>> now, that said, to be hopeful -- and i end on a hopeful note because i would like to think of myself as optimistic right? we've solved big problems before right? going back to world war ii, we faced an existential threat from germany getting a nuclear bond. how did we respond to that? we created a manhattan project. we gathered 120,000 people in the united cupping.com, canada -- king.com, canada, to develop a bomb before the germans could. and the takeaway point is that the big difference between those people that faced an existential threat if -- threat from a nuclear blast and from the mass manipulation of technology is that they were serious about the threat before them, and we are not. and the president is not. and congress is not.

and i think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. if you look at the congress of the united states that has anywhere between a 9 and 13% approval rate, and look at the most common profession it's lawyers, okay? with respect to the lawyers in the audience, i took classes at the harvard law school when i was there, so i'm not anti-lawyer. but if you look at the chinese ruling party, the communist, you know, committee there, the ten members there all ten of them have ph.d.s in electrical engineering, some sort of advanced violence right? so fundamentally, they understand science. and i think the lack of s.t.e.m. literacy on the part of our national leadership and individual citizens is going to be a big problem that will lead to national security threats that we don't understand. >> you talked about earlier about the subtitle of your book, that everyone is connected, and we're only getting more connected because when out comes to businesses technology companies, this concept of

local, mobile, social -- >> right. >> -- is so pervasive. >> yes. >> that's only going to continue. >> yeah. >> so many new companies and start-ups and existing companies, linkedin, twitter, are all about local, mobile social. >> right. >> which, from the sounds of what you're saying invite, facilitate cybercrimes. >> in a sense. one could certainly draw that conclusion. no, i agree with the fundamental thesis of your question. we're creating tremendous amounts of data. how many of you guys remember willie sutton the bank robber, right? when he was eventually arrested by the fbi in the 1940s, they said, willie, why do you rob banks? what was willie's answer? because that's where the money is right? why would you rob a girl scout cookie stand? you go to a big bank and take the money there. world economic forum has said that data is the new oil. that's where the value we are

creating is, in the owl. if you look at the -- in the oil. if you look at the valuation and growth of big data analytics, what's facebook's main business? it's not status updates. what is angry birds' main business? it's not shooting pigs at birds their main business model is getting data out of you. and the challenge with that is that criminals go where the money is. if day is new oil, we should not be surprised that criminals are going to go towards the data. how many of you have heard of moore's law? so gordon moore was the founding president of the intel computer chip corporation, and he said that -- eventually figured out that computer processing power is doubling every 18-4 months. -- 18-24 months. so the iphone 4 will be twice as powerful as the iphone 3 and the sake with your desktop chips. if gordon moore could invent a

law, i'm going to introduce you to goodman's law. the more data you keep, the more organized crime isñr willing to steal, okay? the more data you keep the more that's going to leak. why? because there is no such thing as a fundamentally secure computer. there is no such thingñi as trustworthy computing in a society that is built on computers for all of our critical infrastructures, forñr businesses, for markets, for atms for air traffic control for our electrical grid. so even though you cançó read hbr and see all of these big case studies about big data analytics, making better decisions based upon the data if anthem blue cross is going to to keep 80 million patient records in añr computer and they're not going to encrypt it, by the way highly negligent in my personal view, if they're not going to encrypt that data by providing the basic level of security, then we shouldn't be surprised when it leaks. remember when i said earlier

software's eating the world? when i was a kid doctors' offices wrote things down and put them in a file. that's now gone online which means it will leak. so i think these big data companies s and i didn't startñi out wanting to come to this conclusion, right? the conclusion i thought wiz going to come to was -- was going to come to was those bad criminalsing look at what they're doing. but i had to see the role of technology companies particularly the social media companies and how much of your data is leaking through them. leaking, leaking in ways that they understand -- meaning that facebook understands -- and leaking in ways that facebook doesn't understand. so howñi much do you guys pay to use facebook? or google? all right? so most people that i talk to say, oh yes, i'm a facebook customer. you're a facebook customer, what do you pay? they say, nothing. what's facebook's 800 number?

gee, i don't know. if you call american airline they have an 800 number, and you pay them. you don't get free coffee at starbucks, free hamburgers from mcdonald's, free dress, you know, at macy's. you pay for all of that stuff. so you're actually paying for all of this with your own data. that's the price of admission. what people don't understand is that a lot of these companies are really bad stewards of your data. there are 600,000 facebook accounts hacked not annually not monthly, daily. daily. that comes from facebook's own chief security officer. so you think you're providing this data and it's going to be protected, but it all leaks. conversely then there's their business model which is taking all the data that you are providing them and slicing it and dicing it and selling it into a group of data brokers that are completely unregulated. >> but marc you're talking about going against a wave that's happening right? because let's just be practical, paper wasn't good. we got technology to automate

and have data so we could scale and be more efficient in our record keeping and information management. it's more environmentally friendly, okay in that's one. now you're also saying don't keep all this data, but it's inevitable right? there's regulation companies have to, individuals have to for their personal records and whatever, whether it's their accounting, etc. but then going forward, and you just talked about this, there's so many companies now betting big on data and big data. so -- >> so i'm interested -- >> it's a vicious cycle. so where, you know, in the book you talk about some of the solutions. >> yes. >> what are some of the solutions? >> let me just acknowledge the fact that i'm introducing a black swan here, right? all of this data is great until it all leaks, right? and we haven't seen a company beaten up too besidely as a result of these data leaks although for every record that leak, it costs the company $206 that's $206 to investigate the

leak, call in outside consultants, plug the hole, buy new equipment notify their customers, replace their credit cards at $5.11, bring in pr crisis management firms, defend the lawsuits, hire outside counsel, watch their stock share slide, customer turn and then the regulatory and shareholder lawsuits that come as well. so if target loses 100 million records at $206 each that's not chump change. so i think that people will start thinking about this differently, potentially. as to the solutions, i talk in future crimes about solutions at a social level, societal level and solutions at an individual level. at the social level, i already talked about one of the solutions is we need a manhattan project for cyber. not something that's militarized, but something that has intention. bringing together public, private sector that are seriously focused on it at that level, right? if the software industry -- the people that create all the software that has the bugs -- if they just took 1% of their gross

profit and put it into, or their net profit i should say, and put it into a fund, then we could solve this problem right? we could do a lot. there'd be billions of dollars forrous to use -- for us to use for something like that. we can vastly change how we respond to the threat. we currently handle cyber crimes as a law enforcement issue, but think about how we describe these crimes. we talk about computer viruses we talk about infections, right? viruses and infections. what happens if somebody has measles? we don't send out the cops to arrest them we treat them we isolate, we protect ousts. i -- ourselves. i suggest an epidemiological model is a much better way to go. we understand how that works. my goal should not be to arrest you if you get a virus, it should be to insure i myself don't get a virus. beyond that i think we need national cyber reserve corps. we have reserve police offices

auxiliary cops reserve air force, navy we don't have a reserve cyber corps, and that's going to hurt it because that national cyber disaster will come, and when it does we won't have a plan. so the time to prepare for that is now before the disaster occurs rather than during or after. and ultimately, i think there's a huge opportunity for incentive prizes. many of you may know the x prize foundation. let's take a $20 million pot -- i'm work on this directly now -- to incentivize the smartest people whether they be in india or, you know, red hook, brooklyn, and let's see who can figure out. let's get people that are not part of the system because the smartest guy is not in the room with you or smartest gal could be halfway around the world. we need to crowd source our security and think about that. and lastly at the social level, just to kind of leave on a positive note, is this solvable, right? i think it's eminently solvable. it just takes attention, focus and a modest amount of resource.

not a huge amount right? i think, and i quote -- i think about and i quote president kennedy who said in the 1960s by the end of this decade, we will put a man on the moon. think about that vision. right? just a few millennia ago we were apes barely walking upright, and now we've put a man on the moon. surely if we can do that, we can figure out antivirus. the problem is we're not focused on it, so i call for all of hose things and more in -- those things and more in "future crimes." >> your questions. [applause] >> thank you. >> million low my name -- hello, my name is rick. i think i'm a little more pessimistic than you. >> that doesn't happen often. [laughter] >> i'd be -- i don't think that you can solve the human problem, because we are human. you know the idea to get everybody, six billion people, to have good passwords and to

not do the wrong thing on the keyboard is just unrealistic. and even if you incentivize and put prizes out there to find problems in our networks and things like that there's new tools, new digital lightbulbs coming out tomorrow that'll be hack able. so to me the problem is that we can't. catch the bad guys, you know? so i don't -- let's talk about for a second, you know, how do you find these guys? because there's these new clip toe currencies like dark coin, anonymous, like, bitcoins that can't be tracked. you've got dark porn networks and all these things being developed, so i'd like to hear your thoughts on that. >> surement thank you, rick it's a great question, a great point, and i don't fundamentally disagree with you. one of the biggest challenges with this threat is something called attribution, trying to figure out who is responsible for a particular attack. did sony really get hacked by the north koreans, or was it an internal threat? did china really hack the

