president of the world bank was one. in dealing with china and other countries as to what we shall ask countries to be responsible stakeholders in a rule based international economy. that is close to the theme of bruce's paper. here is the exception that is most curious in terms of motivation and the fact that will probably fade and that is a lot of cheap backing of other countries. we make the point in our paper that every country on the planet with two exceptions has to hope and pray it is never mentioned during american presidential campaigns because it will be bad. the exceptions are israel and great britain. china has come up a lot. russia has come up a lot. mitt romney has for some reason decided to declare russia the number one strategic threat to the united states.

that sounds very yesteryear i must say. we will have other panels talk about russia but i don't think anyone will buy on to that proposition and as for china, we all know that china is an easy target in some ways, but we have already mentioned people -- the wise heads of the republican party. i can assure you just read henry kissinger's latest book on china and candidate mitt romney will get a lot of advice between now and when it gets anywhere near the convention not to mention the white house to go easy on china. one reason i am puzzled by it is that will not win an election. it is the economy. >> you want to pick up on this? >> there are a lot of things about the nature of the challenge that we face. i start with the point that the economy is more dependent on the global economy than in the past

and the collective action challenge homi talked about is real. i differ when i look at successful administrations. the republicans run as if american power unfettered from multilateral institutions is the way to run the world. they enter office and try that out, it fails and they work in the mainstream of the institution. democrats run against that, say they will work in multilateralism and try that and it fails so they -- biggest foreign policy says obama has is unilateral military killing of a terrorists. probably a violation of international law. the bush administration came into office with 20,000 u.s. peacekeepers in the world and left office with 100,000 u.n. peacekeepers in the world. security council agreement on proliferation is a hugely expanded under the bush should ministration. this issue of tension between unilateral power on the one hand and multilateral engagement is a

constant in american foreign policy and shifts within the administration. the second point worth picking up is knit together a new alliances. one thing that is interesting and watching obama is if you go back to 2008 it was absolutely evident that he would be the much better president than mccain to knit together the new alliances with turkey and brazil and india and china and that has proven harder than we thought it was going to be. these are independent powers with their own interests. they won't simply follow american dictates. there are places where there a interests aligned with ours and it has proven harder than the obama administration anticipated to knit together those alliances and you see a shift back toward europe and the g-8 and foreign power in the obama foreign policy of late but that

challenge will be there and it is a real question to asked. which administration is likely to have the better tools and better orientation to continue that work of knitting together those new alliances in -- that is the defining challenge for american foreign policy. >> you bring up the point that one of the frustrating things covering politics is when people stay on the campaign trail is not what happens and what they do when they get into office. do you think -- whoever wants to jump in on this what can we save for sure president mitt romney would do or second term president obama will do in the four year starting on january 20th, 2013, when a comes to foreign policy or are there other tea leaves we should be reading and essentially ignoring a lot of the rhetoric they are using? >> one example. i was talking to one of mitt

romney's big donors about iraq and the extent to which this is one of the issues mitt romney is trying to portray obama as too soft and too willing to pursue a ridge of sanctions and diplomacy. what would be obama -- mitt romney's third step collected? he will go to israel and say that guy was your worst enemy and i am your best friend and as your best friend of alaska for a couple more years of diplomatic sanctions before we look of the military option. there will be a lot more continuity. >> one difference for sure would be the comprehensive test ban treaty. my guess which is probably influenced by wishful thinking is a second term obama would go hell for leather against ratification of comprehensive test ban treaty. the refusal of the senate to

ratify it in 1999 was a very dark day for the senate, the country, the non-proliferation regime. that is much less likely in a mitt romney administration. i don't know. for the reasons i indicated earlier i think mitt romney will have to do -- will need to revert to his free campaign mode in his attitudes and what he is willing to do. the argument in favor of him picking up on the climate issue are pretty strong. >> difference of opinion won't matter when it comes to that issue? there is not really a lot of differences? >> it is possible by no means certain, that met romney presidency would treat international institutions and the lionss like the bush

