has held since its inception.

no other president has ever tried to do what trump has tried to do to this country or the office. wake up. sherry in mississippi, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. liz cheney withheld a lot of information from the jan. 6 committee that is coming out now. and president trump should be totally immune from prosecution. short of having picked up a gun and murdered somebody, that would draw the line there. host: so is that where you would draw the line, that murder could be prosecuted but any other crime not? host: it -- caller: it depends on the situation. there's a lot of ways to look at it. treason is a very good one in very high on my mind right now

because of the guy in office right now, and he has been doing that since he was a senator. host: ok. diane in livingston, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. absolutely no immunity. first of all, our country is great because we have the rule of law. property rights, intellectual property, and we have politicians that are held -- they say, no man is above the law, well, this is definitely putting a man above the law. we have seen while he was in office how he abused all the democratic institutions, and what they do in other countries when they try to be authoritarian as they chip away at institutions. and this is our judiciary we see. the only issue before them is this man and all the actions that he did.

like that man said, we saw with our own eyes. first of all, for four years, all the lies. right? then we see him tending up for four years all these antigovernment militias, white supremacist groups, neo-nazi groups. and then they hide behind free speech. what this man has done -- you can listen. you hear people are willing to give a person immunity in our country, it is crazy. right, that this man -- the only way to clear this up is we want our democracy back, the people have to be informed. they are being lied to. seems the only way to get accountability is to go to court. there's rules that we all agreed on since the founding of our country. so i do not see how this man gets a pass. host: all right. let's take a look at this portion from the hearing,

justice sotomayor raised to hypothetical question two trump's attorney whether a president should be allowed to assassinate his political rival? [video clip] >> it can be alleged, but it has to be proven. some can say it is a concept long viewed as appropriate in law, but there are some things so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against. now i think -- >> we have such a lovely day outside, but the action is here. i am a professor in the department of government here. former cocreator and director of the democracy and governance program, which a few years back joined forces with the program here, particularly professor derek goldman, and i worked with him and his guidance to create what emerged as the in your shoes program here at georgetown university, so i was delighted to have some hand in that.

the original version of that that emerged pre-covid was the project with patrick henry college in virginia with students from georgetown to use theater and performance as a mechanism of reaching across the ideological social and cultural religious divide, by getting folks, particularly students, to pair up and each tell a story about some moment in their lives inspired by a particular prompt and then tell that story and have the other student tell part of that, tell that story back and literally and figuratively step into the shoes of the other student. and that is how this progressed and has evolved and has moved in multiple directions, and i am really delighted that we are here today to see and get a taste of this and to give you a sense of how this is done, we have a pair of colleagues from the university, one is the current director of democracy

and governance studies at torch town, and the other is cecil brooks, national urban fellow georgetown school of public policy, who i only had a chance to meet today. they are going to give you a sense of how this storytelling and this in your shoes approach works, inspired by prompts that are central to this whole endeavor this week. without further ado, i invite them to take the stage, and we will get a taste of what in your shoes can do and all the magic that it brings. thank you very much. [applause] >> i grew up in the communist and took territory and -- totalitarian in albania in the 1970's and 1980, and we are isolated from the world, nationalist and poor. we were told that globally the

american imperialist and soviet revisionists were all out to get us. in many ways, we missed the transnational solidarity, but sometimes what can happen now if you work together with partners from around the world, the big change happened when communism ended. and then we found out that so many, so much of what the government had told us were lies. and we were not actually rich. we albanians were the poorest in europe. we were afraid of the world, but the world did not really know much about us. so there was a lot of self-inflicted fear and isolation to satisfy the dictator and the ruling party. so that actually was very eye-opening to me. and the fact that i could now meet and talk to outsiders, so curious to meeting a person who grew up in isolation, we were exotic in the beginning.

but it did make me very skeptical of dogma. and that things are this way because that is with this theoretical model says, maybe. but give me more evidence. so when i think about global solidarity's, i often think about how globalization has helped many people leave poverty and difficult conditions. so for me, transnational solidarity is a way in which small countries and small partners can work together with stronger institutions and international organizations to protect the weak and to constrain the strong. >> so i grew up seeing myself and feeling like a third culture kid. you know, even before i had the

vocabulary to detail what that experience is like, and you know, american citizens, i feel like an american born here. left as a baby for a little bit with my family in honduras and came back. so i had some sprinkles of having a rough transition into integration and assimilation. being a product of, you know, central america. it really forces you to become class conscious. you know, from an early age. even if you are not necessarily investigating political ideas. honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, you know. and a lot of people, including my parents, they moved from one of the poorest countries on this side of the planet to one of the

poorest congressional districts in the united states, which is a pocket of the south bronx where i grew up in new york city. people who did not have nice things in one part of the world going to amend the -- to another side of the world and still not having nice things. i tried to base my career around finding what the answer to any quality was -- to inequality was and what the formula to finding bridges anywhere on the planet was. what makes people wealthy, or how can people have comfortable lives? in honduras culture, there is a strong caribbean element in central america. there is a really strong indigenous element. and as you know, as a son of the mother from the quantico

culture, i grew up understanding that we have a tie to the land, as well, on the side of the planet. being controlled or lubed in or colonized by people, by three or four different groups throughout our history. we do not necessarily have our own box or our own culture or our own language. we are conscious of that blurry history where we can see ourselves in each of the neighbors around us. that really forces us to be comfortable with the idea of solidarity. the fact that we never had the luxury of staying in one box on our own, and it colors a lot of our approaches to issues. and being very relationship-oriented. so i want -- i started being able to travel and seeing other parts of africa, latin america, even other places like in asia.

it made me really question, who am i? who do i place my allegiances with? as someone who is diving deeper into politics. and leading good work on some of the local campaign, my interests lie in keeping a good balance of power. locally in new york. whether that is making sure black owners and the african-american churches have enough of a base with channels of power or whether it is maintaining latina representation. making sure there are different groups i can call upon and they are reflected in the places i call home. and for now, that is new york. [applause]