pentagon, or was it russia or maybe somebody else? we have really poor methods of attribution in this space so figuring out who did it was hard. have you seen the television shows where the bad guy calls up the cops and he decides he's going to route his call through all these other places, he's really in brook listen but he's running -- brooklyn, but he's running the call through afghanistan and paris. that's what hackers do. before north korea, let's say allegedly hacks sony they're not going to sit there in pyongyang and type in sony.com, right? what they're doing is compromising thousands of boxes in between pyongyang and sony so that it's very hard to trace it back and figure out who's responsible. so attribution is a big problem. as for the human factor in solving this never do i suggest we're going to solve this problem, right? there is no such thing as perfect security, and if we even drove towards perfect security the costs on our liberty and

personal freedom would be so great that they'd been intolerable. benjamin franklin said those who pursue security in liberty get neither. the challenge is not perfect secreter it's better security. be you take a beautiful new bmw or park it up in a really bad neighborhood uptown, downtown, doesn't matter where and there's a dark street, no light, you leave the bmw running with the keys in the ignition the windows down and $10,000 on the dashboard, in the bronx you might not be surprised be you came back ten minutes later and your car was gone right? but you could take that same bmw and park it in a really nice neighborhood on the upper east side and lock it, use a club, and your car can still be stolen. somebody can come by with a

flatbed and a tow truck and take your car. all i'm trying to do with if "future crimes" is to get people to understand how to lock the front doors of their house and not leave their keys in the car. if we just took those the steps it would make a massive difference, right? i talk about something that i created in "future crimes" called the update protocol. it's based on research by the australian ministry of defense, and it's six very specific steps people can take regarding their password and other protocols that are quite easy to implement. if you just take those six steps, you would drop your cyber risk by 85%. so rick i'm not calling for perfect security but i think we could do so much better and we would benefit greatly economically and personally from it. >> next question. if you can kindly and if you have questions, if you can kindly line up so we can get all

the questions in. >> i just pulled a dusty book off a book shelf at home called "tuxedo park," and it's almost a template for what you're advocating. a gentleman who was a very successful investment banker who's a physicist, and he gathered all the physicists he could find in the united states and teamed with dr. lawrence livermore, and they founded something called rad labs at mit, employed 5,000 physicists and established radar, first from airplane to airplane, then ship to air and then airplane to u-boats. and the british sent a team over to collaborate with us. and then when they achieved much of what they wanted to, they worked on the manhattan project. and when the war ended, mit knocked it down and converted it to dorms and other things. but it was a task force where

they did work 24/7 to solve what they viewed as a looming problem. this occurred in the 1939-1940 period where they anticipated what we all know transpired. >> all right. that's a really good reference. i was unfamiliar with it but i'll check it out. there are models that have worked in the past. there's something i do write about in "future crimes", you know, we've been focusing on the technologies of today and haven't gotten into robotics artificial intelligence nanotech biology and genetics which you said what's the next threat? those are the next threats. i want to flag those. but much like in that tuxedo book what they did was get a really bunch of smart scientists geneticists, who saw in the 1970s our ability to manipulate the genetic code, to create new creatures new forms of life new bioweapons with vastly outpacing our ethics, public policy and law. and so the leading scientists in

the field got together and created a code of conduct. you may have seen recently that stephen hawking and elon musk and bill gates have all come out quite publicly against artificial intelligence with specifically artificial intelligence -- artificial general intelligence, the computer. the last invention of man p right? it'll be the thing that man builds, and then we won't need man anymore because these computers will be super smart, right? we're running down that path, and people are rightly flagging it. so i do think we need to think about some of these technologies. >> hi, marc, first of all congratulations. i think that was an excellent talk that you gave. >> sure. >> so i also have to agree with the gentleman that i'm not sure this problem can be fully solved, but i am encouraged by your response to that it can be solved to the point where it can make it difficult for the heark. >> so that a late -- >> hacker. >> i have a couple of quick

observations. the other day i asked my friends, and most of these guys in the tech space, that, look, if i told you that if you get off facebook if you get off twitter, if you get off youtube for three months, you can definitely -- there will not be -- isis will not be able to behead the next ten people that they're looking to behead, what would you do? so the answer almost all of them said, of course we'll get off facebook. one of them said i'll think about it -- >> you didn't ask a teenager did you? >> i don't think you got my question. so that's one observation. and the second observation is 20 years ago i think you'll agree with me that these kinds of networks, these kind of bad guys did not have these mediums to propagate and have this vital growth that a lot of internet companies have when they grow up to propagate their cause. so my question to you is why is the onus not then on these big companies,

>> i don't understand why facebook themselves, these are very cash-rich companies. why would they not put in 1% of their net income or gross income, whatever it is, and attack this problem? >> so one of the things i talk about in "future crimes" is something built upon what your suggestion is in the book. and i talk about the possibility of considering maybe thinking

about a little bit of regulation. right? in this domain right? whether it's regarding data privacy. so in the e.u. they have very strong data privacy laws almost every western nation with the exception of the united states has a cabinet-level minister who's the privacy commissioner or the privacy minister. we have no such thing in the united states. business rules, and that's just the way our country runs. what i would say in response to that is the companies that are building these tools have not faced any consequences for putting out bad tools. so since you specifically mentioned facebook, the motto at facebook when it comes to their computer code is just ship it. that's literally their model. we know it's full of bugs, we'll deal with it later. how many of you have had pop-ups that says, oh, your phone operating system is out of date, adobe flash, please update -- that's a way of saying you've been completely hosed for the

past six weeks anything we figured out there were these bugs in your system, and now you need to fix them. so now there's no consequences for bad software then they don't need to fix it. and there are no consequences for two reasons. one is the terms of service right? you guys have all seen those, right? and every time you sign up for pa facebook or chase manhattan account, you all read those terms of services in full, right? i have have read and agreed to the terms of service is the biggest lie on the internet. if every american read the terms of services that they were presented on the average year it would take 78 days out of your year to read them all. o.k.? >> facebook that started out with a 1,000-word term of service is now up to 9,000 words. the united states constitution is 4,400 words. paypal has the largest terms of service in the industry, it's 36,000 words. shakespeare's hamlet is only

32,000 words right? and probably a more interesting read, i would gather. [laughter] so in these terms of of services right, we have a real legal public policy are regulatory issue that they can say we do whatever we want. there was a company i write in "future crimes" called gamestop in the u.k. very large company. one year for halloween they inserted into their terms and conditions on their site when you made a purchase by clicking here i grant gamestop permanent ownership of my immortal soul for now and into eternity right? [laughter] and they had 1300 people that clicked on it. so that is a big problem. i talk about the auto industry. for some of you who are a little bit older, you might remember ralph nader in the 1960s, right? unsafe at any speed i think is what it was called. so so cars used to be not particular safe. there were no seat belts, we lost thousands, tens of thousands of people in car crashes, and ralph nader, you know, a single man chasing against windmills, wrote this

book and got the auto industry to make our cars safer. it was the most positive public health impact of the 20th century, that saved more lives than anything else. therefore, i think there is some room for some regulation, for making people responsible for the code that they're creating. and i think that would be a big step forward. >> great, thank you. just a quick follow up -- >> could i ask you to -- because we've got time for just one more question. yeah. >> um, hi. can you just talk a little bit more about your silicon valley singularity university and its partnership with nasa and google? >> cool can. yeah, i'd be happy to. so i teach at something called singularity university on the campus of the nasa ames research center. it's cofounded by nasa google, the kauffman foundation with funding from nokia, autodesk and a bunch of otherren companies. and what its -- other companies and what its mission is, is super cool. it is an educational

institution -- we call it a university. it's a completely fake university, but it's the best fake university out there. it's fake in the sense that it's not accredited, but you'll learn so much more. it is teaching about ec poe 9/11 cial technologies, robotics nanotech, big data, synthetic biology, and the school has one simple mission: to use exponential technologies to positively impact the lives of a billion people over the next ten years. so every student that comes through singularity university -- or su for short -- has their homework, go help a billion people. and we use exponential technologies to do just that. i teach with some of the most amazing astronauts physicians surgeons orbital scientists, super crazy-cool people, and they're so smart. and they're all kind of silicon valley types so the world is awesome, and it's great and there are no bad people. and so we see presentations on robots that will clean your house, and i say well, what happens when the robot gets angry and kills you in your

sleep? so i'm that guy at the university -- [laughter] and it's a really enjoyable position because i find that my colleagues actually welcome that discussion. singularityu.org, check it out. >> hi, i'm glenn -- >> hi, glenn. >> briefly, because you're probably going to be the last question. >> sure. it seems to to me, based on what i read a lot of these that hacks could have been prevented by fairly basic security measures. had this air-conditioning company used two-factor authentication, chip and pin systems, that that hack at a target could have been prevented. similarly with anthem and with sony, had basic encryption and walling off of important files from the public internet, had steps been taken along those lines, these issues could have been avoided. so i guess my question is do we really need this this huge investment in a manhattan project-style undertaking or just need companies to implement