administration did in the first face its first term as a need to throw to the right wing of the public and the u.n.. it is not what mitt romney says. if you read the talk is not what he says. the multilateral institutions or exercise leadership and orient them towards promotion of liberty and democracy. depending on the concourse, pivot to the middle for the campaign but also has to protect his base. there are times republicans are -- throw the un to the flank. george bush jr. did that in the first serve -- term. he didn't work and it moved backwards. i do think there are things like that where for political reasons mitt romney doesn't pursue a multilateral -- on the economic

issue i don't think you have a choice. the realities are such that there is no unilateral option now in any real sense of that term. >> you will want to respond to some of this. the question of what sort of predictor the campaign rhetoric will be to what they do once in office. >> the difficulty is the old patent where we try something and it doesn't work so we do something else to some extent that worked at least in economic terms when the u.s. was so dominant that it could afford to do that. my worry is right now lot of the international financial institutions are in such a vulnerable condition that if for

two years they continue without a strong reform, other institutions will start to cropped up that will be developed, run and managed by people who exclude the united states. use that to get a fragmentation of that global economic management. it will become very difficult to go back and say we have learned. we will come back and strengthen these so i suspect we might be at a point where the kind of experimentation bruce was talking about might not be there any longer. without being overly dramatic, one could possibly kill off work severe the damage the existing institutions if they are not

given the kind of tender loving care that they actually need at this particular moment and the only person who can give them that care is the president of the united states. >> a question on the institution you know very well. the world bank added president dartmouth, designated be denominated by the united states to be the president, there is talk about this perhaps being a last american president of the world bank and also talk about what we will no longer call the major developing countries but emerging powers, india, sino, brazil and so on creating a related but in some ways separate facility. could you say a word about that? >> a couple of things.

i think jim kim will find he takes over world bank and he will see that he has to contract lending by about 1/2. all of the ammunition has the shot off by his predecessor dealing with the current crisis. he has no budget increase to speak of so it will be a really tough situation for him to manage but at the same time the kinds of challenges the world bank would step up to deal with are if anything getting bigger. the infrastructure needs of developing countries especially because of climate change and the need to have more adaptation

mostly on infrastructure because of those long lived assets right now developing countries are spending something like $900 billion a year on this. people are talking about a number that is at least double that as being part of their needs. what agency is going to be able to actually do that in a sustainable fashion, generate that kind of financial channel and it is not going to be the world banks and for sure there will be other institutions developing. whether that will take the form of the so-called bricks bank or an off, i have my doubts because the bricks is a really nice acronym but as a political grouping in terms of knitting together alliances the challenges they face if any

thing, that the u.s. faces, bruce is exactly right. it is not easy to have convergence of interest and i don't think on this particular issue that they do have that kind of convergence of issue. that doesn't mean the things they are talking about are of enormous importance or relevance and what they're talking about is saying we need a global institution that has a new mandate to actually do something about green growth and climateapproveing investments. we need a global institution that reflects the change in membership and partly that is more significant weight of emerging economies. it is a function of the fact

that we are entering one stage or quasi state actors are important on the economic front so whether you are talking sovran well funds or other forms of capital they have to be brought into these kinds of institutions. these institutions will only be able to operate if they leverage that kind of capital in a much more serious way. finally there needs to be a modernization of modality. the idea that you are going to literally take money from belgian dentists to save infrastructure investors, that will no longer be the channel. for all the problems that it has brought us, financial

innovation, has actually generated a whole range of new modalities so finance has to be modernized to these new kinds of risks factors and a new global institution probably would need to be much more agile in those risk bearing -- >> could be headquartered in the sample or inside africa. >> pretty clear he would like to respond to this. i would like you to talk about how you see president romney or president obama fitting into that over the next four years. >> two things i strongly agree with. the first, when you look at this, it is clear that each member of the bricks, the relationship to the united