>> thank you so much, elton and cecil. i want to say quick to eye for the opportunity this week. my name is derek goldman, and i'm artistic and executive director for the lap of performance and politics on the campus, and a mission to humanize global politics through performance. there is a signature initiative around that. but just to thank the 10 people at the busiest time of the school year who have taken deep time to be part of these pairs. especially to say, particularly in the climate was something that was sent yesterday from this stage, that the cure ration and the stakes of this week of dialogue and conversations, each day the prompts for these conversations came from the work of the panel, ideas of the panelists, and the careful cure ration's of the themes. it has been so inspiring to see the ripples of those as we have connected in dialogue with members of our community, and

that is what these are sort of a small window into. i want to acknowledge for us at the lab and for a wider group of the community how meaningful it has been, the stakes of these conversations and the urgency of them and the thoughtfulness. if you're interested in staying connected with in your shoes, there are materials. the lab is growing and scaling this work on campus, and thanks for the opportunity this week, and onto the panel. thanks. [applause] >> thank you, everyone, for coming today. i am thrilled to be with these

wonderful writers. we will be talking about an interesting subject, relationship between the united states and china, thinking about that under the paradigm of a second cold war and whether that is helpful or not helpful way of looking at that relationship. that me tell you briefly about the people up here. nesrine malik is a columnist at the guardian and author of the book "we need new stories." great to have her here. ece temelkuran is also a writer, turkish novelist and journalist, and it is wonderful to have her here. mohsin hamid, a pakistani novelist and author of many books. wonderful to have him here. and anne applebaum, and historian about the soviet union , cold war, and writer of the atlantic. great to have you here. when we are done, you should get notecards at some point today, some point in the next hour, and

if you have questions, you can pass them to the end of the aisle and we will read those for the last half-hour of the event. nesrine, tell me what you think of this idea of cold war 2.0 or second cold war with china, specifically to how it might look to people who are not in the united states or china and how you think about that idea as we embark on this relationship with china which seems to have gotten more intense in the last decade? >> thank you for the kind introduction, and i'm so happy to see so many of you that are here today. it is our last event, so excited have you all here. what i would say is that even the definition of cold war, even calling it a war in itself, is a view from somewhere. quite specific. i come from sudan and have an african perspective on the chinese-u.s. relationship. the difference between the two and the threat across the world

and how it translates to supportable backing of each party's agendas has been very different in africa. china has spent a huge amount of time, for good or for ill, in building strong infrastructure and strong cultural connection with the continent. i remember being about eight or nine years old and members of the chinese embassy coming in the late 1980's to schools to ask children to participate in cultural exchange with china. there was concerted attempts to have chinese programs, cultural programs, initiated with sudanese, egyptian, east african governments. the difference between the end sheet -- the engagement with china and the u.s. with these sorts of countries has meant that at our level, this is seen as a very urgent and very

pressing crisis. but where there are economic interests from which china particularly draw a lot of influence, those areas do not see it like that. they just see china as a sort of benign partner and a lot of economic and cultural projects. and the benign aspect is a crucial one because the way china has established these programs, particularly big infrastructure projects in africa and a little bit in the middle east, they have done it without any sort of political outreach. there have not been any demands or any pressure that these states follow a chinese agenda on the global stage, if that makes sense. contrast that to the way the united states has applied its influence or has extended its power, particularly in west

africa which was very aggressive and militarized, selective troops -- so lots of troops, and a track not particularly structured or clear, which makes it seem quite sinister. so lots of summer inactivity. so it is seen as sinister, kind of below the radar, seen as having an agenda that is about securitizing africa and securitizing economic assets, minerals, and other assets america wants to protect, rather than it being a partnership with those countries. in summary, to answer your question, the view of a cold war 2.0 is from a very specific place, not necessary reflective of how many other parts of the world see or even engage with

that. moderator: how do you think about the question? >> cold war. the first one was not really cold from my part of the world and for your part of the world, as well. pakistan and turkish were friends in the 1980's, so my generation of kids know it as pakistan. it was not very cold, because we grew up in this -- i am a fruit of the cold war anyway. because progressives, meaning the most educated population is either exiled, tortured, killed, imprisoned, lost their jobs, lost their families. so it was pretty heated for a big part of the population, cold

war 1. so now i think it is going to be heated in another way, maybe not necessarily for united states but like for ukraine, for instance. the previous panel was quite interesting in that sense. there was this talk of how neoliberalism was defiant in ideology but now it is kind of ending, so we have to turn to the rest of the world and take the leadership to change this situation and so on. well, the first time they took the leadership, which was during the cold war, there were many military coups in my part of the world, one of them being turkish military coup in 1980. and it was done to turn the economic system of the country into a free-market economy and because there was a massive labor movement. so in order to oppress it, there should have been a coup, which

at the end of the day happened with the cia's report. and now it is kind of interesting to listen to these views, like, oh, we fucked up that time and know we're going to take the leadership again and be very, very amazing at that job. it sounded to me like that was from the previous panel, so i wanted to pick up on that a little bit. >> so i think that my own personal sense is that a new cold war would be a complete disaster for the world. we have enough challenges without spending our energy trying to destroy each other. also think, like ece, i grew up next to one of the great battlegrounds of the less cold war, and pakistan, next to

afghanistan. we had a dictator who was backed by huge amount of u.s. aid, he had weaponry and proceeded to tear up much of the social fabric and teaching us that we should support the mujahedin in their fight against the atheist soviets. in setting up training camps for the mujahedin. so the experience of that as a child was to see weaponry flowing into the cities, ak-47's, heroine everywhere, and a complete transformation of pakistan's national character, the rise of militant groups who became terrorist groups. and we won. the soviet union was defeated.

a great victory was won in the cold war, and pakistan and afghanistan lived happily ever after. yeah, yeah. for me, this really informs highly of these conflicts, that they are almost always completely disastrous. right, each time we stumble into another one, vietnam, afghanistan, afghanistan again, iraq, no ukraine -- now ukraine, the moral argument is always persuasive. what are the soviets doing in afghanistan? saddam is a bad guys. taiwan is a democracy. the people who live in these places, generally speaking, find their countries completely devastated. america tirelessly exercises and abandons the place, and we have

a disaster. i think that informs my sense of the desirability of this sort of thing. the other thing i would say in terms of what is going on, i think that at the moment in the world, we are experiencing something a little bit like covid. the real danger of covid, turned out, was not so much that it would kill us but rather that our body would have exaggerated immune response. the immune response would ravage our lungs or brains or other parts of our body, going haywire and response of perceived threat. my sense is that the united states, in a sense, is gripped by something like that right now. united states policies established, he looks around the world, sees all these threats and is gearing up to respond to these threats in a way that i think will be devastating for the body of the world really. so as the conversation progresses, for me, how do we

not do that becomes very important. in nashville, i think -- in a net shell, i think being skeptical of the degree to which we consider other countries to be our adversaries, inherently adversaries, the pakistan to look at india and be aware of a rise of that government, but in india, there is a huge population of people that can cooperate, etc. the second part is do not view the threat as quite as threatening. that is my first suggestion. the last thing i will say is be much more critical and skeptical of your own side. in pakistan, we have a corrupt and self-interested national security establishment. so does the united states. i am old enough my friends have gone and worked in the government and now do well in

the private companies, the united states has legalized corruption by allowing people to work in government department, particularly ella terry and government department, to preside over us of purchases -- particularly military in government department, to preside over massive purchases and receiving enormous payments and engage in this legalized corruption. much of those are my initial reactions. >> do you want to expand? >> i object to cold war 2.0 on a lot of grounds. i'm not sure who uses it. i hear it as a provocative frame. i don't know how many people are dividing the world between america and china that is the implication that we would be divided like we were in the past. and i don't believe that the

world divides up that easily. i don't think that the original cold war did either and the mistakes that were made in the cold war almost had to do with the u.s. or the other side, actually, or the soviet union per seesk enemies and allies when the politics were more subtle. vietnam is an example. were the south vietnamese with the united states because they were capitalists or for other reasons. north vietnamese because they were communists or nationalists? we allow the world to be divided in those two camps. and i would say the same is true of the soviet union, maybe even more so. i actually there are divisions in the world and there are -- i

don't dpee with you all enemies and all conflicts are a matter of perception. i think there are -- what we do see now arising is a network on the autocratic side, china, russia yeah, iran, venezuela, zimbabwe, north korea, they have nothing i had logically or meet in secret rooms and make decisions of what they should do. it is a group that have some things in common and one of the things they have in common is desire to repress their own democratic activists and opposition. and in order to do that, they fight both i had logically and really against the democratic world, one of the reasons for the russian invasion of ukraine,

it is a colonial project and russia creating an empire and another reason is because the idea that ukraine could become a democracy and somehow make its own decisions and be aligned with other democracies around the world is an ideological challenge to putin that he couldn't let go. if you fail to understand that, then you won't understand why the war is being fought and why putin can justify it. that there is a loose alignment of powers who have domestic political reasons to repress their own democracies and create difficulties for the democratic world, that is a fact of life now. i wouldn't call it a cold war or cold war 2.0. i don't think it's a simplistic

frame you can put on top of the world. there is no balloon that divides east and west and there are autocratic behaviors and practices inside most democracies, maybe this one in particular. and the fight against those is just as important as the struggle internationally and at the same time, i would agree with you that there are allies to be found on the other side whether the russian opposition or the hong kong opposition or the iranian iranian women's movement, those are allies if they were to work together both with one another and people in the democratic world, we could achieve things thrvment is an ideological conflict but i wouldn't call it world war ii .0. >> one thing you said and i'll come become around. you spoke about the initial cold

war and on of the mistakes that the united states and soviet union in seeing people in various countries a certain way. the way you laid it out, this idea of you have these autocratic countries that are allied in some way and collectively pose a challenge to democratic countries. where do other countries that might be more autocratic but allied with us, saudi arabia or egypt, india increasingly and us? >> it is not a framework that includes every country. vietnam is an autocracy that doesn't have as its primary goal -- it's not a revisionist power. it doesn't seek to change the world order or take human rights language out of the united nations' system the way china is, for example. you can point to them and point

to saudi arabia plays on one side or the other. sometimes aligned one way or another. i'm stressing that it is not a simplistic framework and not every country fits into it. so i am simply saying there is a network of autocracies that are repression of their democratic opposition and language and have tools, you can cool it, information warfare makes it sound exciting. they have tools in which they seek to spread autocratic narratives, spread the decline and decay and one of their projects. they seek to preserve system which allows them to steal and hide money and they do that with the cooperation of people in the united states and in europe as

well. they also help one another. there are several billion examples of that. venezuela is a country that has an extraordinarily unpopular government that would lose a popular election. why has it remained in power so long? partly because the autocratic world supports the maduro. and invest in ways that are of assistance. some of the chinese investments may be benign and some of it is directed in such a way that it is off use to dictatorships and one example where that's true. and iran plays an extraordinary well. given no historic relationship between iran and venezuela and what do they have to do with each other? they are both interested in oil and getting around sanctions.

they help one another do that. so again, there are -- you know, the rescue of the russian dictator. it was done with the help of others, too. they do see one another and some joint projects and they have many differences between them as well. >> i have written down the question that you asked about autocratic regimes fall into this. but i think -- and i appreciate the attempt to complicate the framing and dp give it nuance. there is more in there as well. i'm trying to get my head around the uniformity of these actors' motivations. i'm saying that they have a

group interest and all related to either advancing their own agenda or oppressing their own people. but there's also -- and there is also a kind of rebuild context to it as well. and one of the difficulties particularly in the past few months when iran seen as member an action -- axis of evil and disruptive, antiu.s. agenda and also has in its real context, no dimension. and there are lots of nmp uan krmp e and political profile. it is a country that looks into

other countries such as venezuela and broad interests in opposing the u.s. >> it also has a long history of show eat dispersal to the arabian peninsula. it is deal with not all as you said giving the benign location. but just try to give some color as to how the minnesota vagues of these countries may manifest broadly as antidemocratic, ant-u.s., antiwestern force and representative and is a member

of the region and many different countries that have collapsed themselves and irany government becomes a central force in these local dine knicks. the people they talk about proxy forces is that they are directed that the houthis are connected on the other hand of the puppet strings or small terrorist networks in the region. but it's not that straightforward. there are influences and desires that marginalized shiite forces in the region and political forces in the region would like to impose or equalize and the central force behind that. so the point i'm trying to make, even -- even that complexity, it

is, we should hesitate a little bit to categorize countries like iran as purely or even primarily asking for an agenda of democratic suppression and imperial or u.s. resistance. and failed state and oppressive governments around it as well. >> let me just ask something separate from this conversation, both of you talked about during the cold war coming from countries where u.s. policy, cold war policy was imposed by an unelected leaders, by coupes and that was a huge part of the

cold war. the cold war especially in europe was something that many free democratic countries wanted the united states supportive during. and we see that with a possible conflict with china, there are things going on in china, latin america and africa and japan and south korea that want to draw closer to the united states in part because of fear of an aggressive china. and most people would say the most successful aspect of the u.s. cold war policy, i'm wondering how to separate out if we should separate it out, democrat countries who want the help of the united states from these aspects of the cold war that you guys so eloquently talked about that were so painful to your countries.

>> there is this word democracy that has been like a signal in these conversations like those countries are democracy. u.s. wanted to protect democracy against putin and this and that. and. [indiscernible] there is very complicated framework. but then, i have to make this point. can we all get real, please? right before putin attacked ukraine, zelenskyy was just a joke and now an extremely world leader. i am stunned, but he was a comedian. and his election was the opinion call of cynicism of democracy and american way of democracy.

>> he was elected with huge percentage of the votes. >> he was a comedian. >> he ran a political campaign and he was very popular. >> and people laughed and elected him. and then became an amazing leader. >> i was there. i don't think people were laughing. i mean you can have different views of what he was doing or how he ran his campaign, he had a specific set of points and appealing to a particular population, lower and middle class ukrainians and had a quins. you may not like him or think -- >> me not liking him or not. any ways, keep on with this democracy thing. you said after the cold war, europe has received help from the united states.

>> a lot of aspect for united states during the cold war. >> it came with a price. that's the thing. i think marshall plan, when marshall aid was brought to europe after the second world war and came with a political price as well. there are domestic elements in your politics and here's your much needed help. this democracy -- it's all natural that my part of the world when they hear democracy from washington, bringing democracy to the other part of the world, they are cynical. they are not trusting it anymore for various reasons. this is the last time around. i'll stop it here.

>> i don't believe in this democracy-ato being ray shy distinction. among the democracies is india. our country is becoming less democratic. and the pop you laying of india is more than the other countries in the alliance put together. if we are concerned about people link in democracies around the world and look at the effects of the current alliance, we will see the alliance against china is causing america to do the same thing that it did in the 1980's which is to pick an unsatisfiory partner. but i don't want to go to talk about democracy and i don't agree with the idea that the russia desire to establish an

umpire. i would like to focus on the united states. and the most useful thing i can do is to say that it is worth questioning for those who live here, the assumption that the united states is fundamentally benign. how did we come to this assumption? was it be nine in iraq or the original afghanistan situation? was it be nine in afghanistan and turkey? we sort of pretend america made mistakes in the past, but now we are good. we would never do a coup. that is not who we are. we have learned our lesson. the sad truth is america hasn't learned its lesson. and now that my friends are old enough to serve in government positions and i grew up with these people and i went to

princeton and harvard and i know folks are serving, you know, there is a kind of theoretical obsession that is utterly devoid which informs so much american policy and foreign policy. i have been a consultant for several years. you have these ideas and come up with better ways. and i enjoyed the experience there. and i left to become a novelist. but i know more about business advising my wife as she runs her small restaurant in pakistan than i did in my time as a consultant. the reality of things is quite different. the reason why i question whether america is denying this, because historically, they haven't been an actor but often

been well intentioned and punnedderring in ways of destroying the lives of hundreds of millions of people. this idea that i would like to have this conversation and ideas of humility. we have learned this. we know that our countries are benign and i'm skeptical of an argument that a pakistani leader presents to me. i am thinking like, i don't know if i believe this. americans are too quick to see they are benign and i would suggest that the rest of the world is not convinced. look at the world, u.n. general assembly on ukraine. the world is not persuaded -- >> they have been overwhelmingly against russia. >> the russian invasion but they

are in support of sanking russia. and there is a reason for that. and america understood that putin wanted to call the world and rebuild. people look at america and see it poking. let's poke at russia. let's poke at china and poke at whether taiwan might declare itself independent. america makes a lot of mistakes and i would think it worth while having a humble attitude that says first do know harm. let's not be so certain we are right. i'm not saying that putin or china is right. i think around the world, mad men would prefer to have

russia's putin or exmp's. when i come to america, i am baffled by the series of disasters that america has presided over and say this one will be different. >> what is a threat and what is not a threat and who is it a threat to. and to frame and uniquely threatening to the world order as democracy does that mean they are threatening fr american interests rather than. because if it is, because they

are ex pangsists. if it is because they are ideological, america has and is it because they have no democracies. america is very close. is it because they are supremacists. i'm trying to the moral and value you basis to look at these threats at cold war or no cold war and something essential and stabilizing in the world today. you will see this contradiction. america from was a vote in united nationses and when russia invaded ukraine and sanctions and money laundering laws. but you have these weird anomalies this is a lack of

interest that align with america. another america or europe, to starchtion the e.u.a. because it is a security and economic ally in that region. it is worth stepping back and sure we are all alarmed by regimes that use social media and propaganda to undermine elections and democratic enterprisees across the world. i would like to suggest that maybe these are things that we are uniquely alarmed by when theyer trespass on america. makes my original point, the

benign point. and africa as opposed to the united states. >> did you want to say something? >> there have been several things said that spark my curiosity. what is the be sign do know harm policy for the united states when russia invades ukraine? is the benign do know harm policy to say hands off, we won't do anything, or is it to help the ukrainians defend themselves? i'm a ringer here because i'm american and spent half my time in poland and i have poland citizenship in poland and in germany, sweden and finland and the baltic states. the invasion of ukraine was felt

as an immediate threat and danger and if russia wins the war and able to consolidate, there is an immediate threat to us. and we are supposedly american gule eyes. you have a number of countries that wanted for the united states to help ukraine. not to fight. hopefully we won't get to that but wanted to help. what is the benign, humble, do know harm attitude should have said hands off, you guys work it out? what are you saying? >> -- >> by the way, there is a lot of humility in the city and a lot of people who don't think we should do anything. we don't live any more where

unanimously where everybody is in favor of intervening and in support of going to war. >> for the play back, the rest of the countries and going back to america and how america is perceived. there is a lot of humility in this city would be -- >> for me the question of what should america do. >> quheas the benign policy. >> the first humble thing to do is, don't start the clock on the way that is most convenient. don't start on october 7 and say

what should they do. >> let's stick to ukraine. >> i am. i'm going to respond properly to your argument. and i would like to have two seconds. the russian invasion didn't come from nowhere. february, 2022 is not the start. leaving aside of what i might think about it and what other americans thought about it, it was the question about is the movement of nato closer and closer to the border of russia likely to make these countries and -- >> incredibly secure for 30 years. >> now the question is what

happened ukraine. let us say that america was correct in saying that rsh united states said -- no nato decision to make a member of nato. >> i met in the sense of future, future tense that one day, ukraine ought to become a member of nato, should be invited. you would agree with that? >> yes. >> now, has this policy made ukraine safer? i don't know. you might argue. if ukraine were a member of nato, it would have been safer. we would agree on that. >> i don't know. >> maybe we shouldn't --

[indiscernible] >> i think we should look at what happened. so this is all over time. i think it was a mistake to take nato up to the russian border. i don't know. let us remember to come back to this question in five years' time. let us look what has happened to ukraine. there are a million dead young ukrainian men and women and country devastated by war if let us then have the humility to say we were wrong. >> whose fault will that have been if that happens. there are two ways. the war could be fought or russia could occupy ukraine and million dead in concentration

cam presidents. >> -- camps. look at the u.s. intervention. if they tend to destroy countries with millions of dead people -- >> why is the u.s. helping ukraine defend itself? so you are blaming the u.s. what is happening to ukraine or not russia? >> i am not plameing what is happening in ukraine. from my standpoint i think it was a colossal plannedder on the part of the u.s. to push nato to the russian border. >> russian view as well. >> when you say the russian view. the simple thing of it is, people might see a different view. in my case, i do. and i'm not russian. i don't like putin and i wouldn't like to see russia rule

the world. people in the american accomplishment think it was a bad idea. what i'm saying is that if ukraine is devastated by this war, we should have to say could we have done something differently. >> just to go back to the issue of the point of timing and history. if you feel like it is a different moment now and that affects or chills american interventionism, that is not an accident or coincidence, but years and years of foreign policy blunders that have produced neither freedom or prosperity. it might be frustrating the war you came about that people have

come to that realization and sounds like. and after 20 years with the war in trier when people realize the security, military and had little idea and kind of moral context and framing was also falls. even though this war might seem justified to you for support and intervention. the logics of that cannot be separated from all the wars where the system did not work. so i sympathesize with you at this moment in time because you are against up 20 years of mistakes and saying this is the right time to intervene. that is on the very people that you are entreating or you hope will support after the tragic

and justified argument in ukraine that there is a long history to that and cannot be erased. >> we are going to do questions in a minute. and take questions from students, too. i want to ask because you both have said something i thought that was interesting and talked about how people in other areas of the world perceive the united states and perceive china. and you haven't quite said is that you yourself feel that way. you talked about, you had a phrase, when people in the united states comes to poking the pore and how china was perceived in africa and was framed positively and neither of you said this is my take. you talked about perception and i'm curious, is there a distinct shon there, what is it?

>> perception is important, whether it's my perception not important -- >> well, you're on the panel. >> i'll give you my perception of other peoples' perception. that's how you mobilize and create blocs of alliances. one of the notable things after the russian invasion of ukraine is that african countries were not evenly marshaled to vote against the war and apart from 3, 4, american allies and israeli allies about the israel-dpazza war, it became clear that america's inability to create goodwill and forge connections and do that my some sinister means, my mercenaries,

by gold and minerals trade has much more stockpile and relationship with these countries. whatever you may think of tay, that has an effect. and these countries do not vote and give you the moral packing. when we are talking and back to this point, there is a global opinion, there is global proof of opinions that not give you arguments moral values but to give them the backing that allows you to mobilize huge amounts of money. and that is less.

>> the biggest harm that american foreign policy has put on humankind, i should say. thanks to what happens since especially, loss of face thanks to the interventionist policies of the united states, i don't know if you remember, i'm old enough to remember -- i was one of the spokes persons in turkey and the entire world. >> and then suddenly, the bombardment started and then all

those people, it's a generation of people actually, if you look at it from a certain perspective, a generation of people looked at the united nationses -- [indiscernible] what happened there? this is after the cold war, there was no cold war then. what happened there snrp what happened was since the second world war put together a system and this and that, more just, more law abiding. and then humanities, all that work suddenly, you know and then it's gone. this actually broke people. now you are talking about

ukraine jeremy and i were in athens and did the declaration right after russia started the war and said we want peace, so on and so forth. and that was a joke. and -- [indiscernible. >> how did it come to this? how did we come from entire world going on to the streets wanting peace to this situation where there was -- i don't know if you remember, there was nobody almost saying or let's make peace. everybody who was supposed to say no to war were actually siding with u.s. policy mainly

and saying let's kill putin and kill more russian soldiers, so on, so forth. what the cold war did the world i find it interesting -- inspiring and important what american people in american youth is doing today. what they are doing is actually wanting peace for everybody and dignity for everybody. it is better to listen to them rather than talking about this power.

>> i think it's not very hard to say, there is the economic rivalry is clear and we don't have to get into the details of it. until very recently, there was an ideological rivalry and u.s. and china saw many ways to collaborate. president xi came pooh into power in 2013 talked about the

perils facing the communist party and that is constitutional democracy and media freedom. >> particular ideas that he thought were a challenge to the chinese communist party. and so his rise and his replacing of the previous chinese has created more conflict than in the past. i don't think it's hard to say both are important and depends on which day of the week and which argument we are talking about. >> and chinese and diplomatic what are the implications?

>> so one of the things that has become clear not just china but russia as well is that there is -- there are huge mineral and agricultural resources in africa that can be used to basically hedge against global sanctions and global isolations and if you are going to take it in terms of calculations, it is a misstep on the part of america and too late to exercise now to see africa as a place. [indiscernible] >> as a place that is a security and and in the west.

and all broadly divested from the east -- [inerm] there has been a retrenchment. and in that time, a real expansion on the part of china and russia in countries that become huge assets particularly to russia at the moment in terms of offering economic support and physical areas for russian money to be stored and for actual members of the vardner group to be housed. and the chinese -- essentially have the same empowering element to it which is it is a place that china can make a lot of money and make lots of money to

the elite in these countries. china is like a mom and pop shot. huge highway infrastructure, dams that are linked to military and political elites in these countries that make the alliances far more crucial to their own state than it would be for other countries. whatever it looks like. political elites and countries where china has large investments and much more likely to go with the country that literally has built very expressly and still paying loans or paying off the loans to in a country for whom you are a closest relationship is the military base down the road. >> i want to turn on is to some

more questions here. how do you think the u.s. should have acted when there is a substantial civil society movement like in iran asking for support or just the perception of the west and how can civil society in these countries? >> again, my sense is that i would prefer that america did much less. in pakistan, for example, the cause of democracy and has been enormously set back i think by america's engagement with pakistan. my own sense, i spent the 1970's in california. i went to a public school. my father was a professor and