these basic and well known technologies that have been around for years? >> yeah glenn, it's a great question and i agree 100% with what you were saying. it's kind of like going to your doctor. if you are 5-6 and weigh 500 pounds, smoke three cartons of cigarettes a day, down a couple of liters of booze and you say to the doctor, you know, i want to run a marathon, he's going to say, all right well, there's some steps you need to take care of first. and i think the same is very true with what you just pointed out. absolutely, we should be closing our windows and front doors and locking them. and most people, as i pointed out earlier are completely wide open. all of those very obvious things should be done before we get on to that level. but i also think that the ability of companies to do it, as i understand it with no disrespect, their fundamental understanding of both the threat and their opposition --en meaning how organized organized crime is -- is kind of limited. so they can make great progress by taking those basic steps but

they don't take them. and i will point out we were talking about some of the business opportunities here. according to a study by gartner, there's going to be $100 billion spent on cybersecurity by 2017. $100 billion globally on cybersecurity by 2017. we're not getting very good roi on that spending, and so to your point, i think we could be much smarter about it, and there's tons of low cost things we could do that would also make a difference. thanks, glenn. >> i'm sure marc will stick around for a few minutes after wards and answer some of your questions we weren't able to capture in the broader forum, but thank you, marc, for being wuss tonight. >> thank you, it was my pleasure. >> thank you very much. thank you, everyone. [applause] >> thank you. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> here's a look at some of the current best selling nonfiction

books according to indy bound which represents sales in independent bookstores around the country. >> this week's indiebound list for nonfiction continues with "not that kind of girl," followed by randall monroe's exploration of possible scientific answers to nonsensical hypothetical questions in "what if." and bill browder's recount of an american financier who attempts to expose corruption inside the kremlin, "red notice," closes out this week's look at best selling nonfiction books according to indiebound. >> michael pillsbury of the

hudson institute writes that china has a secret man to replace the u.s. as the world's largest power by 2049. it's next on booktv. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i hope all of you can hear me. i'm hue say haqqani, director here at the hudson institute and it's a pleasure for me today to host a moderated discussion on "the hundred-year mauer than

to," the book by michael pillsbury who is now senior fellow and director for chinese strategy here at the hudson institute. .. michael thinks it has outwitted the united states in the process. not long ago, i wrote a book on pakistan u.s. relations after having had the ambassador to the

u.s. stifled magnificent solutions in which i make a similar argument. it seems everybody narrated washington d.c. here is my take is a foreigner with the united states and latin america. the reason is the americans always assume and they basically want the same thing you do. there's an assumption that is what they want so therefore they have a relatively simple world view. american foreign policy since america's preeminence after the second world war has been a staunch either a simple binary. who can we bomb? who can we take out to lunch? china is a unique country because it went from being a country that want on the two bombs listed to take out to lunch list. of course the lunch has become far more interesting.

before we get started with michael's comments in my own question-and-answer with him and then open it to questions and answers from others, we have a message from congressman rand paul who is the chairman of the china caucus in the house of representatives. he could not join us in person but his message to us and his comments will be read out by my colleague, caroline stewart. >> the press secretary of the hudson is to do. >> indeed. >> while i regret not being a genuine person today, the pleasure to have the opportunity to share some thoughts on the 100 year -- a "the hundred-year marthon: china's secret strategy to replace america as the global superpower." the tremendously important of a chinese power. the asia-pacific region combines

knowledge of chinese history culture and politics with an understanding of u.s. security interests in the tools protect the interests. whether a congressional staffer and multiple administrations, consultant to the pentagon office of assessment for a hudson institute scholar. dr. pillsbury has rendered important contributions to our nation's understanding of china and its long-term relationship with the united states. part of what makes "the hundred-year marathon" such unique contribution to the literature and sino-american relations is an evolution of the issue. rather than simply choosing a camp in seeking comfortably within a happens far too often on important foreign-policy issues,, the view on china changes the facts on the ground change. the long-term competitor of the united states requires the application of long-term competitive strategies. he has been a powerful voice

articulating what strategy should look like. as we look at the century ahead, it's more important than ever the u.s. looked to the u.s.-china relationship holistically and in the context of a long-term extended competition that will play out over multiple areas and over the course of many years. i'm committed to ensuring america's presence in the asia-pacific, particularly the military realm remains robust and is continually evolving to meet new challenges. areas like unmanned aviation u.s. entering advantage of the domain and her advantage of emerging tech knowledge is like directive energy must be appropriately resourced. i want to thank you for the work you do in promoting a strong u.s. national and a continued u.s. presence in the asia-pacific. it's america's commitment to the region that is done so much to ensure peace and prosperity over the last seven decades. we have an opportunity to put in

place policies that allow the presence to endure another seven decades and beyond. the serious thinker in the field and its recommendations offer policymakers to consider. i thank you for your valuable contribution. [applause] >> i would like michael pillsbury to start with a few remarks about his book. fica the critical question in your book is a discussion of the china dream and how the u.s. has put in they are unwittingly fulfill the dream. i think a good starting point for your conversation with us with a describing the chinese dream sec at msu by understated over the years and also to answer the critical question your book attempts to answer which is what is the china dream

to replace us just a semantic replace the british empire about fighting a single shot. tickle pillsbury, welcome to this discussion. >> thank you ambassador haqqani. i would answer your question about the china dream by explaining a few things that are in the book that i think are new evidence about china's secret strategy or what china calls the 100 year marathon. this is not my idea and the chinese book. i also point out today that the chinese believe correctly and we are reading your 65 of the 100 year marathon. that means her before more years to go. so there's a lot of things on the american side that i propose in the last chapter that we can do. they are related to what the china dream is because to some

degree what you might call the american dream and the china dream are compatible. it is not a zero-sum you can't have your train. i want to have my dream. the overlap is the focus of a number of organizations here in washington d.c. that i not only praise. i say we have to expand their budget. they have to do more. nothing like lighting a candle instead of praising the darkness. the candles are you going, i list several of the last year. number one the national endowment for democracy. a great deal in china has to do a great deal more. it has the same president it's always had. like a lifetime president. he's made a number of speeches in china. he seen his budget grow 10 times thicker than it was in the

beginning. go showboat received the peace prize was not there because he's in jail. i see a lot in here who i first met in 1989 but he was at the tiananmen square demonstration. iraq ambassador at the time peter thompson and i drove down to the embassy with the flags going. we got out of the car. we went in to see the students. no one knew of course what was going to happen. it appeared to be a peaceful demonstration against corruption of all things. we met with the others. i still remember he is a chain smoker. he had aviation classes on. when the president of the national endowment for democracy went to oslo she and many other countries who were either they are or not there this too

attention from china. the china dream is to fax you have what they call the harmonization for a harmony in the whole world. their position is when this happens by 2049 if not sooner all countries would get along and there will be organizations like the national adamo for democracy. there also will not be troubled from human rights watch, amnesty international especially not a radio free asia which i see some people in the room hopefully create radio free asia, nate teen 89. he resisted strongly by the state department. they testified against it. this will destroy u.s.-china relations if we broadcast in mandarin about human rights and democracy in various things in china. i don't want to give all these organizations names. the u.s. chamber of commerce has reseller joined up.

they issued a report about the king street station of american companies in china. trade secrets being stolen. chinese companies treated in a very favorable way. american companies not. the china dream seems to be quite comprehensive. they thought a lot about it. they say don't worry. china will not be a hegemon will not be a terrific quote company enrolling the way america has been. i want to mention a couple chinese names i hope you will all remember and keep with you. they are in the book and are important to understand chinese thinking. they are both in the force told. one of them is bob. everybody say that. a hegemon. it also means tirade. it is the way america leads the world. the china when it has double work trip will economy today

surpassed us according to world inc. last month. the chinese economist writing about 2030 will be double as part of the chinese dream. they will be double us by 2030. at 2049 amid the end of the 100 year marathon, china's economy will be triple or more our economy. but they say china will not be at that time. china will use its virtue, soft power, natural attractiveness and perhaps military forces when there's disharmony and countries do not go along with the virtuous leadership. this is all part of the mission of the china dream that in some books they actually talk openly about the american model, how america surpassed england great

britain, without firing a shot by a series of techniques for chinese believe their studies of american british relations have shown them. one book in particular called the eclipse of britain by british professor who explains in london for this 100 year period, the americans ran against tangling. there was an anti-american faction that said don't let these americans get out of hand. we have to crush them or use force against them during the time of peter roosevelt. but there is also a pro-american faction that it now america is just like us. it is no big deal because they are as. the chinese view seems to be the 100 year marathon should not have the use of force as part of it ideally. they are quite sensitive as to who is who in washington d.c. with the healthy forests?

a friend of china somebody needs to be supported and praised by men who listen on healthy forests? who is trying to set back this process? this is the whole chapter i give him the message police that is becoming more and more difficult. it's becoming more and more difficult to get the straight facts about u.s.-china relations. there's so much spin by the chinese government itself or americans who claim to have an enlightened understanding of u.s.-china relations. it's kind of a long answer. if i were an ambassador i wouldn't give such a long answer. i'm trying to get into why i wrote the book -- and the weight

of the 100 year marathon. i have sort of harsh treatment in mind for those organizations. >> repaired the very first dirt is titled wishful thinking. it starts off with the incident involving the chinese taiko chon. trying to correct pronunciation but i'm becoming more like americans now. if you know several languages your lingo. if you know two languages you're bilingual. if you know one language you're american. >> a lot of good jokes about americans. >> tell us what led you to the curb of the day. >> an example of my wife and i

had and i had my hearing and loving chinese art. we have a lot of chinese tong dynasty sculptures and sometimes chinese delegations come to our home. if you have china you could give it act to the motherland. china now has 150 billionaires chinese art is going up in value. this particular artist perform something called exploding christmas tree about a month before christmas. my wife susan have been cochaired by the gala that raised $2 million for national asian rbc a. the next day secretary of state clinton gave an award and there's a big tenet made to the artist to blow up an american christmas tree on the national mall. everybody applauded including me. big crowd for trade clackamas senior officials here he held up his medal. he's been given a medal for

contributing to diplomacy through our. i wondered, how can this be? why we paid so much money to blow up a christmas tree so close to christmas on the national mall? then with the help of one of the defect or as i discussed 60 factors in the book who are in the skies. one of the defectors helped me check out the artist and i found all kinds of things that i had not known. i don't think the smithsonian or state department of labor. he talked about 9/11 s. artistic spectacle to behold and he said his favorite book is a book called unrestricted warfare about how to use terrorism in every tax to bring america to its knees right to chinese colonels who i talk about in the book. the so-called hawk faction. beginning with the story, susan i tried to help chinese art, how

we go in good faith to see the show and then how we learn my god, there's a bigger story here than we realized. in many ways he's having a little fun with us. we pay him and is part of a larger story that in our own traditions mark twain has a great novel called adventures of tom sawyer. one of tom sawyer's immortal tricks is very close to chinese strategy. he has to whitewash the fence. he's being punished for it. it's very bad, very high. but he checks his friends into painting the fence for him. how does he do that? he appeals to them. only the best person can paint the fence. you can't have the brush. they all do one in chinese means nonaction to control through

nonaction. part of another concept in here but cannot say today. sure its flex for situation are doing things earlier than the other guy can do them. so they get the friends to paint the fence for him. it is all part of the same idea. use the other countries for search technology to win the 100 year marathon. i try to show in here how some of the defectors told us. this is what china has been doing. >> an extract from the book. americans still don't see china the way css. a condition that has existed for decades. an ancient proverb across the theme folder you are in more practical terms in plain sight. it is one of the 36 strategists an essay from ancient chinese folk lawyer. all of these stratagems are

designed to defeat a more powerful opponent by using the opponents of strength against and without knowing he's even in a contest. explain. >> well, part of the reason the title of the book transfixed. the subtitle is "the hundred-year marthon: china's secret strategy to replace america as the global superpower." this is not openly declared strategy. i use a line from an american movie called the fight club. the first rule of fight club is you don't talk about the fight club. china does not openly described this strategy. they are very sensitive about being exposed. it goes back to the secret quote the chairman now himself told other leaders in 1955 and repeated a couple more times. a very hard time getting this quote out of the chinese. one of the hawks reveal dates in 2010. the quote from now is he now china's greatest contribution to

all mankind is going to be to catch up and then surpass america. now tells his colleagues this will take us from 50 to 75 years, but we've got to do it. he begins to pull away from the soviet model and then he tries to communes. 20 to 40 million people die and then make it onto the new approach of the secret strategy. we need to follow many aspects of the american model. we need to get the americans to paint our offense for us. how could we do that? they do a lot of analysis and begin to realize science technology, investment, exports to america, companies that comment and provide high tech to china, all this big package we've got to get if we are going to implement chairman mao's concept. so they begin to do that in

1969.4 chinese general spread of memo. they say we need to follow the example of the three kingdoms. 280. we need to bring the americans over. we need to bring mixed into beijing. at this point, nixon and kissinger are issuing anti-china comments. a press conference february 69 on building the defense system against china. not the soviet union. he reveals to invite nixon to come to china. five times the americans say they don't get the message or they turn it down. yes it is in kissinger's book. specifically at one point they better i didn't really believe existed. a letter from the chinese to president nixon. please come to china. one-page letter in the archives. the original still they are.

we turned this down because it was too risky. the problem with understanding china's secret strategy if intel-based documents are declassified on both sides, we don't really know how the secret strategy began and how it's working out. i got the security review authorities to declassify these documents. but memos to and from and also part of the chinese story began to come out. i hope others will follow me and try to trace the secret chided she. it is denied by the chinese at first. then if you say what about the book on the memo of the four generals? what about americans not take an initiative to open china but china open up america. in chinese officials and scholars say yes, how did you know that?

we are making progress unraveling the true history of the secret strategy on the chinese side. >> basically you are suggesting china with a clear plan in americans think they have a plan but not necessarily that clear. and then like 36 rooted in folklore and a band that goes back to 200 a.d. look, this is the nation when you talk about history that it's like it doesn't matter. >> yes yes. >> how is this country able to understand another culture or another country that exceed 100 year turns? we are lucky if people can have an eight year plan when a president gets elected for the first time. so how does america do it this

quiet >> well, what i try to do is put the issue of china and the narrative of our relations with china on the presidential election debate agenda for 2016. china was not much of an issue in 2012. that romney has a chapter on china in his book, no apology. rommie brings up that we need to be more competitive with china. there's not really much of the debate. what i would like to see in 2016 is our media who would really dominate the issues. everybody knows it when i folded judy woodruff and jim lehrer and fox news are going to raise the topic in the presidential debate, you'd better be ready. so if the media starts saying what is this all about is china really doing these things to us? are we naïve and gullible? we look at presidential candidates to become engaged

with the topics. so far only two of top about it. elizabeth warren has a comment on mine. elizabeth warren talking about the same jobs middle-class and how china investee pulley and infrastructure and gives a percentage of gdp. she's kind of admiring the chinese model that if only america could be like that. that's the title of the book at tom friedman which is quite good. the title is roughly, we used to be like that. the house council on foreign relations called foreign-policy begins at home. big section on china. the idea is there, but it's not yet a presidential issue because there is so much complete faith. the narrative in media today is china is going to collapse beard is going backward. besides, we opened up china. we are the ones responsible.

that narrative is all wrong in my view. i try to show the new evidence in this book. i try to show if it is a different narrative that china is outfoxing us. that is a presidential candidate kind of question. it would be the pillsbury dream is gwen eiffel or bill o'reilly asks all the candidates. what about this book the 100 year marathon. have you read that? they say now what book is that? >> the american dream and now we're talking about the pillsbury dream. our tree would be you actually share with this audience haqqani trade at these for this afternoon that you share with this audience what you have described in your book as the fall assumptions made by americans about china. before i do that, i want to sort of tackled the question of economics. you know militarily the united states is far superior has much

more military progress than most countries. this challenge do you talk about baby a secret strategy. what do you say to someone who was there? you are not keeping pace. your manufacturing is in the client. essentially you can't blame china. they have a better plan further improvement. >> that's a fact right. they got the plan from us than the world bank. i try to show in one long chapter. i call it the capital issue rate. i show how did the chinese design their current economic system? day guided in large part from a combination of the world tank the imf in american economists in a wonderful defector from taiwan who swam across to china

ends up going to the university of chicago to get a phd in economics from the conservative economist at chicago. goes back tries a lot of advice for how to create an economy that will break the rules of the world trade organization, will appear to be capitalist. that's why it's called the capital issue rate. but in fact will be roughly half state-owned and the government intelligence services will provide trade secrets that they steal from other companies around the world. ..

>>fy wan army captain he defects and becomes a famous economist. what does the united states do about mr. lin? bob zoellick a friend of mine, makes him vice president at the world bank and chief economist. serves for five years. he and some other famous economists in china now have a forecast that china's growth rate is going to stay 7-8 percent another to years. they believe deeply in the marathon. they believe china's on the right track. so the kind of question you raise about economics in a 100-year marathon, trying to say

actually they're really not following the rules. you look at the chamber of commerce, world trade organization legal cases, if you look at the u.s. trade representative's annual report on china, our government is very quietly saying, you know, you guys are breaking the rules all the time. there's an effort by some organizations in washington to sue the chinese even more for breaking the rules. and right now the hot topic in our business pages in washington and in beijing too is something called the b. i.t. if you're an insider you know about the b.i. tim struggle going on right now, bilateral investment treaty. and be our idea is the promise they'll treat american companies operating in china the same as they treat the national champions. and talks are secret, but there's a general discussion in the press that's not going well.

[laughter] there are some other trade negotiations going on, the chinese are excluded from the transpacific agreement, for example. the same idea. the tpp, as it's called by insiders, pretty much says you can't have state-owned enterprises, national champions be doing what china's doing. we'd like to get them in, but they know the entry price is going to be to acknowledge they have these gigantic companies that are unlike any company in the world really. some of the russian natural resources come would combines are like that, but to have them rotate among companies according to the communist party's decisions to feed espionage from other companies in the world trade secrets, to give them low price loans, low market loans, to have ambassadors overseas be like you get a message, you know

pakistan airlines needs to have this done, maybe you do it, i don't know. but the american ambassador is not really supposed to show favoritism toward individual companies. so my chapter on the capitalist charade is really quite important. that if we focus on chinese weapons system here or a chinese missile there that's important to the pentagon. but actually i don't have much military stuff in here. people think oh, this is a pentagon hawk, you know trying to raise money for the new long range bomber. actually the long range bomber isn't even in here, although it was announced today by the air force. it's going to cost a half billion per plane, and the air force would like to see about a p hundred of them. is so you can do the arithmetic. and some indices crete air force officers have said this is all about china penetrating deep into china because the hawks in china love because they can say oh, my god, we need this. no. this is about the economic, technological and political challenge from china.

>> because you talk about the hundred new bombers that the air force wants but also news today is how american manufacturing is really still struggling, you know? so -- >> our index of success in manufacturing, our competitiveness index with manufacturing is just going down like that. >> and, basically -- >> china's number one. >> -- the whole idea needs to be reinvents, should we replace manufacturing with something else in this country and that has not yet happened. false assumptions, what do you think? i mean, there are five that you've listed in your book. >> go ahead. >> should i read them? >> you should read them yes. [laughter] i've forgotten. >> wants you all to buy it. >> well, americans consistently -- >> i wasn't making fun of americans, wiz just sharing jokes -- i was just sharing jokes which are meant to make people think about certain things in which mistakes are made, manners in which mistakes are made. you also have a joke by the way, i'm going read it out now that you've poked fun at my

joke -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, exactly. i have to stand up for -- >> my brezhnev joke? >> yes. it's a russian joke and now you're saying that the meshes can't -- the americans can't make jokes? [laughter] dr. pillsbury mentioned in his book a joke that was shared with him by soviet diplomat -- [inaudible] in 1969. >> yeah. >> and the joke runs as follows: brezhnev calls nixon on the telephone and says the kgb tells me you have a new supercomputer that can predict events in the year 2000. nixon says yes, we have such a computer. well, mr. president, could you tell me what the names of our poll lis borrow members will be then? brezhnev laughs and says, that, that so your computer is not so fist is candidated after. i cannot read it. brezhnev says why not? nixon responds by saying well

it is in chinese. [laughter] so the false assumption you have listed in your book are number one, that engagement brings complete cooperation. i think you and i probably agree on that one. >> okay. >> because in my book i've made the same argument, especially in the state department that engagement leads to cooperation. sometimes. and nobody gives any margin for the other side actually manipulating the engagement. so that's that's something i think that's interesting. the second false assumption you say is that china is on the road to democracy and you believe that that's not the case. the third assumption is that china is the fragile flower, it's not going to be -- >> yeah. put pressure on china, they'll collapse. >> yeah. >> and it'd be a terrible thing. >> and then there is the assumption that china wants to be and is just like us. and that, of course, is where i start in my conversation and the

jokes that i start making which is this is an assumption that i've dealt with, everybody wants the same thing. for example i've always argued, no al-qaeda doesn't want the same thing. the guy who's willing to kill himself doesn't want a better life, which is what the american dream is, a better life. so there's a fundamental difference. this assumption that everybody wants the same thing is really undermining american foreign policy and ability to deal with the rest of the world. and then the final assumption, which you talk about which i think is are important is that china's hawks are weak. tell us more about it, because you seem to suggest that they're not as weak as americans estimate them to be. >> well, the chinese military hawks are friends of mine. and i thank them by name in my acknowledgments. i thank 35 chinese generals and admirals. i say this book would not have been possible without them. and they've kind of i hate to say the word "suffered," but

they don't like it when they read in dr. kissinger's book on china that hawks are kind of a fringe element they're kind of crazy, to use a word sometimes used they're irresponsible, and they're out of power. it's the last one they don't like, being out of power. but a chinese hawk actually is in the government wears a uniform in many cases writes books, is a high-level party member and participates at what you may call a political force in china. arguing against the doves. and i identify some of the doves in the book too. doves are in one case there's a debate going on, a couple of debates going on right now, hawks versus doves one is should the constitution of china be above the party be the above the communist party? and the hawks, of course, say

no. the party is supreme, the party knows what to do so the constitution's a good thing but it's below the party. and this has consequences all over china for the rule of law and for the future of democracy and human rights. another debate going on right now is a power struggle over who should be president of china. and dr. kissinger -- not to dwell too much on him -- but he told everybody that -- [inaudible] was very charismatic. dr. kissinger flew to china, you can get this on youtube, it's quite wonderful. at the age of about 89, this was three years ago four years ago is in a big stadium with 100,000 chinese. everybody's singing "mao" songs, what they call red songs in china. the host thanks dr. kissinger for coming dr. kissinger makes a short speech. so the idea is it's kind of the future of chi -- china.

he might be the next president. and this is a good thing because he's helping poor people, he has kind of a program to bring back -- [inaudible] the military hawks like him a lot. well things didn't work out, and now there's some new material online -- i'm looking at reporters here in the front row -- there's some new material online recently that there was a standing committee politboro deadlock of 3-3 over who should over whether he should be put in prison arrested, put in prison ultimately for life or not. he's a good guy. wants to bring back mao. dr. kissinger likes him, what the hell? [laughter] the vote's 3-3. they had to call washington, because vice president xi jinping was here visiting and he had the tie vote. now, this is media rumors only. because, obviously it's very sensitive information inside china, how they choose their next leader.

allegedly, vice president xi called back said i vote arrest him. which then leads to a gentleman named kong who is the head of security services in china also on the standing committee. he gets arrested he's going to jail for life. then some military officers who are either at the stadium singing the songs with dr. kissinger, or they were doing other things, those military officers one by one have been arrested, they're going to jail for life. so we're getting a treat here, a look into hawks versus doves many china. in china. in this case it appears the hawks may have lost. but as soon as president xi takes office he does something extremely interesting. he takes the other six members of the standing committee of politboro, the top seven guys who run china -- no women in that group, sorry -- he takes

them to a temple of the hawks. it's called the national museum of china. susan and i went there. everybody should go. if you want to understand the hundred-year marathon, it's laid out in this museum. it's the world's biggest museum by design, bigger than the louvre or the british museum or the met. and in it the hundred-year marathon is laid out. the first one is 1840-1949. kind of demonizes the americans, by the way. and then it talks about the next hundred years, the rest -- [inaudible] [speaking chinese] the restoration road which means restoring china to when it had a quarter to a third of the global gdp. so president xi in his first time out as president is going to pay homage to the hawks' view. then he starts having a series of meetings with the chinese military. he goes aboard ships with them

he starts praising them, and he indicates that he really likes and is receptive to the hawks. two of whom i praise in the back of my book, they're called the two leos, the two yens who -- generals who he's particularly close to the son of china's former president who's written a long essay on how human civilization, everything good comes from war. the other lio is a major general who i met, first met at stanford, came to stanford for a year. a lot of these guys are very well educated. two of the top hawks have ph.d.s from berkeley in political science. ph.d. from berkeley in political science. that's one of our assumptions. engagement, you know if you engage, everybody will go home wanting to become a democratic activist. these two guys get berkeley ph.d.s in political science

they go home, and they demonize the national endowment for democracy, they say the americans are out to start a war. so these are hawks -- >> i'm sure there's a voc in there about them choosing the wrong school. [laughter] >> that's right. >> but i won't make that joke. >> the idea of the hawks versus doves. >> yeah. well, you also talk about the american ignorance about chinese history, about, you know in great detail about the chinese strategy and then, of course, the whole subject of how china is influencing others on how they view china. but i am not going to get into all of that because i'm -- >> why not? >> well because i'm, this is the time when i'll open it up for questions from the audience, and i'm sure there are many. my request would be introduce yourself, an affiliation short questions, and let us try and get as many as possible. so hands up for questions. yes.

why don't we have first question right here. >> this is dr. christopher ford. >> from dr. ford. >> author of a very important book on china. >> please introduce yourself for the microphone anyway. >> i believe you're a rhodes scholar -- >> reading your book with, mike, and thank you for your comments here today. to the extent having not read it that i would have a quibble, it would still be with this issue of secrecy in the title in the sense it occurs to me feels to me as if much of what you're describing isn't, in fact, all that secret and that there may be -- my question wilds on that -- builds upon that. it strikes me it's been very clear for some time that chinese officialdom has been very resentful of u.s. primacy in world, obsessed with the way their own fall was the result as they see it, of a whole

litany of foreign depredations and humiliations. they've been convinced that is right southern of a birthright in a sense of which they've been deprived, and they've been very dedicated to the idea of national rejuvenation and return. they've been focused upon in their international relations theorizing the idea that the country that is the dominant state in the world system sets the rule for that, and they assume that should a particularly appropriately-virtuous lead state arise unlike the united states or the british before us, that the rest of the world will sort of spontaneously and harmoniously come into conformity with the norms and values of that lead estate. but these are not things that are in any way secret. my question for you is to the the extent these are themes of china's long-term strategy which i would be willing to accept that they are and believe that they are these are themes that have been hiding in plain sight almost as ambassador haqqani mentioned a new -- a few minutes

ago. the issue becomes less one of chinese secrecy about in this than what it is about us as a community that has refused to see what has been hide anything plain sight. and i'd like to ask can you a little bit about that. tell us a little bit about how it is and why it is that we have responded or not responded in the ways that we have to this fairly nonsecret secret strategy. >> right. excellent question. i would say there are aspects of china's secret strategy that really are secret. what you're laying out correctly, the themes of the chinese narrative that's going to be covered in your next book on how the chinese see america in, sort of in a mirror that's broadly known in china -- some of those themes on the museum the national museum walls -- are the various things you laid out. for example, the need to what they call --

[speaking chinese] like snow or clean, to avenge, and the concept of avenging the hundred years of humiliation. this is on the museum walls, it's in chinese books. but where it becomes secret is the techniques and means that are used to implement these broad themes. you mentioned about five or six of the broad themes. the book is late. it's going to come out november 1st. do you know why it's late? because i thought i've got to lay out evidence of the secret strategy. i was not in control of the evidence. it had to go to fbi cia and dod and a fourth plus security review, where they took many, many months to remove a few hinges and let most -- a few things and let most of it out. it's a message to china really that the security review

authority ors -- in some cases fairly senior officials got involved -- that they're willing to let the material in mere out about the -- in here out about the secret nature of the strategy. if they had not done that, we -- the book wouldn't exist. i was not prepared to go in exile like snowden -- [laughter] you know fly to hong kong and moscow, and i was not prepared to be like private chelsea manning and just say to the press as he allegedly did and will spend most of his life in prison because of it, hey look at all these cables. so i put together the evidence that i thought was about the secretiveness of the strategy. the defector interviews some other materials and i submitted it, and i think the fact that it's been approved to be made public suggests that somebody somewhere wants to send a message to the chinese. we're not as clueless as you thought. at least some of us understand

what you're up to. so yes, broad themes that you laid out, but the implementation is often quite unknown to the public. and the six defectors i start out each chapter with a defector story. in one case one of the defectors says something different from what you and i might think as chinese strategy. xi tells us -- and ultimately gets $2 million for doing this -- she says -- [inaudible] sings elvis presley songs in english. china does not engage in proliferation behavior from the top, it's only these rogue companies. she has a series of very wonderful, pleasing stories about u.s./china cooperation is going to be unlimited. and she has access to president -- [inaudible] this is all quite wonderful. and other deit can to haves -- defectors suffer because they

have a different story to tell about chinese strategy. and then one day she's arrested by the fbi. for espionage for china. and i tell her story in here. later on the fbi issues a couple of reports how foolish they were to believe her. the fbi has not released -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> the fbi has not released the damage assessment report of what she actually told the chinese. so i make an appeal at the end of the chapter where i have a kind of spy versus spy series of case studies our spies against china, chinese spies against america. that was clearly a victory for them. but the fbi will not release the damage assessment report yet. and i call upon them to do that. another spy for china who was caught admitted it in court in alexandria in '86, was found

dead. he allegedly put a black trash bag around his neck and asphyxiated himself. so he wasn't able to tell everything he had passed to china, but he said he'd been doing it for 30 years. and he was an employee of the cia. so that's another one for the chinese side. so in the spy versus spy story that i'm hoping to intrigue you to actually read the book, i try to bring out the secret aspects of the strategy that implement these broad themes. how was that as an answer? does that satisfy your question or do you think that's dodging the question? >> if i may add, as i understand it the goals are out in the open, but i think the book has the word secret, you know, we can quibble about it, but i think what dr. pillsbury is actually referring to the secret implementation as a methodological, proper sort of

topout plan, and that's what he's talking about in the book. but as we always want people to do when we have book events here, we want you to read the book. >> next question. >> one more sentence. we had an interesting discussion last night at politics & prose and a chinese gentleman said, well, you know, this is not secret. and he went a little bit further. he said china doesn't really have a tragedy at all. this is part of their very common line that they will say. our leaders don't know what they're doing. [speaking chinese] probably their greatest expert on america has written an article in a prestigious magazine a few years ago, said china has no grand strategy. we're just kind of hapless people feeling, groping stones as we cross the river. so the opposite of what you're implying, that everybody knows china has this secret strategy, well, no the official chinese

position is we don't have a strategy at all, we're just doing the best we can. and it certainly isn't secret and. so i hope you read the section in here where i give their account to -- their denial of having a secret strategy. >> right at the back. right behind you right behind you. yeah. >> hi tony -- [inaudible] so my question has more to do with how do you view foreign policy making as a part of chinese politicians decision -- politics decision making process in materials of the institutional set-up? the chinese leadership has an array of challenges they have to face. you lay out this plan to take over the unite, but they have more plans to worry about. they have five-year plans and we know that foreign policy making's not in the top. the standing committee level there's no special member representing foreign policy. so i'm just wondering if you zoom out a little bit how do you think the chinese leadership will weigh foreign policy making? do you think they will weigh

the -- [inaudible] agenda domestic agenda much more heavier than the foreign policy agenda and do you think the regime is more inward looking than outward looking if you assume that the communist party's primary objective is to stay in power? and then let's assume foreign policy plays a big role in decision making. do you think the defectors will be very representative of the mainstream foreign policy thinking, you know? just like i can write a book about american politics based on my interviews with tea party members, but i wouldn't describe it as -- >> right. >> could be interesting book, but can't depict that as mainstream thinking. thank you. >> right. well, if i understand your question correctly you want me to answer by saying, you know china's focused only in word and has so many problems and only a few hawks are the tea party equivalence in china, only a few of them want to have an assertive foreign policy, so isn't my book basically wrong?

[laughter] so i would say no, maybe not. their idea, the chinese leadership's idea of domestic policy, as you put it, for at least 30 years and maybe longer has been what i said about tom sawyer getting his friends to paint the fence. to solve our domestic problems, we need help from the world outside. the way they often phrase it is china needs a peaceful security environment in which to flourish domestically. so it's a little bit of a trick question you're answering -- you're asking. it's not foreign policy. that's a junior topic in china compared to domestic issues. yes, you're right. but the domestic issues and their belief can only be solved with what? exports, the outside world. especially the americans. more foreign direct investment. they get 20 times more foreign direct investment from us than india.

is that just some natural thing? no. the chinese leaders have worked very hard to get american high-tech investment in china. it's one of their top goals for 30 years. now, is that a foreign policy idea, or is it domestic policy? it's both. we need to get the americans to wash whitewash and paint our fence for us. there's a whole series of things that chinese leaders state in their speeches. what they have to get from the outside world. and in some sense the outside world owes them. because of what chris ford mentioned, the century of bad treatment, of humiliation by these foreign powers. so the secret strategy and the hundred-year marathon, what the book's really trying to explain is that if we use what ambassador haqqani's warning us, don't use american concepts that foreign policy and domestic affairs are somehow two different things. no, not in china. the only way to win the marathon is going to be successful terms

of trade, investment, technology and goodwill. they've got to get goodwill from the united states and their other neighbors. this is a supreme foreign policy goal of china. >> try to understand others rather than from the american point of view it's more important for the americans to try and understand what the others are actually aiming for than assume that they are classified exactly like us. and that they're structured almost like us. >> yes exactly. i loved your opening comment about americans like to either see a country as somebody we should bomb or somebody we should take to lunch. and the chinese have strong feelings about that. we're the one you should take to lunch. >> well, and chinese food is generally pretty good and quite popular and cheap here. >> right here in the front. [laugher] >> this is the of president of the national --

>> i noticed you mentioned briefly the senate inquiry back in '96 which uncovered an attempt by the chinese to directly influence the political process. it's much worse today. and when we talk about secrecy or transparency, can you expound on the idea that there's much more influence on congress and the american democratic process today than there ever has been particularly in a very diplomatic way. >> well, have to be careful in this area because i don't want to slander people and say you just say that because china's giving you $100 million. that's considered below-the-belt attacks in our political system. what i'd rather say is praise a part of the chinese secret strategy which is really brilliant, and i was quite

stupid back in 1999. i had a chance and met with this beautiful woman in china. and i didn't understand what she did. she had a huge building, big building, staff of a thousand. and my host said you've got to meet her, you know she's a comer. so we had a long talk. she gave me some books and magazines and, you know, i still have the photo. i'm going to put the photo up online of my web site, hundred-yearmarathon.com as a web site. she's now the most powerful woman in china. she's a vice premier she's on the politboro and she's here recently to visit with hillary clinton, the two of them had a conference together. she came up with something called the confucius institutes. there's 350 of them in china -- in america. they offer money to universities and sign a contract to teach chinese and teach can chinese civilization. you think, well, what's wrong with that?

and this has become quite a controversy in the newspapers of the world. what exactly is going on here? stanford has one, there have been controversial -- chicago and some of them are being kicked out of these universities. because they have certain sensitivities. you can't talk about national endowment for democracy. you can't talk about the dalai lama, can't talk about all kinds of things. and when they teach chinese civilization, confucius is responsible for some great works. one of them is called the spring-autumn annals. it's all about quarrels in geopolitics and deception and trickery, things that are part of the hundred-year marathon today to. if you go into a confucius institute and say gee i'd like to study confucius' classic number five, you know the one on the spring-autumn annals, the one on the rise and fall of five hegemons, five what?

five bah confucius wrote about this, how you become a hegemon or how you bring an old one down. no, that's not really part of our confucius institute program. so this is all legal. it's in the billions and billions. it's all over the world. susan and i went in to see one in south africa recently. massive confucius institute in south africa. having a huge kind of soft power impact. this is focused on the next generation. it isn't giving $100 million to an 80-year-old today to influence his or her views. it's looking at the next generation on college campuses. so that's something i admire. by the way the lady's name is yen dung, and she laid this out to me in the meeting. i always have an escort to make sure i don't say the wrong thing and take notes -- >> and yet you come back.

[laughter] >> and she laid out in this meeting we feel we need better soft power around the world, you know? could you help us? and i didn't fully grasp the significant resources the billions and billions that were going to go into this program. and the confucius institutes is only one of many programs. cc-tv is just a very breathtaking operation. that's the chapter in the book called "the message police." and i try to express admiration for what they're doing. it's completely legal. >> you say in the book that -- and i'll quote -- from the 17th century to the modern era, sinologists, missionaries and researchers who visited and studied china were essentially led to accept a fabricated account of chinese history. chinese sources played up the nature of chinese culture and played down the bloody warring state spirit. so i guess that's the point you're making here. yes, right in the middle. >> now he's slipping away.

>> he's got work to do. [laughter] >> [inaudible] school for advanced international studies. my question is about u.s./china relations in the context of two third party relations that are in the news right now, specifically north korea in the context of the cybersecurity and the nuclear discussions that are going on as well as with regards to hong kong and the democratization debates and discussions that are taking place. so i'd just like to get your opinion on how you think that those two triangular relations are going to play out in this context. thank you. >> well, thank you for your question. hong kong and north korea the chinese secret strategy for the hundred-year marathon is not to upset the americans. this is sort of like criteria number one. so in both cases the chinese

official position -- as i understand it -- we want to help you on north korea. we oppose, you know, nuclear weapons on the peninsula either in south korea or north korea, and we want to work with you, americans, in the six-party talks or bilaterally or however. you know we support your american goal. so that's very good news to americans. and then hong kong the chinese position has been, oh, the worst thing that could happen is use of force, you know by either side. so that's good news too. and they say that china's going to implement their agreement with the british until when? 2047, just two years before the end of the marathon. so yes they will have -- chinese government will have some, you know light-handed role in previewing the candidates to be elected in hong kong, but not to worry about this, you know, they will still allow an election which is according to the rules, the agreement with the british.

but of course they want, you know candidates have to have have to have legal, you know, they have to pass the test before they can run. so that's all chinese, communist party's going to do, is just vet these candidates to make sure they're okay before there's an election. so both of those chinese positions, you notice the subtlety there. don't directly confront the americans. president xi has a new slogan, he calls it the new model of great power relations. and in the new model the rising power is going to peacefully replace the old power without a war, and president obama you would think would accept the few model. because it applies specifically to places like hong kong, north korea, iran, number of policy issues. but actually president obama has not accepted the new model of great power relations. this has caused a lot of concern in china. and my friends the hawks in

bay young are say -- beijing are say, you see? he won't accept the new model of great power relations. this proves the americans are out to get us, to overthrow us, to encircle us and to dismember us. president obama and his team have given a different eczema nation. explanation. they have said, well, we -- president obama gave a speech actually saying over time we need to try to develop this new model. and the chinese say, well no, no, you need to accept it now. our president spent an hour and a half with you at the summit talking about it. we don't need to over time move toward it. and susan rice gave a speech at georgetown over a year ago she said something similar. we need to operationalize and move toward the new model. so we, too on our side, we're kind of giving lip service in public. yes, u.s./china relations are just filled with cooperation and

happiness. we work together on north korea ask iran and -- and iran and a hundred things, climate change. but, oh, when you start examining the details somehow north korea still has nuclear weapons, somehow the hong kong election system did not get fixed, it's not going to be a free election. a whole series of things that when you put the microscope into the agreement -- i mentioned the bilateral investment treaty problem too well no, we don't quite have agreement there. for china this new model of relations not being accepted by president obama or secretary kerry -- he made a speech on it -- all the senior figures in the administration have said very very subtly we need to move toward the new model but this is really one of the, it's probably the biggest single point of friction right now between the u.s. and china. and if you try to get an op-ed piece written or go to our media

and ask presidential candidates, imagine this big presidential candidate debate in 2016 and someone says well, how do you stand on the new model of great power relations? no one's ever heard of it in the mainstream media. but yet in my humble opinion this is the key point of friction right now between the u.s. and china. and everything else comes under that. if we can't agree on accepting the new model, the chinese proposal for a new model then the americans can accept the idea can peacefully rise like america did against england. it means the americans are still considering at least coercion against china and possibly the use of force. and then the hawks in china read into that, also the rebalance more ships, more planes. if you read ash carter's speeches he says we should focus our defense research and

science on the pacific and india. >> you write about china's seven fears -- >> yes that's another chapter. >> which is another chapter. >> i hope that answers your question. >> right here. >> these two things are part of larger issue of accepting the new model or not. >> thank you. michael, two questions. one, where does taiwan -- where and how does taiwan fit into the chinese hundred-year marathon strategy? second question if you look at chinese history since 1949 many of the top leaders or top leaders-designate were actually brought down before they became top leaders. and some of the top leaders who actually became top leaders they seemed to have pursued the you know, totally opposing strategies or policies.

xiaoping was considered the opposite of chairman mao to, and xi jinping pursued a much more conservative policy than two of his three predecessors. how do you think the chinese were able to maintain the consistency of a hundred-year strategy? how do they do that? the chinese do maintain a longer-term perspective than the americans. but as a previous question suggested, they only have like a five-year plan for five years. so how do you, how do they maintain the consistency? thank you very much. >> well it's two questions. on the taiwan question the chinese vision of the hundred-year marathon is taiwan is on china's side. part of their secret strategy is to pull taiwan over to china's

side. and madam yen dung and the member of the building i talked about, the mission of the united front department is focused heavily on taiwan. they want the taiwan media taiwan businessmen -- of whom there's, i don't know almost a million now in china -- they want taiwan to come over to china's side. they believe it's a strategic mistake to alienate tie want -- taiwan. their strategy in washington is very similar. they want taiwan to sort of not be part of the conversation. when we announced the rebalance and the pivot to asia there's no mention of taiwan. now, your second question's a little bit related to taiwan. the hawks in china some of whom sometimes candidate, as you say, goes down, the hundred-year marathon strategy that i write

about in some detail has been debated. it's not a clear blue print -- blueprint. there's power struggles over how best to implement the marathon strategy. and it's caused the death of a number of leaders. it's not a casual debate,? gee, how do we surpass the americans? chairman mao told us in 1955 our great contribution is to surpass the americans, you know? the next year he said, well maybe just 50 years then he shortened it to 10 years. first he said 25, then he said 20. mao made a series of speeches these secret speeches. and by '58 he was saying just ten years. we can surpass the americans. especially in steel production. well, many people are going to die over that statement. people tried to tell the chairman no we can't really do it in ten years.

they get fired or they get killed. and the debate comes up again in 1971 when mao and the four generals i mentioned said okay let's bring kissinger and nixon -- they wanted nixon first. kissinger kind of inserted himself into it he admits it in his memoirs. they kept saying president nixon should come to beijing or an envoy. dr. kissinger said well, obviously they mean an envoy has to go first. twice. so that led to the death of roughly ten chinese generals. finish and mao sort of winks and says to nixon, you know, it's in the declassified documents ma or o says to nixon some -- mao says to nixon some people didn't want you to come but don't worry about it. [laughter] he meant he'd killed his top ten generals who opposed this. and to this day the mystery of this plane crash that's heading for the soviet union crashes in

outer mongolia, and the chinese narrative is well they're traitors. they tried to kill chairman mao, they opposed nixon coming, so they ran and their plane ran out of gas, so they all died. and others are put on trial later on. there's another story, as you know the gang of four story in '76. they have a whole different vision. mao's wife and the others in the gang of four, they have of a different vision of how to do a hundred-year marathon. and they commit suicide in jail or they spend life this prison. a couple of them have come out now actually. so this is a life or death struggle how to do the hundred-year marathon. but nobody can say, i mean there's several things you can't say in china today. if you want to stay in the party and the government. you can't say i don't want to surpass the united states. i'd be happy to be the small little brother of the united states forever. no. you can't say, you know the dalai lama is a very handsome guy. [laughter]

why can't we invite him to obey ginning, you know, and let him go -- to beijing, you know, and let him go back to lhasa for a while? there's a whole series of what they call the nine don't says. so you're alluding to with taiwan and other issues these very bloody power struggles that's part of the chinese message. if you're at the confucius institute and you're learning chinese and put your hand up and say what exactly happened to these generals who were killed in '71 and the gang of four and you know why can't the dalai lama come, no, it's not on the curriculum of the confucius institute. so you're raising kind of sensitive, embarrassing questions. but i hope i've persuaded you that the goal is not up for debate. surpassing america is china's greatest contribution to the human race. unquote. >> so final three questions. right here in the front, you -- and then the gentleman at the back. yeah. we won't have time enough for

everyone, but i'm sure michael will be here to sign books afterwards -- [laughter] and, therefore, you can ask him some questions in person. please go ahead. >> hi, mike. nadia -- [inaudible] with the liberty times, taiwan. in the context of your books or your assumption, you know, how would xi jinping going to fit? he seems to be more openly talk about the china stream and with some pretty concrete proposal what china should do in his tenure. and the second question is that do you see -- maybe this is going a step too far, but, you know, soviet union, russia sees china the way that u.s. see it you know? does the mainstream view from russia, do they believe a peaceful rise in china? thank you. >> well, in terms of president xi jinping's plans he's been very clear that he believes in

reform. he has a i new book out -- he has a new book out. it's white like this, and it has a little picture in the middle. and the book i actually read it the book is about improving governance, what he calls governance in china, which is a world bank term. he wants to improve the efficiency of china, the growth rate, he wants the shanghai free trade zone to do some experiments about foreign currency being easier to send back to companies. so president xi is presenting himself as a reformer an experimenter, someone willing to, you know, in some sense have the hundred-year marathon go faster. why wait til 2049? so i see him as a guy i first met, actually, i have a picture of him. our slides didn't arrive in

time, but i had a very nice picture of him in 1980. he's 27 years old. he came to the pentagon. he's been to the pentagon twice. i've been there both times. the the first time he didn't talk 1980. he's a noteb taker for a delegation of chinese generals. and he put that photo if his book -- in his book. he's proud of the old days 1980 when he came to visit the pentagon. he's also quite friendly with the hawks. they seem to appreciate him. so it's a contradictory two themes you might say. i'm a reformer, i want china to really go faster in the hundred-year marathon, but i like the narrative that the hawks have been giving, that

china's destiny is really something we should start talking about. so he's changing what used to be the sacred strategy. everybody in washington knew this. [speaking chinese] hard to translate r it means roughly bide your time and nourish your obscurity. now, what does that mean? [laughter] to put it in american as ambassador haqqani would do it's the movie i mentioned "the fight club." the first rule of the fight club is don't talk about the fight club. [speaking chinese] means don't talk about our long-range strategy. so president xi seems to be saying no, it's okay to start talking about 2049 and what the world's going to look like in 2049. and is by the way, nadia it's very good news. 2049, that world is going to be really quite wonderful, according to president xi. and by the way, taiwan is really not part of the story. it's going to be brought over

toward china and not pose a problem anymore. >> what about the russian part of the question? does russia view it exactly the way the americans do? >> no. no the russians are having a very intensive debate in moscow about china. you can find hawks and doves. i went back the see a guy i talk a lot about in the book a person who first taught me about china. he was in my united nations secretariat political affairs department. he was sort of on loan from the russian government. we both had plenty of time on our hands so we'd talk about china. i went back to see him a few years ago with susan in moscow. he came to this seminar. we were quite surprised he showed up. official seminar. and he said i told you so. it emerged in moscow that there are pro-china and anti-china points of view. the pro-china point of view is, hey, these guys are with us. the anti-china view is, hey,

there's two million undocumented chinese in siberia. they're taking over all kinds of stuff in china. they drive too hard a bargain. steel for 400 billion natural gas -- it's not finalized yet. but the price is really quite low the chinese are offering. so in the case of ukraine crimea chinese have not been fulsome in their endorsement of what putin is doing. so i see a kind of growing fiction, a kind of growing debate in moscow over what to do about china. and i'm hoping there'll be a russian language edition of "the hundred-year marathon." i have good news for you. the japanese bought the translation rights going to appear in japan -- >> that's good news for you. >> that's good news for me. [laughter] >> and for those who read japanese. >> the chinese have told me your last book was translated in china, published in china, which is true. only one redaction.

we'd like to publish this book in china. i have not yet heard from the russians. i'm hoping they'll like to publish it. >> good. >> and last thing, i just checked amazon. do you know this is number four on the amazon bestseller list this morning? >> it'll go up when these people buy it. [laughter] >> i'm hoping christopher ford buys more than one cope. >> the gentleman here, and then there's one question right at the very back. that's it. i'm sorry. >> michael -- [inaudible] >> oh, my god, michael ya hue da. one of our greatest china experts. he's going to pretend to ask me a question. [laughter] >> my question is this, before hundred years of humiliation china's main contact with the outside world is what we would now call its neighbors. where do these neighbors fit in to this hundred-year marathon? because after all, quite a number of these neighbors --

some of them very important -- are allies of the united states. >> uh-huh. >> will these just sed their alliance with the -- shed their alliance with the united states when they see the magnificence of xi jinping -- [laughter] or where exactly do they fit in? i would add one further point and that is in my conversations with learned people in china -- >> and your many books about chinese foreign policy -- >> -- what comes across is the ignorance of other countries. >> uh-huh. >> they in many instances, perhaps they know a great deal about the united states, but my impression is many of those who have a great deal of knowledge about the united states somehow have a lack of some basic understanding as to how the united states works. neither their history nor their current political system seems to allow for an understanding of

how democracies with all their con rah dictions, with all -- contradictions, with all their problems have lasted and how they work. could you please comment? >> well i have good news for you, professor michael ya health care uda. the hudson institute certain for chinese strategy is going of to have a series of events, essential hi press conferences -- essentially press conferences, in which we're going to release translations of chinese strategic writings that i think are important and are not easily available. and one of the first topics is going to be this particular kind of chinese strategic writing about how well do they understand their neighbors and the united states as well? because i think you're essentially correct that there's a lot of misperceptions. if we had to to score the chinese -- now i'm saying, you know, don't forget, i'm saying they're outsmarting us

outfoxing us in some areas. so i would seem to be saying the chinese are really, really smart, and they know everything about their neighbors. and you're adding kind of a cautionary note. well no, in your conversations -- and i've had similar discussions -- they don't seem to really get it very well about their neighbors. and i think there's an area here for a kind of i hate to be a pollyanna, but there's an area for further discussion with the chinese about their misperceptions of a lot of things on america. i have a chapter here called "america, the great satan." they say abraham lincoln began the containment policy. yeah. >> he was containing the south. [laughter] >> they've got similar views on india, you know, that the indians are this and this and this. really kind of wild stuff about india. about japan they've got a series of narratives about japan that really the samurai are still there, and they love blood and

they can't wait for the next war. so when they visit the shrine, this is like part of the program. they say that the japanese have a peaceful, scientific missile that they launch into space. this is really an icbm the chinese hawks say. and there's 70 tons of missing plutonium in japan. well, it's obvious to the chinese hawks what this is, it's in the underground nuclear weapons that have already been made. so when you get these kind of wild misperceptions on the one hand we can despair and say, oh, you know, what a pity. on the other hand, this is an opportunity if we made a list of these misperceptions and then tried to, i hate to say the word "confront," that's a little bit too tough, but to discuss with them -- >> [inaudible] >> hey, stop saying this. abraham lincoln didn't do this. woodrow wilson didn't do this. your whole narrative you're teaching in collegeses and to your party members -- in

colleges and to your party members is false if our leaders began to do that, they'd have to respond. and either we'd get better educated oh, my god, this is what we really think -- this is what they really think? or they'd back off. the chinese are all over the japanese on their textbooks about world war ii. and there's some merit to it. but we are simply passive so far, and i think it's because of a lack of translations into english, which is what the hudson institute center on chinese strategy wants to do, sort of bring out some of these terms that are open in china but are not well known here and are really quite shocking. >> great. final question right at the back. i know there are many, many, many unanswered question, but there'll be time to discuss them when you get the book signed. the gentleman in the back sorry. >> thank you very much. my name -- [inaudible] china news agency of hong kong. >> okay. >> and i have a question, a

follow-up question on taiwan. you mentioned that for 100-year term taiwan will be on chinese side. so assuming that you believe that taiwan will be unified with china finally within 100 years, what will be the rise strategic for the united states to deal with taiwan issue in the context of power shifting in west asia pacific area? thank you. >> good question. one of the chinese misperceptions really quite fascinating, they -- the hawks when they write about america and taiwan, they have a, they always write the same way. taiwan is really an unsinkable aircraft carrier the americans are using to contain china and they have maps sometimes, a big map. and they'll show how taiwan is blocking all these ports of china, and the americans have their secret strategy which is

to block china from coming out into the ocean by building up taiwan. ..