states is more important than the relationship with the others. >> people are not familiar with you are talking about. >> brazil, russia, india, china and south africa. of very odd grouping that doesn't include turkey or south korea. includes russia. they all agree with each other on every issue. the new actors on the international stage. daily agree on one issue which is they would like more power. they don't agree on any other issue strategically or substantively. they agree to poke at us if we don't give them more power. it does mean there is a huge opportunity in the united states in exactly the terms -- knitting together new alliances and recasting the core institutions that manage the global systems we rely on which we still exercise enormous power but these actors will be managed -- i have to say it seems to me

obama has done less on this than i would have anticipated in 2008. i point to the difficulties here. it is because it is hard. because the collective action challenges are real. these dates are playing chicken in a sense that they know they have to participate in global systems. they want to see what terms they get and a game of chicken here. it is very risky. the second point i agree with is the two year point of front that we shouldn't be waiting now and we don't have two years to play with in terms of do we take an approach of trying to tighten up these alliances and institutions. i would put a little less weight on formal institutions and more on the alliances with these two actors but even there the administration vacillated between we are going to go all in on the g 20 and we still like

the g-8 and neither of those are particularly well crafted so there's still a lot of work to be done forging the architecture of the international arrangement and alliants that can do that. >> do you see a difference in what mitt romney would do on those issues? >> i do worry emphasize the point you can't judge from campaign rhetoric. it does worry me the phrase asia doesn't come up in his vocabulary except when he is in china. talk about american allies he appears not to notice japan or south korea or american allies. there is a cast back to a trans-atlantic u.s. and europe picture of the world that i think is outdated. clearly the case that obama's life story and picture of the world is better suited to a century in which asia is important and a cast of

characters is changing. obama is hard to navigate. not an easy issue. >> i want to open up to the audience. there's a microphone somewhere. there it is in the back. if you could identify yourselves and speak clearly into the microphone we have lots of recording going on so please be aware of that. question up here in the front. 01 thing i ask is we want to keep his focus on the presidential election. these three gentlemen can talk about many things. let's keep the focus on mitt romney and barack obama. >> thanks very much. i write the mitchell report. i want to pose a question in the form of a hypothesis. it comes -- seems to me from

right down the line, think of bruce's excellent paper about the u.s. as the majority shareholder in a liberal democratic quarter, strobe's point about the extent to which the electorial process itself has not only -- not only unseemly but make governing more difficult than ever. to the point about the need to form new alliancess and then you jump to the question given all of that, which president, mitt romney pour obama can we predict what they would do and which one would have the greatest likelihood of doing things that need to be done? the hypothesis i want to offer

is this. very little difference. because presidents have far less room to maneuver. where the difference will be made is in the congressional elections and particularly in the senate. particularly given the affect of wool 22 in the senate and the unfortunate growing role of minority interference in the governing process which depending upon how it comes out on first tuesday will make it as difficult for president romney as it would for president obama given the cast of characters that seems to be taking place in the most recent example by somebody who has a different definition how to work. that is the hypothesis which i think comes to the question

central to this panel so i will leave it at that. >> i will go first on the hypothesis. not sure i'd buy it. i am also absolutely sure i am not going to say -- i think it really matters to the president of the united states and it will matter in january of next year who the president of the united states is. the composition of the congress will be immensely important. the big question about barack obama is will he in his second term be able to succeed to a degree it that he has not been able to succeed in his first term to do what he wanted to do in his first term? if you go back to his speeches in the campaign trail in 2008,

grant park in his inauguration kept talking about a planet in peril and how that had to be a priority. it was not a priority at the beginning of the administration. health care was the priority at the beginning of the administration. the climate issue faded and ultimately failed to get anywhere. obviously that was a joint mistake, part of the handling of the executive branch and the legislative branch so the big question on that issue and -- he had some success on reducing the nuclear peril particularly with the new start treaty with the russians but no such success on the test ban. the big question will not be what his intentions are but his ability to deliver. with regard to mitt romney we have to see what his priorities are and to hear how he lays them