doing his p hmp d. the public school was so much better than the best private school that it bothered the mosque. i couldn't write. and this kid was doing gibberish. they figured my handwriting was poor and put me in a separate room. this is in the 1970's. this is block print. if i hadn't had that intervention, i wowbt be a novelist today. i tell you this story because the good public schools in california today are not better than the best schools in pakistan. my parents, my dad graduated and my mom commuted to a job in redwood city and yet, we lived

quite an op you lent life. parks and weekends -- we never seemed to want for money. my mother's colleagues, entry level person at a tech company that made audio cassettes and that was high tech of the era. she bought a house. now in the bay area. now i suppose where i am going with this, america's intervention are not costly for america. my own attachment to this country is i think america needs to focus on the united states. and in fact, these spr vengeses are disastrous and sometimes they are not and very complicated. the net result of united states' foreign policy focus has been the impoverishment of large

parts of america. when you say you are an isolationist. if america were to conduct itself like every other country would conduct itself and concerned about itself, that's is layingsist. that is how countries are. the large country that is most not like that is the united states. a lot of these interventions, we don't know if you are going to be good for ill. it is made for the best of intentions. why america went into iraq, ukraine. i wouldn't say they are bad intentions but disas throws. but take those resources and put them into this country, america would be a more powerful force in the world because it would have an empowered working class.

and the last thing i will say, when i went to law school, i wasn't a u.s. citizen and had to have my loans co-signed by an american. my dad didn't blimpg from his california. he co-signed 100,000 law school loans in the 1990's. like my dad in -- we didn't go to vietnam. he volunteered to search and later thought the war was a mistake. he drove me down to stanford and talked about how it was so strange tay a war was happening right now and iraq was underway and nothing is going on, there is no protests, america is at war and doesn't affect anybody. but it did affect people. it affected the families of the

servicemembers who went and fought in iraq. leaving aside the foreigners who lost friends, who suffered unbelieving trauma and came back and asked why did he fight those wars, he said the elite has no foreign interests, they don't care about that, we reject this, which gave rise to a political movement that we are seeing now today which manifested in the trump phenomenon. if we don't know how successful these interventions are and we have a choice of putting these resources into the american people, i would say put it in the american people. america will be a much more powerful source in the world. >> i'm reading between the lines. i thought the question was asking in part, not so much about military interventions but how the united states should rhetorical or otherwise support

the women's movement in iran. and it seems like what you were saying, perhaps two things, one that the united states tends to get involved on the wrong side of these things and perhaps not get involved in any way at all, which is fine, reasonable answer. but my question, which someone else could maybe take -- >> coming from turkey, when america supports those things and then within the domestic context, it becomes wow, there is america behind this. that's a problematic situation for the people on the ground. but, then, there's the other side of the coin. because actually nice for you guys, in 2013, big uprising in turk endered wan --ered juan. it was a revolutionary movement

and so on. you know what. i remember cnn starting live broadcasting, that was like, wow! -- indiscernible] not only united states show us, but united states is now amplifying the word to the rest of the world. and i see the beauty behind this question. that's why i'm answering in this way. if people of america want to support the people of the world, they just have to look at them and make them see, that's it. there is like nothing else.

>> how might a second trump presidency affect our relationship with china going forward? >> it is a difficult question to answer, because trump clearly admires president xi and admires autocracy and there was a comment of him saying oh, you know, when he says jump, a million people jump, i can't remember the exact quote and i would like it if my people would do, something classic like that. i can imdpin a world in which he would seek to do personal deals with china in which he would hope that business people around him who support him have special relationships with china and he is a transactional person, which really none of the -- no values that bother him, none of the

eyedology that bothers people is attached to him at all, so he might well seek relationships with china that would be financially and otherwise advantageous to him and his friends. if on the other hand, he saw that it was useful for him politically to be antichina and create a popular movement in the united states against china, if that language and rhetoric would be politically helpful to him, then i can imagine him taking that route as well as he has done in the past. in the case of trump, it's not a question of ideology, values or politics, it's a question what in the given moment what is good for him and that would be his policy. we know already the chinese -- they are messaging against him.

but he doesn't represent a a kind of a well thought out political view in which -- and we can see what would happen down the line. it will depend on what he sides is good for him. >> what is a book recommendation each of you would make for students or policy patriotickers who are interested in u.s. foreign policy? think about that for a couple of minutes if you want and get back to it. but, i want to ask another question looking at these questions, to what degree in the united states is seen as this earthquake and obviously it was around the world, but to what extent do you think in terms the way the united states is viewed from the three of you have offered up the way the united states is viewed in the world is

negative predating trump. is there a prospect of trump coming back in four years and american policy rick shaying. is that the way the u.s. is viewed? >> less trump and more gaza. it feels to me something quite material has happened in the past six months and i think this is what people expected the trumpet shy and dpazza achieved this. and i'm speaking very boldly and middle east and north africa. before israel-gaza, american policy is interested and at best evil but always coherent. always coherent and coordinated and always intelligent. when things went wrong, it was

unintended consequence and plannedder of a mighty force that miscalculated. after gaza and hasn't helped as a president such as joe biden at the helm and inability to come to grips with the crisis, after gaza, america does not know what it is doing which is far more dangerous, i think, because you can respect an person that you disagree with you, but has a huge amount of intelligence, whatever that intelligence is. but after gaza, it is seen as inherently contradictory, unable to pursue the main thing that american foreign policy differentiating -- which is the desire to create stability, security and peace.

hasn't been able to deliver peace or security and not marshall its ally israel to a peaceful resolution. and it has not been able even to articulate a koa herpt moral framing to what is happening. so the perception has changed to one of the grudging, not respect, but understanding the powerful country and understands what it needs to do to maintain its power and you have so much power that there is something crumb pling about it and last days about it all. because the logic of this power is not holding in this particular instance. there is a disrespect and mockery and emperor's new clothes that i'm seeing in the middle east. >> the big puppet.

>> netanyahu is playing the puppets. this is the general perception. he is telling them what to do. this is a perception for sure in turkey. >> it is incredible. i would agree with what you said. nothing has been quite like this. the idea that some countries are the recipient of so much usaid and seem to have so much power that in fact, the president or prime minister, in this case, of a foreign country can be invited to address the u.s. congress in opposition to the president of the united states of america is utterly baffling. >> this was during the obama administration. moshin: yeah, and we talk about it happening again. i think the u.s.-israel

relationship, particularly on the issue of gaza, it seems that it is so detrimental to the u.s. , and yet the u.s. is so helpless. biden is unable to do anything to figure out the american interest, but might america do. we are old enough that we remember, i think it was 1982, when reagan threatened to cut off the supply of weapons to israel over the shelling of beirut. but biden is secretly getting to thousand pound bombs to israel around congress and people are resigning at the state department. it conveys the impression of a state of profound corruption, moral corruption, societal corruption. you can say that none of this is an americas -- that all of this is in america's interest, america should be doing this,

but without taking sides on where you think the israeli-palestine conflict should land, but in the massacre we have been seeing for the last several months, i think this has really turned people off the united states, not just in terms of it being the right policy, but in the idea that the u.s. government perhaps does not really represent the will of the people or even have the capacity to act in your self-interest. >> it does not know what it is doing. that is the most important thing. it has lost its faculties. there is a sliding scale of justification. there is ideological, moral, and just practical, that america is a powerful country that at the end of the day works to stabilize itself, its allies, and the global political system. in other areas it does not, but broadly it is a stabilizing factor. the fact that it has been unable to bring that kind of stability and security while also allowing

-- this has been so damaging -- while allowing the israeli authorities to speak to america and to the icj and to the global human rights community in such a manner, that i think the last time i heard that language spoken was by the iraqi defense minister in the invasion of iran. you are going to let them talk to you like that? that has been not just detrimental to have america is perceived as a stabilizing force, but to a broader global justice system and a global language and rhetoric of international values and principles that is, i think, far more dangerous than what is happening to america. there are always these agitating forces that we started this conversation with. this is their currency. this is what they do. this is the threat that they seem to pose as they undermine that very fragile kind of

post-world war ii system of checks and balances and democracy and morality and international law. and you have a central ally of the u.s. doing so and doing it brazenly and insultingly and not only receiving no censure but lots of support. if there is a cold war situation, the threat of a cold war or a group of countries in the ascendance, it is because there are inherent contradictions in how america treats its allies that mean that they have more ability, more grounds, more traction to be able to do that because of americans' inconsistency. >> can i ask you a question about the sandwiches? you and your first answer talked about these two groupings of countries. >> that is exactly what i was not saying. >> not about china, but you talked about autocracies joining together. >> well, and the network extends

into other places as well. >> exactly. maybe group is the wrong word. many of those countries that you mentioned have sort of taken the opposite position on gaza than they have taken on ukraine, and rhetorically have tried use that against the u.s. and its allies to say, essentially, we are standing up for human rights, so on and so forth, while the u.s. and its allies have not. i am curious what you made of that, and if you think that complicates the picture in some way or that there is some sort of baselevel cynicism. how do you view it? >> base level of cynicism. >> there is clearly cynicism there, but -- >> i just had a conversation last week with a china expert who writes a lot about china. he just wrote a book about chinese media in africa. he was in china around the time

of october 7, and he said china's attitude to the middle east was always kind of hands off, we don't really get involved, don't take sides. we do deals here but do not get involved. he said there was an instant kind of 180 degree turn, the expression he used, to sort of, ok, weekend use this -- we can use this and make sense of it. isaac: let's say it is a given that xi jinping and vladimir putin do not care about human rights in gaza or anywhere. but does it concern you that our policy is allowing them to use this to their advantage? nesrine: of course -- anne: of course. it is a disaster. isaac: simple answer. >> [inaudible] isaac: i think we are not allowed to do that, but you can write one down.

>> [indiscernible] the united states is better than -- [indiscernible]

i'm curious to hear your point of view about why it is you don't believe that perhaps the united states should try to salvage his version of liberalism and democracy abroad, and if you could explain that. thank you. isaac: go for it. ece: it is like, either you take this or you die, that's bad. my country has been through two military coups. i was born after one military coup, and then when i was eight, there was another military coup.

both of them were supported by the u.s. and this is documented, not my opinion. so many people died, and my mother was, before being my mother, she was in prison because she -- and my father rescued her and they were married. so i come from that kind of background. it is not only turkey. the united states unfortunately, not as a country, not as its people, but it's government, applied this policy. they wanted less communism so they made more political islam. they wanted less socialists, so they woman more dictatorships. -- they wanted more dictatorships. the middle east may be far away, but it is happening in north america as well. many people died.

it was a painful history for us. it's just that you don't know that history as much as we do. you have not lived that history as much as we do. that is the painful part of the divide of our story. i wish we could have told more and i wish you could have listened more. yeah, this is the story behind my reaction, or my assessment. isaac: i think we are going to have to end there. in a couple minutes, they are going to stick around for reflections on the festival itself, but before we go, did anyone, to answer -- did anyone, up with -- anyone come up with an answer for recommendations for students? >> it was a book from camp david, essential to me to humanize and all sides, u.s.

intentions, israeli intentions, and palestinian intentions. i don't think that will happen today, but there is a good reminder that it is possible today. "14 days of september," lawrence wright. anne: -- ece: "broken promises: cold war" is an amazing book. moshin: i would suggest "beloved " by toni morrison. what is incredible about that book is it looks at the horrific history of slavery, which took place in a democracy, the united states, and reveals the absolutely inspiring capacity that can exist in your society to confront mistakes, to be self-critical, and to produce

truly transformative insights from that process. i think that kind of radical self-criticism and inspiration is really what i would most like to see. nesrine: i wrote a novel about this, the 19th -- ece: i read a novel about this, the 1980 military coup in turkey. it was published in the united states. i recommend that as well. anne: i am tempted to recommend my own book being published in july. it is called "autocracy, inc.." it describes the frame that i was weakly trying to explain. in addition to that, i would see a great book if you want to understand how russia sees the world, but also how other dictatorships do. read it nothing is true but everything is possible.

isaac: nesrine and ece, thank you so much, so glad we did this, and thank you, everyone, for coming to this festival. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> it has been a long and wonderful afternoon. some folks have to leave, but we are delighted that some of you can stick around for about 10 minutes of reflections, not just on this afternoon, but on the incredible week we have together. my name is tom. i am vice president for global engagement here at georgetown. i am a coke convene or -- co -convener of the dialogues, along with my partner who is going to say a few words. neserine, you just heard her beautiful reflections, she is going to weigh in on the dialogues and where we are now. we see this as a process.

it began a year ago as an idea. a lot has happened in the world. that idea was to enrich the dialogue here on campus and in washington, d.c., by bringing leading intellectuals from around the world, from the global south, to reflect with us in a spirit of cultural encounter on the challenges facing humanity. we have seen it as the beginning of something. i wonder what your reflections are about where we are now in this process. >> thank you. it is hard to encapsulate in a couple of minutes, but it occurred to me just today, listening to the panels this afternoon, again, sort of confirming and intuition i've had that, certainly everyone agrees that this is

unprecedented, and we are looking at what i would describe as sort of a de-americanization of intellectual life. what do i mean? i think the whole idea behind this global dialogue is very simply to bring some intellectual trends, some inflection movements occurring outside the united states. sometimes there is some overlap with the united states, but occurring, and mostly intellectual movements like communism, the ideas you offered, that are not usually heard in the mainstream and people recoil from them because they carry the very threatening word "communism," but as you explained, there is much more to it than we might think.

the idea was to bring these sort of unfamiliar notions, unfamiliar movements and trends, and obviously this is a project that started in many ways a long time ago in the early 20th century with the anti-colonial movements who were pushing back against certain monopolization of knowledge. let's not forget the anti-colonial movement was a movement for political self-determination but also for a new way to think about political arrangements, economic arrangements. for various reasons, too many to go into, that never quite took off. intellectual endeavor came to be concentrated in this country and in western europe, and these are

extremely wealthy countries, to build massive infrastructures, think tanks, departments. the so-called third world would never truly match the enormous investment made in this country in ideas, in policy frameworks and ideologies. today we are looking at the end of that moment, and those ideologies increasingly look dysfunctional on the defunct, unworkable, undesirable. -- dysfunctional, defunct, unworkable, undesirable. but i think those of us in the global south and claim we are ready to offer new ideas and solutions. that movement came in the early 20th century. we do not have leaders who are involved in the anticolonial movement and had actual experience of what it is like to

live in a world made by imperialism. we are looking at autocratic leaders in various parts of the world. many of us from the global south are actually homeless in an odd way. the intelligentsias are homeless. in this country, not only the political classes, but also increasingly refined at universities, a certain kind of authoritarian tendencies taking over. an economics professor can be dragged away. he saw that yesterday. there is kind of a wider assault on intellectual life, on intellectuals in general. perhaps a venture like that is a new attempt to find a new home for the homeless intellectuals, for the homeless thinkers, you know? anyway, i will stop there and

ask nesrine. nesrine: i am going to talk about my experience. i don't have such eloquence to talk about the history of the intellectual movements we are in, but i can talk about the history of the past five days. when i began talking about this a few months ago, i imagined it as it was described, a conversation, a dialogue. it is something i have done before, and i had -- i knew it was going to be different just because of the people involved, and because of -- but i assumed it to be a different generation of the kind of conversations in dialogues and debates i have had with people in the past that tend to be, if not hostile, at least adversarial, that at least we are on two sides of the argument and we are trying to win by making the best case for

our argument. what i have found in a revelation for the past five days is that, number one, not a surprise, that that motive dialogue is not useful to try and debate and make your case to win over a small audience. but also there are ways of having dialogue that make you feel not only seen and welcomed, but heard. this is how i felt over the past five days. i have felt heard. the way i have felt heard is not because people listened, which they did, but because they asked questions that showed that they were listening. i honestly do not think i have ever had that before. i have never had that experience before. when you come to people with a different perspective, the incentive that they have is to

kind of try to reassert their own perspective as opposed to yours and try to dismiss it and interrogate it. here there was none of that, just active listening and lots of questioning. and as a kind of foil to that, the highlight of my time here, which were the student workshops and student lunches, the foil for that kind of active listening, to use a cheesy psychotherapy quote, the foil for that active listening was the student since of urgency. it felt like we had been saying this repetitively over the past five days, but that this is a moment, it feels like a moment, feels like the end of something in the start of something else. and they came to us with a huge amount of anxiety, of uncertainty, of understanding that some of this was ending and they were the generation that

was going to go out in the world and start this new thing. they had no idea to go about it. it was not about foreign policy, the housing market, the job market, and broadly a whole model that is delivering less and less. they were looking for ways to build that model, scope out that model, trying to figure out what that could be. in the background, we were having these dialogues and conversations, and it felt to me like the start of trying to figure out that new model, not just for them, but globally, because we are not coming with the answers either. it felt like the kind of, the beginning of a model building exercise and that kind of meeting of urgency, understanding of the importance of this moment, and as a foil to that, the kind of earnest active listening to what other people have to say, so i am grateful for that. >> thanks, nesrine.

thank you for sharing your impressions. we have tried to do different things this week. the conversation you just witnessed did have points of tension, which was good, but there are not just efforts to look beyond, to listen on all sides, so i think there is a model, a model in progress that we can build on. also, the united states, we have seen, that this country is in the necessity of learning to listen to and learn from other thinkers, other cultures and countries. that is a theme i think we have built on successfully. but i also want to, in conclusion, mention another goal

we had which is to bring together six really fascinating people that we can learn from and who can learn from one another as well as enriching the dialogue. nesrine, veronica, ece, and moshin, we are grateful that you spent a whole week here. you are still going strong. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] just a quick acknowledgment that this has been a team effort on different levels, different schools and programs such as -- different parts of this have sponsored. that is all in the program. we had the new york review of books, a media partner, and the laboratory for global performance and politics. derek and his team have done a wonderful job with the dramatic

interludes, which have illustrated the points we are trying to make in a more discursive fashion. thank you to all of you. i especially in closing want to thank my mama couple team at the berkeley center and in my office for global engagement here at georgetown. you can only imagine the amount of work that has gone into this, the beautiful website, the events themselves, all the guests we have brought here. it has been a great experience. want to mention them by name. will, lauren, mary, julia, and especially, i want to call out our infant's coordinator, emma jean johnson and amy vanderfleet. please give them a round of applause. [applause]

what do you think, a final word to stay tuned? stay tuned and thank you for sharing the dialogues with us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today, watching c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discuss what the candidates across the country are saying to voters, along with first-hand

accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watching c-span's 2024 campaign trail, today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. announcer: a bipartisan policy center recently hosted a discussion on artificial intelligence and the potential risk it could pose for political campaigns, voters, and election officials. watch the full discussion tonight at 10:35 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. announcer: book tv. every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors