asia you would laugh. why did that happen? it happened because south korea was a fundamental interest to the united states. the united states had to make certain of the viability of south korea and south korea benefited royally from that relationship. another example is israel there was no intrinsic reason why israel would have emerged as anything but the economic basket case save of the economic transfer the united states chose to make and these are accepting the obvious cases of germany and japan strategic relationships of the united states, not poverty relationships but places where the united states badly needs a country transforms the economy protectively with a capable workforce which the polls have. and especially when you were sandwiched between two

countries they will cooperate and for whom you have no great love progressed a poll by the prefer a russian or a german they will say an american. [laughter] the last time it was a french they prefer anyone and it is not clear that germany is prepared to participate in competition with russia that it is in a position to do so it is certainly not clear russian interest will go hand in hand and therefore the united states either concedes the possibility of a german russian alliance which would have geopolitical implications of the united states that would be substantial, or the united states has a relationship with poland clearly it was the purpose of the bush and administration to have the relationship now the obama administration is reconsidering its whether or not there is a missile defense

system is an inconsequential but poland is a critical country. my view of middle of the century is that a set of new powers will be merged. that is not exciting news broke of new powers always emerge. my reason for japan why shouldn't the second largest economy? my reason for turkey is considered how you bring order to the middle east it will not be the united states. and one country has a vested interest to stabilize it and the power to do so. that is turkey and poland is simply a store called and geographical accidents where russia meets the west and therefore the place where the americans will play the game they play the best which is technology transfer and kickstart the necessary economies. the united states power will grow continually since 1870

the single most important factor of the world has been the continual growth of american power measured in every way from where it was in 1870 mischa's earned two today is an extraordinary story. when you sit down and grasp the economic growth during this period it is interesting those in the great depression is a ball, not a major event. from the point* of view of 100 years, things that are enormously significant such as the spanish-american war, really are not and you should have read about that it was in all of the papers, elections ran around it, it was a driving issue. things come and passed away and some things are permanent i have tried to look for what is permanent. for me is the shift in the demographics system, the rise of american power and i finally would point* out the united states has a population

density of a 34 people per square kilometer japan has a population density 365, germany density 285 people, the old world is highly intensely populated. the united states is relatively unpopulated and in a world of declining populations, the united nations -- denies states knows how to live in a continent with relatively few people and how to welcome immigrants very effectively. this is not a argument we are more virtuous than anybody that we are smarter than anybody it is simply a geographical fact we are in the right place at the right time. and it is an attempt to put things into perspective things that looked absolutely horrendous right now want to look so horrendous and five

years. to check that out go back 21978/to 79 the last time we thought the world was sending. let me stop there and i invite questions [applause] >> i read how the world works today and how that defines how it will work in the future of like to open up to questions and i just ask that you identify yourself. >> please wait until the microphone comes to you. >> professor huntington cannot within influential article in the early 90's where he essentially argued that now that the east-west conflict was over , now the ideological conflict between communism and capitalism had evaded the new way we were to look at the world is friction across

civilization, cultures, outlin ed a number of different civilizations had argued that would essentially be the straw busters the international drink. others argued that no comment economic frictions would be more important to understand how the world was ordered. what you to comment on the huntington thesis in terms what will drive these countries and what will be the dominant motivation and international affairs over the next 20 or 30 years? >> i disagree. i admire him but when you talk about islamic civilization, you can talk about it as a single entity but you have to draw distinctions between sunni and shiite, arab and non-arab, a secular and religious, varieties of religions and so on and so forth. when i look at the islamic world, i think of egypt, syria, iran, i think in

terms of nation states. and i think in terms of the competition between for example, egypt and syria. for egypt and iran. my answer is economics to that question does not exist. i can imagine the american economy without american politics. certainly today when the federal reserve is getting into the game. societies, you can divide academic departments very nicely comic economic departments don't talk to political science departments but in real life if you are a bigger you had better be aware of politics you might want to keep military in mind that might affect you as well so the idea of the privacy of economics is a freestanding yves fined, it is unpersuasive

to me because i have never seen economics freestanding. the adl of civilizations is persuasive until you drill down to the next level grimness civilizations is often to competing entities and in a country can manipulate the difference is very effectively. for an example the nine states is closely aligned with egypt some two say to the united states it is standing in friction with the islamic world, when the united states has an extremely close relationship with turkey, egypt, and so on, and these are major countries, it is very hard to really recognize the world functioning. i regard the basic engine of the international system what it has been since the 18th century and in a certain sense a long time, a nation state

and for reasons we cannot go into remains the driver and in order to understand the next century i think traditional methods have to be used which is what i tried to do. >> thank you. one or two points first about power procure definition of power and soft power. the professor that wrote the book of that title has a totally different version than what you said produce it if you hold it behind your back but you don't use it he actually talks about persuasion and so one dealing with the country's without trying to impose our way. then there is the question if this will be america's century are other people has said we live in the multi polar world

or a nonpolar world not so much whether china or japan or poland or turkey, but whether we can work and a cooperative world because most of the issues we're dealing with are not power issues along the lines of what you said what but things like climate change come it environmental catastrophe, migration, i have other thoughts but i wanted to capture my question about the service in that way. >> i of course, no the professor's view. my view is shaped in the bronx and we had is saying you can get more with a smile and a gun than a smile alone o. [laughter] when someone tries to persuade me my question is why should i listen to you? the answer is because i'm enormously virtuous or smart and if you listen to we would

be better off. but i find in running a business, it is more persuasive. i tend to disagree vehemently with the professors of view. the idea that cooperation takes place in the world is of course, true and take a look at the period where british power was a enormous there were also cooperating on the macro level the power was tremendous but that does not mean they did not have alliances come a managed relationships to create mutual benefits. said choice is not between power and cooperation, the to coexist. the question is what is the shaping force? so speaking of climate change is a perfect example. until the united states chooses to participate in that climate change because it

produces 26% of the gdp conversations that people have are fairly meaningless. it will not happen. it may be that belgium agrees to something and it may be that singapore believes in something but it really is the united states that has to be persuaded. so there certainly is a matter of international cooperation but the question to ask this and who is dispensable and who is indispensable? the argument i make in the 19th century when you talk about the concert of europe, some countries were dispensable, the serbs and some really had to take into account which we happen to be in that position out. my view is traditional or less imaginative. >> you have described the fortuitous situation of

america is geographic position and the industrial power but much of a country's stature in the world depends on what goes on inside of that country, the internal psychology, said demographics, economic growth. could you address those kinds of questions with respect to the united states in the next century? >> in my book i talk about american culture and guide describes three states of culture, barbarism of the belief that the laws of the village or the universe that this nola -- b.v. been deeply and some think that is open to the possibility that happened in europe in the 18th century and it was the unstable concept that blew itself apart to places. i would not even regard

america as a barbaric country. we are an extraordinarily on culture and to understand united states is to understand a 15 year-old program ranges from dramatic hubris and believe that everything is possible to total despair and suicide a conviction that nothing is possible and i have completely failed. and between raising taxes to ever had a 15 year-old you will recognize it. [laughter] there are two things to say which is that when travel the world there was a conviction the americans were barrick imperialists a conviction that the americans had completely bubble the world because the parochial lack of understanding and that in fact, they would recover, 1975. so when i traveled in europe and the rest the constant

conviction, insistence and belief about the insufficiency of american culture and everything else i will say profoundly that i think americans know you're up much better on the whole than europeans no american some of the things europeans think about america it is funny but there is a single truce to be said. we are an amateur century, way too big and much too clumsy, way too emotional, too sure of ourselves, to the press, and is very difficult to get the measure of this country at this point* in time and i think the 21st century will be a period for american culture begins to mature and reached a point* where it has both the baird barbaric self-confidence bubblies has a sense of perspective because one thing to be said about the

united states is the lack of perspective how many times this century we believe it is over for us and how many times we believed we could do anything we wanted in the world. so i don't see any solution except growing up and i doubt my book contributes anything to that but if it does, that would be nice. >> one country you have not mentioned is india. could you tell us what you think where they will be? >> nds problem is not one country it is a group of countries driven together buy the british with a central government but with the tremendous power still bested in the states and state your rockers days and the states have unique ideologies, some of which are very open and

some violently oppose. doing business in india is extraordinarily difficult part of the bureaucracy is not an efficient it is set up and various states to limit investment and so on. we don't see the forces inside of india that will change the basic dynamic so we see where the chinese central committee in 1975 put in motion a set of national decisions as to what was going to happen, there is no central authority in india to do that and therefore while superficially given the size and everything else one would say the chinese should be replicated by indians they have self limiting factors that will prevent that. that is not to say they are not to growing however there are structural limits how

quickly they can grow, land use issues availability of labor to a bunch of other issues, if india it is a country where the armed forces will be the most capable it is run by the central government has the fragmentation of the economy is severe therefore we don't look at india as a country without a massive revolution that i don't foresee and yet emerging. >> . >> thank you for a most provocative and fascinating analysis which has woken up a lot of us. this one area you have not had a chance to touch upon which is the question of energy.

we say we have a crisis with oil and there are many people who are trying to find alternatives the sources of energy had we have a long-term perspective? >> clearly the hydrocarbon issue is over. it will die a slow death and likely see in tax -- texas i think it guest $1.50 a gallon but it is over. the nuclear power which it is extremely expensive to invest in and it is hard to do with the fluctuation of cost takes a long time to bring on line wind power, is the power they are varieties of solar power the land based solar power has built in any efficiency the three are light come macleod's, and most importantly the space in which land based solar collectors

have to be putting and so if you ever calculate the current technology triple the value, it triples nevada to the power of the united states you may be willing to gamble that. [laughter] but the point* is the environmentally fact of land based solar energy is massive four land-use and damaging the environment. but solar energy is necessary for the place where i think it will go by the middle of the century is in space because in space you have a lot of room. you don't have a night and you don't have clouds. also have robust military programs on the part of it states for developing spaceless capacity and one of the interesting things a major social advance is how much it was driven by military consideration from the internet which begins as a

military project to the interstate highway system which is conceived of as a way to get troops from one side to the other to the airline industry which is really driven by the u.s. army some of the greatest innovation of the time is funded and underwritten for military use and everybody has wondered what we will do in space, a columbus looked and went home and what do i do next? the answer in space is it has one thing that is of extraordinary importance, energy, unlimited, how do get it to the face of fierce? you used to technologies, one that you literally drop a cable to the face of the earth or you use microwave radiation to ground collectors unless you think i am not totally insane this is a massive project that is under way nasa

is funding the space solar energy project which is under way and there is nothing of what i have said technologically that is break through. these are known technologies'. of the primary issue of how to underwrite the cost and one way to doing it is dropping the cost which is why jeff is doing this. he is the head of virgin airlines, they are all in this field and they say it is tourism. come on. you know, what you are doing it for drop space lift costs and you can be saudi arabia and that is what they are looking at. my expectation is one, the pressure on an ecology will decline as there are fewer humans, not quickly but that is one of the things but secondly the technological fix will come in the context of

u.s. control of space which the u.s. will happily jump into because it will also put this in a position of making germany dependent on us instead of the russians which will be very nice and also dropped the price of fuel here. there is a lot of advantage to that technology and for those of us who did not imagine the pc, this is not as radical that is where i think we will go. >> none of the three countries that you highlight is a member of the security council and i was just wondering how or where the united nations might bring it into the version of the next hundred years or does it fit price of a united nations will remain what it is. the largest invested ngo and the road when everyone agrees it should come in they will come in vocationally it will facilitate but it is a

discussion of soft power the power of persuasion is secondary i have no idea institutionally or whether anybody will organize the security council, i suppose they should but i guess my view of the united nations is that it is a useful tool within that general complex or competition or cooperation between nations. it is a facilitator. >> the last question? >> thank you so much. i represent rotary international with the united nations now why know why we have so many rotarians in the countries that you mentioned pricing to our right.

i was in the navy and fought in the pacific and atlantic i am also a graduate of unable for college and never heard alfred articulate it as well as you have. >> thank you. you noticed? [laughter] >> our navy guided israel start with the barbary pirates not only that it was the first time and ever since then we have been involved with the middle east. so through every single president has been a president of the united states, my question is a sea change that is possible in the next century, you did mention partly because of some of the things that john hirsch mentioned. i think the

self-determination, will sony and self-determination is coming to a total end. i think the reverse is starting to happen and that nation's will be larger by becoming bigger than their neighbors and joining forces with their neighbors. one of the areas that i see a possibility, i hope, a possibility is in the middle east and to me, an article recently by khaddafi was a very interesting article with the idea that more and more there will be one and not two separate states in the middle east this could be a sea change that is cummins. >> when the israelis and palestinians say khaddafi would be more interested if he

is suggested egypt but he left that out. [laughter] there is a great experiment with multinational as of, one form of quote nationalism was the imperial the other four was the alliance model now we're watching whether a group of 10 2/7 director at war with each other can for themselves into a multinational state. and so far what we have seen the europeans do is reach the point* that some of them have agreed in the common currency, none of them have agreed with the common economic policy nine and have agreed to the common currency others have not agreed to be members of nato, we are in a transition period. will sony and amalgamation which think the europeans are trying to do hangs in the balance and i think the latest

economic crisis and the decisions of the europeans to go with solutions rather than a single integrated multinational solution was a break point* in history this was the test if they could say we will leave national sovereignty issues aside and money will flow across borders, others will join us that are not part of the eurozone now. what i have seen in nato is a reassertion of nationalism provide don't think the answer is there yet. we will see how it will unfold but i feel fairly pessimistic about the possible the if the europeans can do what i don't think the israelis or palestinians will pull off but i do thank you for noticing alfred because in fact,, the

unstated father of what i am talking about is if you don't know, they the greatest strategist in american history and in many ways the founder of the american grand strategy certainly with the war college. >> with that no of light to thank you to go off the beaten track and of like to remind you george friedman book is available for purchase. thank you very much [applause] [inaudible conversations] george friedman founder and ceo of the stratfor a private intelligence and forecasting company and the author of "america's secret war". for more information visit stratfor with.com . .