out and take him seriously in either case if he lays out priorities that align with individual citizens and strong candidate for the presidency. it goes back to the pogo factor. and the ability to lead in the world. and necessary to back up soft power with hard power and of course leadership of international institutions and whether we get our economy back in shape. that means the dressing, restoring fiscal sanity. to our national household and doing something about the deficit. big question about each of these candidates in the home stretch is which one of you has incredible plans to do that and

the four letter word t a x is going to have to come up at some point in that and their judgment will have to be made. will they have the political will to drive those issues forward and will they be able to have enough support from the congress which takes you back to the valid part. >> you want to respond to what strobe said? are question right up here in the third round. >> i am bridget from the committee on nationalization. i am struck by the conversation not including the word afghanistan war much talk and about hard power. you address the balance or imbalance between hard power and military power and civilian power but it seems to me one of the areas of not enough light

and not enough alternative approaches out of this campaign is this question of over militarization of u.s. foreign policy and lack of ability to invest in and mustard diplomatic solutions that we need to. the discussion is about the real problems that require diplomatic solutions the world is facing so part of that, is it just that on the campaign trail they speak to domestic politics? not speaking to the reality of implementing u.s. foreign policy, or is there any hope that the next presidency whether it is obama or mitt romney can shift that balance and get out of this over militarization cycle of u.s. foreign policy which relates to the congressional question that was raised as well given the budgeting challenge and where

this congress goes and a final question about a related assumption, one of these 4 assumptions that there's no light between the two sides. until we can get out of the idea for today's world of u.s. exceptional wisdom being grounding for u.s. foreign policy we will be stuck in not having the right solution to the world problems so is there any hope getting a different approach to how we see our place in the world? >> you want to -- >> this is one of the central arguments of my paper. either a president has to invest more on a diplomatic tool, that doesn't translate directly to increased funding for state departments but investing heavily in the capabilities we

need, and -- this is a partisan issue. republican congressional action to redo's state funding or block increased state funding. the previous administration in the second term tried to bolster -- this becomes an important issue. do we have the right tools of government to forge new alliances to manage a more complex -- and honest conversation about this. and the staff is currently trained and the right to. and who we have there and backgrounds and languages they speak and training they get. there is an emphasis and

diplomacy and diplomacy isn't a soft issue with a question of managing alliances or institutions or organizing collective action including military action. collective action using force isn't a military action. i absolutely take your point. we don't know which of the two presidents would be more likely to do this but the congressional point is real. there are a lot of people around mitt romney who understand this point. to understand the need for investment in diplomacy. some people clearly don't. >> take up that or the american exceptional is unquestioned. >> the quote exceptional ism issue has gotten a little goofy. president obama is caught red handed -- he is a decline tests -- declineist and then he says

know i am not. i am reading bob hagen. we like to read too. he said in his podium many times. these two terrific books are not diametrically opposed in their prescriptive implications. i noticed in the speech president obama gave a couple days ago he went out to do two things. one was to say this is an exceptional country. i guess he has covered himself on that. the other was to say in libya nato is out there leading from the front, laying to rest forever -- the new yorker piece that was not attributed -- bleeding from behind. the serious point is we are an

exceptional country. there is no country on earth that has the convening power, no country on earth that has the global military reach for the diplomatic capacity on a global basis that we have and with that -- lots of opportunity. >> one thing i want to add. interesting you talk about investing in diplomacy. i would argue for investing in development as well. and there's much less difference. one great legacy of former president bush was his prioritization and focus on development and he did quite a lot to raise the amount of

resources going into u.s. development. something president obama has tried to do. and secretary clinton enormously. in terms of the resources and the ability to commit in countries like afghanistan to long-term process of support, i think both will be able to make that commitment and stand by because that certainly will be a necessary element moving forward in any of the fragile states that have become so important a part of u.s. diplomacy. >> you talked about president obama and his sense of exceptional listen. the exceptional is in discussion

is a major part of the republican primary campaign. mitt romney talked about a lot and it is one of the main attacks he makes fun president obama about this issue, whether he apologized for america, this is open to anyone. what do you think? given what is said in the republican primary campaign and -- how does that affect his foreign policy as we go forward if he is president in 2013? >> i think it will probably net out to much more harmony between what they are really saying as opposed to the way they're seeing and the accusatory way they are saying it when you get to the end. it goes back to bruce's or original point and -- senator

marco rubio was here last month, and he is one of quite a number of of and coming political leaders who talked about a possible vice president. he became a foreign policy here. it was a very thoughtful speech. i don't want to ruin his chances for getting him a ticket. it wasn't while the different from a speech that i can imagine coming out of the department of state or the white house, making a few amendments. this is a good thing. i and others have expressed some dismay about the polarization of our politics and breakdown of civil discourse but i do think there has been a shaking out process. if you look at the field of

republican candidates this is truly non-partisan comment because i am making it entirely about the republicans. there were two candidates who many americans including independents and some democrats who were disappointed or disillusioned in their party this year. depending -- i am referring to ambassador/governor huntsman and those two were by far the most -- that is what the process delivered which is a good thing and let's see if the process can continue this business of reconciliation. tough issues facing the next president will be domestic and

economic. >> the question in the back of the aisle here. microphone coming from the back. >> the managing uncertainty, given the fact that europe is undergoing three simultaneous political crises, economic crisis, china not going into a meltdown but very substantial slowdown, and what the differences might be between obama and a second term and mitt romney, deteriorating economic financial situation? >> you want to start? >> there is a very serious debate going on about the

current crisis and getting the balance right between fiscal consolidation and what is called austerity versus new programs and that debate is being joined in europe. europe is not unified by any means in terms of where it is going to come out of that balance and this country as well. the two parties are quite different in their position on this. china is indeed slowing down. china will almost certainly start to implement stimulus measures, monetary and fiscal to try to take care of it and at

the end of the day chinese growth probably will slow down but the probability of a very hard landing in china starting to approximate the zero growth or the 2% growth in advance countries seems to be low. between the united states and europe i think this is a very active debate. based on different philosophies about what generates growth in the short run. >> i will take the question and use it to make a different point about this which one of the things we are talking about is which president would do a better job at educating the american public about the change in the world we live in. we begin to understand that our economy, and the days in which

our own production and consumption are isolated to some extent from the patterns that are long gone. china slows down, europe slows down and we slow down. end of story. china grows and we grow. i don't think that is deeply understood. which president can do a better job explaining and communicating to the american public about the fact we live in a changing world and what it means for the way we orient ourselves. it is a tough call because so far obama, who clearly understands this reality has not done that good job explaining this to the american public. it is a hard argument to make and especially in tough times and easier in growth periods. as long as we don't know whether mitt romney will come across -- there could be a nixon to china

element to mitt romney but there could also be a bane capital who profit from this while we lose jobs in michigan. we don't know what mitt romney will be like in communicating with the american public. there's nothing in his campaign rhetoric suggesting he is good at it but presidents and campaigners are different. >> the thought that occurred to me listening to this answer, one word summary of what a lot of us are saying built into your question is injured dependence. the fate of china's great experiment is completely dependent on the health of the global economy. going to bruce's point, one reason president obama who really gets at on injured dependence is not out there making this case because in tough economic times talking about independence makes use of

soft. this is the perennial achilles' heel politically of democrats and democratic candidates including incumbent presidents seeking reelection. they don't want to look soft. with a feeling the europeans are about to screw everything up and the indians are taking our jobs and the chinese are eating our lunch and so on to say it is an interdependent world sins you are not protecting us. that is a fundamental difference, if fundamental factor. the president -- he has no way around that between now and the election. he has to find ways to talk about it that if they don't find -- if they don't sound robust at least sound optimistic. that is why i recommend just read the text of the air force academy speech. it was reagan.

morning in america. the son is shining. we will be fine. i don't think the word exceptional appears in there but not injured dependent. >> given how much the economic situation is part of your paper and your thinking on this, the question that was proposed here, which one of these candidates would be better able to explain the subject we are facing. what is your answer in to that? >> i found it interesting, on things like gas prices which is clear example of the independence, it does depend on the president's.

assassinating poll showing these views, to control gas prices depending -- a matter of deeply held beliefs and a matter of communication to the american public. it does seem to me that is enormously important. the fact of the matter is not just in the united states but in europe and the honesty of the conversations around the economic problems is disappearing. it is part of the reason the europeans haven't been able to solve their problem, because in germany they still have this view that all greeks are lazy. greeks actually work. probably 25% longer hours than

germans. these perceptions become very important in terms of the way in which economic policy is form the. and at the moment, it is a real problem with the honesty with which that communication is happening. >> on this side. thank you. i would like to talk about the issue on china. yesterday around the just released china and the warehouse responded quickly that we are tougher against china. the china issue will intensify, and whether either one elected where they fulfil their promises

and also treasury just released exchange rate report that clamps china's currencies phil significantly. the chinese currency has actually appreciated so why the exchange rate fills the issue? >> we are running a little short. if we could keep the answers short and get to one or two more questions. the china bashing will intensify. let's count on chinese patience and get to january and be back to something like normal. and handle the currency exchange

rates. >> this goes to some extent about the point i was trying to make about the fact of what is happening in terms of economic and perceptions. u.s. exports to china have increased by 50%. chinese exports to the united states in that same period. this is a trend -- 2004, when you look at this in terms of growth rates the u.s. is doing extremely well. u.s. exports to china surpassed $100 million. the actual deficit is quite substantial but what is actually

happening is trade on both sides is going up. probably being very beneficial for both countries. >> one thing i would add is you win elections in swing states. and unfortunate coincidence where the swing states are legal being decimated man who loses. if you are in l.a. or new york or miami, it is okay. what not so much in western pennsylvania. the nature of the election campaign forces focus on the downside of global integration where -- shared growth.

>> my question is about climate change. do you expect from barack obama or mitt romney to do in handling the changes legal ongoing changes in egypt and the middle east and whether it is going to be just relying on security alliances or deeper, useful partnerships. >> one thing will come of quickly, maybe before the new election is whether there are differences on issues like syria. so far what you have seen in syria is the obama administration careful about talking about the potential for american military engagement that he has been criticized for

that by some parts of the republican party as well as the democratic party and this is one of the interesting issues. there is a hawkish alliance. i don't know if mitt romney would be a differently in syria than obama has. i doubt it. the ideas that we would rush to military intervention in syria is overplayed. more broadly your question is broader than that. there are some fundamental tensions here in the arabs spring in the united states and some mistakes and the ability to navigate what is coming will be a critical test. i don't have a crystal ball. i don't know if strobe has more in sight. one thing we haven't talked about this it will matter a lot who it is mitt romney or obama pick for their national security adviser or secretary of state. a pretty wide cast of

characters,. the challenges, economic growth of asia, and arabs spring. of future of foreign policy through the next presidency. >> i would put iran on the list. >> countries like egypt, it is important from both candidates. the big challenge that needs to be addressed is the real money and resources for helping countries in the arab world is likely to come from the golf. to what extent can those be

merged the support that can come in a variety of non grand form trade alliance and investment alliances from the multilateral institutions. that combination can be effectively put together, there is a reasonable chance the economic support packages of these countries can be quite useful. if they can't be put together you will be faced by a situation where there will be potentially significant economic risks. and trying to forge security alliances with countries having their own domestic economic problems we have seen in places like pakistan is a difficult thing to sustain over time. >> we have time for one more if the question is short and the

answers are short. >> how richman of the state department. the presidency is defined by what the president to achieve in his first year or so let me ask about priorities each candidate might have. not just based on the rhetoric but overall. assuming hypothetically that domestic and foreign policy constraints were not forbidden, would you think obama and mitt romney would most like to do in terms of their priorities in the next administration? >> whoever wants to take this one keep it short so we don't run over. >> short answer, either one has got to be fixing of a problem that won't be fixed this year because we're having a presidential election campaign which is fixing this country and

particularly fiscal. as for the priority in the election, it goes to the famous reagan question that allowed him to defeat jimmy carter. mitt romney will ask that question. he already has. barack obama will try to persuade the american people since this is a referendum on his first term that we are better off than we were when he came to office. >> it depends on the state of the economy. maybe you could talk to the global economic issues and european issues on more traditional foreign policy issues. i don't think they will be given a choice. the iranian situation will resolve itself or will not resolve itself. either way it will be the dominant foreign policy issue in the first year in 2013 under any circumstance where i think people will look to opportunities if they want to

define those. where the opportunity lies is in the tightening up of the alliance with india, turkey and australia and forging new cooperation with those factors and are suspect either party would look to opportunities. >> i am with strobe on this. before looking abroad and being effective abroad, fixing the fiscal and fixing growth is the essential. we will have to think about how to do that. >> the program calls for a closing thought from each of these gentlemen to some up all the things we have talked about. one thing we didn't are the ten things we did. let's move down the line, whichever way or whoever wants to go first. how do you want to start us out?

strobe? >> it is appropriate that iran came up towards the end. i will make one observation yet again about the irony and perversity of election years on foreign policy. you have been following the newspapers. there has been more progress than the pessimists expect it. not as much as the optimists hope for on iran. one of the constraints on president obama as he figures out how to get to his end game is dictated by the election. in order to get a big deal with iran he would have to give away enough so that he would be vulnerable to a charge that he gave away too much. the dynamics of our election process is going to drive him toward a modest or minimalist agreements which is better than none by the way but makes it necessary to wait until the next administration for a big deal if

there's one to be gotten with iran. >> my sense is whoever wins the election will have to quickly come to grips with how aggressively do they want to address the issues of global government and what to do about international institution and forming new alliancess whether it acquires or not a major overhaul or muddling through kind of process. i think that there will be a big question whether the so-called delta asia can be implemented for whether it is iran or syria or europe, something will keep dragging the president's attention and priorities away from large dynamic emerging

economies in asia. and finally whether the foreign policy of the united states will continue to be broadly speaking dominated by security concerns and military intervention or whether it will become more driven by economics, by development, global growth. >> finish it out. >> two points. what is the test? if you look at 2015 or early 2016, did we do well or did we not in foreign policy terms? the question i want to focus on is are we in a productive alliance with india, brazil, turkey? critical emerging powers whose participation in global structures and global economics will matter a great deal? china will be a different category and we will have to handle it differently in a

complex cents but below china these other actors who are the new swing states to put us in a positive direction or keep us in a complex space are we in better shape in terms of relations and structures for cooperation with those actors? that as we look back. the second issue we have to talk about is we have got a pattern of global economic investment in this country and trade relations centered in major metropolitan cities. i heard john warner talked-about the thing that happens most which is to start driving foreign direct investments and global economic investments to rural communities outside of major urban centers for two reasons. one in terms of what we will do to kick start growth and second and more importantly to start educating those parts of the american public that have so far not seen profits from globalization to show profits from globalization and the nature of global economic

integration. educating the american public about the world we are in can't be an abstract discussion about who is up or down. it has to be a genuine economic reality that integration is a positive thing in terms of generating jobs. that is the 2016, and more than a 2012 comment but those two features. can we change patterns of where globalization is generating jobs in this country and will we be in better shape in terms of alliances with these new players on the international stage? >> lot to think about. thank you to strobe and homi for joining us and to all of you for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations]