first of all i tell people we don't build anything, we buy things, first and foremost and we buy them from private industry so our relationship with the private technology sector, the alternative was pride by the soviet union which works out well. it is always been our

relationship with private industry that has been the channel through which we got the best technology. that has to be different in today's world and that is what i'm trying to adjust to in the world where i began where bill was. in those days the technology of consequence was mostly american. must -- much of it was government-sponsored. those are still major players but those two things are not to be taken for granted so we have a new relationship with dynamic innovative culture of the united states from the one i had when i started my career. there is a change in the technical substance we are trying to achieve. that is when you see me coming

out all the time to the palo alto area and elsewhere but trying to connect in recognition of the fact that they on like i, scientists and engineers, part of my dna growing up, a better responsibility and connection to public life, it is not the reflex anymore. we have to reach out to connect with them and draw them in. >> one thing you are doing is the innovation that is experimental, the defense department set up units in silicon valley. are you planning one elsewhere? >> lots of good technology in the united states, it is

cyberworld and animal proximity matters, having so many in the neighborhood from a set of us in reaching out to meet people on their physical mental territory matters so grateful to stanford which was an important part of helping me set up at ames, then up in boston which has a different technological center of gravity from the valley and that is good. in austin, vibrant technology, if you talk to somebody who hasn't been part of this and give them a chance these are young people who want to make a difference, younger hoover

scholars, they want what is up here to make a contribution, when you tell them they can do that, that is meaningful and make it possible for them to do it, to join the military, it would be great if they did but we will find some other way to make it possible to go in and out and do something else, broaden themselves in some other way and recognize kids are different from kids in my day and we have 2 adapt if we are going to draw them. >> student of defense acquisition, i spent a fair amount of time writing about it, a slow-moving purchase, what you seem to be trying to do is

create an alternative universe, agile, accelerated, find things off the shelf in places like silicon valley or getting involved early on in the development of technologies that may have military applications so this is not an easy thing to do on the one hand to accomplish that end you face a lot of consolidated defense industry. in military services. >> last parties easy, great companies worked for a long time, they are in the same situation as high-tech companies, the burden of defense

being -- needing young good talent, needing to draw people into them, the importance of what they do, and every time i get someone to work on one of our problems, someone potentially working for them it is in many cases a small company that they will buy so this becomes a theater for the traditional sweep which the undersecretary of acquisition, the same job bill had for harold but when carol was secretary of defense he knows extremely well, and in this respect it was the same, you are going to build and design and build a new ship class. what you can't afford to do in

today's is make everything take that long because the world of technology is changing too fast. people won't want to work with you because you won't work with people who fall behind. we need to do that and the wars are not a good thing but it is a spirit of agility because you can't stand -- for somebody getting ready for a hypothetical thing, they are fighting today so we learned a lot about agility during that period and i learned a lot about it.

our acquisitions, i am the last one who will tell you everything is perfect but the companies are in the same boat we are and every major institution trying to get younger people especially young talented up-to-date people in their environment working on the problems that matter and everyone is doing the same thing competing for the bases you see around this room, that are up-to-date. >> let's take a concrete case which is north korea. we have -- >> not of agility. >> missile defense, the pentagon has been working for many years. my question when you think about

what you are trying to do, and applicable to north korean threat. >> north korea is deadly serious about it for a moment and bill perry is someone who tried very hard to get on a different path with north korea but it wasn't to be and they are what they are and it is not a game and not in the headlines a lot, every day slogan of us forces as many of you know is -- what we want to do, what we have to be able to

do and we already do so we have a strong presence for south korean allies, not the rock army, extremely good, strong ally japan, but the diplomatic picture is weak at the moment, we continue to be open to an improvement, russia and china interested so hard to project that that is where it is going. as far as i can see we need to stand strong, you mentioned missile defense and i will differ with you a bit because we do try to stay ahead of the north korean missile threat. missile defense is a difficult issue and when it comes to a

major nuclear threat like that posed by russia we know we have no way to protect ourselves except deterrence but we don't accept that with respect to north korea and we are not going to for as long as we can possibly avoid it so we do aspire to protection. we invest a lot and try to stay ahead of what they are doing and qualitatively, we have north korea, iran, talk about problematic situations, russia, asia-pacific generally, north korea is one of these things that never seems to go away. i looked at 1994, spent half of

my time working for bill perry, 1994, deadly serious in those days. can i tell you a military story? it is aimed at hoover people here, trying to figure out whether to do what bill has done but more importantly 2.8 million folks which i think is the noblest way to spend your lives, protecting people, nothing better to tell your family you have been doing all day than that so trying to ignore them, i may have told you this story before that you didn't know at the time. i was a physicist absorbed in

physics and i went to the scientific conference in washington and went to sessions and sessions about physics which was my field and there is one physics public interest panel, speaker and that our was free and i sat down a person from the defense department and badgered about smart weapons and the question they thought was a gotcha question, what do you do with one of these complicated

microchip enabled things? i will never forget the phrase, how is some sergeant going to fix that? they will throw it out and get another one. there is an interesting guy, smart guy. that is what he is doing and a light went off, as many of you, doing it for one year and spark in their, that guy is something else. i am sure you don't remember that, for young one person in

the audience, connecting and understanding, pretty cool. >> when one thinks of autonomous weapons, semi autonomous weapons like drones we are using today, visions of the future with nuclear missiles and unmanned submarines, is that something you can imagine? >> i believe in the matter of the use of legal force there will always in the united states be a human being involved in decisionmaking, that is necessary and i don't anticipate

that, systems with greater degrees of ability, growing increasingly autonomous. in most cases you need to continue being a human machine overall system. interestingly before this discussion started, issued a directive, i was deputy secretary of defense but as deputy secretary, a directive that says exactly that, that there will always be a human being the decisionmaking involving the use of lethal force by the united states military. >> when we think of technology

we are finding the downside of technology, the loss of privacy so as you launch the program's what are you doing if anything to try to launch consideration of the legal, political and even moral questions raised by technologies? >> i gave an example of us trying to look ahead. looking at autonomous systems so we do look ahead and think ahead and as far as privacy is concerned, particularly internet privacy, i will say we are enormous consumers of information protection technology. there is nothing more important to us. that is our principal cyber mission, that is what i try to tell people, that is job one.

there is no point in having those tanks and ships and everything, they are all connected so we have to have the network protected so we are big supporters of network protection, the largest in the world in terms of what we invest in the level of protection. >> we see almost weekly stories of impervious systems that are hacked and it raises the specter of a future in which defense operates so heavily in these systems that they are vulnerable to hacking, a miscalculation, having a nuclear war, aren't we going to potentially leave ourselves in a situation where

these systems can be taken over by foreign powers or terrorist organizations? >> not in the case of the nuclear arsenal, a special case where we have special safeguards but i have confidence not to be going into here but in general you are right, we worry about it, we are concerned, anyone who thinks they are vulnerable is kidding themselves, that means it is a constant battle, constantly looking, also thinking what if i lose the connection or lose the ability so we train our people to operating through and attack that kind so you have a fallback operational mode and style that

is not complete prostration if that happens. on protecting ourselves, one of the things i have done that is in innovation always looking at people outside. one thing i do is try to talk to people who are not hurt but care about their safety and family safety and children's safety and take an interest to set up and innovation board, jeff bezos, hoffman, personnel things we do, i don't expect you to know anything about defense but you do know what agile former companies are thinking, tell me

things that might be useful. we can't use everything because we are not a company and one idea i got early on that i asked eric for more of but the entire united states government, a lot of companies do and when you go out and invite hackers for a reward of some kind, and it is called hack the pentagon. it was spectacular, we got for free a friendly, thorough examination for which we make hundreds of adjustments, the

thing we pay for, would not necessarily be as good. we can't get big rewards, hacked the pentagon. there is an example of something novel out in the rest of the world, that is the kind of idea i wanted to get. we are the profession of arms, things that companies do, would never be able to do, but there are lots of things, part of adapting our style land technological content to today

in the future, in the carter administration. change the time you spend with us. >> you get to be bill, and appreciate -- i want to repeat what i said about bill, bill perry as i think about myself now talking to audiences, the conference in san francisco, and great majority of them had not served in the military, the world war ii generation or the draft generation, how can i connect to them and inspired them with the greatness of doing

something in public life and i will just say bill perry was a big inspiration to millions of people, many other people in my generation but certainly to me, he not only represented that connection of thinking and understanding to service but also great civility and decency, someone i always knew would do the right thing, stand for the right thing, stand behind people and that is important too, that we all be morally solid for the next generation to the best of our abilities so he had all that. we were lucky, our country and

our world. >> thanks. >> good to see you all. [applause] change i feel like i won a relay race. my apologies for not bringing you in, time with the defense secretary, knowing what you know about innovation in the military, or what - is trying to do, what would be your advice to him? what should he be on the lookout for that would surprise him and append his plans? >> let me start with what you already discussed briefly,

talked about how important autonomy is today. i don't -- they are remotely controlled, remotely operated systems. in the lethal field we don't have a doomsday machine. we don't give a machine the authority to launch nuclear weapons. we have great improvements with machines with autonomous capability but in almost all cases we keep a human in the loop of decisionmaking, that is an important consideration. some are old enough to see the movie with the doomsday machine. you have to remember not only the people aired, the machine did.

best designed machines can air. we have people in the loop, welcomes a call from north american defense command where the computer was showing icbms on their way from the soviet union to the united states. the deck i want to make about that story now is the computer was making an error that our system understood the machines make errors, so we had a human being in that loop. the human in the loop that night was an astute general who made the right decision, a few minutes to decide not to lunch and start a nuclear war. very important point.

>> what do you think the trapdoors are for ash carter as he moved ahead with this program or his successor, with new technologies, what are the things to look out for? >> he mentioned one of them, introducing state of the art technology working with industry. we do not have the capability and the government to make state-of-the-art systems, we go to industry to get that done. it is different than industry when i was under secretary of defense. people have been understood the importance of assisting this, to get people to do things i was asking them to do. not too easy for ash, the

defense industrial experimental -- >> experimental. >> one of the main points is to get industry on our side. it is a tough job and we will have good results but it is different. when i was undersecretary of defense in the 70s and we did the opposite strategy, 95% of military equipment had electronics in it, they were vacuum tubes, vacuum tubes. hard to think of that today. one of my jobs was not just to bring these new concepts like smart weapons but to get

upgraded to modern electronics, the weight advantages. the industry was receptive but we had the semi conductor which was one side of the defense industry and they never talked to each other so i created a program of integrated circuits. the purpose to advance the next level of integrated circuits of military equipment, whatever it was was what existed before then so we put companies out to bid on this so we got the program but more important than the advance was the requirement that anyone who bid on this had to have a team, had to be a semi

conductor company so forced those to get together. the good that came out of that was more important than the feature side that got in. >> secretary carter, what ash is doing today, he alluded in his comments early on in this appearance to the cold war sort of balance of power with the soviet union. ..

i think about other countries in the world, specifically china. which is going to have probably, as astute technological progress as the united states is going to have in areas like ai. so what, when you think about this, how does that change the sort of stability issue when you're trying to develop the american defense of the future? >> that's a big difference today when i was doing it. >> right. >> i remember i went, after i got out of office as undersecretary of defense in 1981. during my first visit to the soviet union. prior to that i got all the intelligence briefings how the soviets were 10 feet tall and so on. the missiles they were damn good. nuclear weapons they were really good.

when i went there and visited people, went to factories, talked to the engineers, i finally concluded this is a third world country with a first world military system. >> right. >> even that was wrong. it wasn't first world military system of missiles and nukes. their conventional weapons were backward as well. i don't think that is true today. i don't think russia compares technically with the nights. no country compares technically with the united states and technology really matters for our defense but, they're what i would call peer competitors in china and peer competitors in some fieldings in russia. so that is very different when we did -- then we counted on the fact we had maybe, 10, 15 year lead in integrated circuits. we exploited that to the full. what is really different today. we don't have that lead. we have a lead but not 10 or 15

year lead. there are more of them out there. it not just the soviet union. it is not just a bipolar world. it changes the situation in pretty dramatic way. >> interestingly, historical footnote, bill of course was the godfather really of stealth aircraft but that technology was based on theoretical work initially been done in the soviet union by a scientist. and they were either unaware of the potential applications of that technology or they simply didn't have the ability to translate it into stealth aircraft. so that is a kind of striking example in some ways. >> russian chief of staff in those days actually he proposed to the politburo dramatic change in the military, if i remember the term, radio combat technical teams.

basically what we were supposing to do with the strategy. they didn't know what we were doing and we doesn't know when they were doing. they got turned down. answer was three times as many tanks and airplanes and guns they have. who needs this funny technology stuff. we'll stick with what we got. huge mistake on their part. they had the underlying scientific capability and very sophisticated scientists and gears. they could have given us a run for our money but made a bad decision. one of the things people point out to me how wonderful autocratic governments are they make decisions like that. but sometimes the decisions they make are the wrong decisions. there is no self-correction in the decision. once they make a bad decision they plow down that direction for decade or so. by that time it is too late to make the change. >> bill, you live in the bay area. you know silicon valley.

bill in many ways was one of, i like to think one of the pioneers in silicon valley when he was working out there for sylvain yaw in the 1950s, doing defense contracts on sigint systems. when you think what ash carter is trying to do. on one hand the pentagon is trying to do business with silicon valley through diux. on the other hand as we learned through edward snowden disclosures, a lot of bigger companies felt they were violated by the defense department. after all don't forget the nsa is a agency within the department of defense. how does he bridge this kind of cultural suspicion of the defense department? >> with great difficult. that is a very strong feeling among many high-tech companies in silicon valley that the government is out to tell them

what to do. to handicap what they're trying to do. prevent them from dealing with countries and companies they want to deal with. and it is reading their mail. all of these things annoy people to a very great extent. you don't have anything to balance that you don't have the feeling on their part. yes, maybe this is bad but it is worth doing because of dangers and such we face. so he is having a hard time getting real support from these high-tech companies. if anybody can do it though, he can. he has really thrown himself into it. he has put time and energy. he applies what dave packard originally called management by walking around. when he wants to get something done, he doesn't delegate to get something done, he went out to silicon valley four times, meeting with the companies at the highest levels and intermediate levels. and he set up an office in

silicon valley to do this. he trying overcome to the barriers but the barriers are very great. >> i have one more question. then we'll take questions from the audience. my question looking ahead to the next administration, whichever candidate ends up at president. when you started innovative programs you did during the carter administration, there was no guarranty they were going to be carried through to completion by your successors and future presidents. so what is your advice, let's assume for a minute what ash carter is doing is smart. that it's really pivotal to the future defenses of the united states. what's your at advise not only his successor as defense secretary but more importantly to the next president and to the congress which after all has to cut the check to pay for these kinds of projects? >> that is a very good question. in the field of national security there has to be some

non-partisan approach. particularly in the field trying to apply technology to defense systems but also to in even broader areas. when i left the pentagon with its offset strategy reasonably well advanced the developments had been completed. we had the stealth airplanes, for example. we had the first test flight. we had done that 3 1/2 years which was some going. it still wasn't fully operational. that was year ahead of us left. if the reagan administration had dropped that program that would have been it. i was very much concerned about as well as some other programs we had going which were not even publicly known at the time. when the reagan administration came in, they were not only supporting the programs, they didn't know about a good many of them. that was substantial concern.

in fact they did just the opposite. they went to school on them. learned going on. they took the program from the development stage to production and into the field. so i about the time we got to desert storm the, the f-117, stealth airplane, smart weapon, were there, made a tremendous difference in the outcome of that war. and i felt some sense of pride for that but i also understood if my successor, who in the first instance was dick delaur, his boss, ultimately the president, whole thing would have gone down in a heap of cards. so that was a very, very important point. we have to hope what ash is doing now will be sustained by his successor. there is no guarranty of that. and i would have, if you asked me to bet in 1981 when i left office is this really going to be carried forward to get results we got five or six years

i would have said probably not. luckily i watts wrong. they did pick it up and follow through. we can hope it will happen with the incoming administration. >> so questions from the audience please. identify yourself, please, and keep the question brief, please. >> mr. secretary, dan grazer, project of government oversight. there is lot of focus on science and technology but warfare is first and foremost an art form. we have the greatest technology in the world in the military. i was a tank officer in the marine corps. so i had four tanks in iraq in 2007 and even with all that great technology we're 0-4, zero wins and four losses in fourth generation warfare, even with great technology. what is being done we're not making cart before the horse in actual technology and actual operations in the conduct of the art of warfare.

>> forgive my ignorance, explain we're 0-4 in exactly what? >> fourth generation warfare. so against non-state actors we, in lebanon in 1983, somalia in the early '90s and now in iraq and afghanistan. it is very hard to say we've been successful in any of those conflicts. we had all the great technology but still have not had any success. what can we do to make sure we're actually creating the right technology to properly implement the art of war? >> got it. thank you. i think, i'm not sure we will do the right thing but i think that is what ash is trying to do, this program he set up. i might give you one footnote he did not mention when he was here. when he was undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, acquisition technology we call it, we had a hot war going on in afghanistan at that time. we were getting requests from

commanders in the field for various things they needed. one of the primary once protection for the forward operating posts. and ash, again by, walking around, not just at headquarters but out to the forward operating posts, talked to the commanders, became convinced that was something really needed done. and concluded the way to, best way to resolve that problem was to get a high confident, 24 hour a day observation that could detect infiltrators coming from any direction anytime of the day or night. that could be done best by balloon, old fashion balloon up there with sensors to radio information back down on the ground. in ordinary course of things that would have taken five or 10 years to get that done. he got it down in five months. it was a case the system did not permit things like that to

happen. the system did not permit to us bring a stealth airplane from concept to first flight in three years but people can do it. and what i did in the late '70s, what he did in afghanistan, instead of trying to reform or correct the system, we obeyed the system. set up a special case, rules don't apply to the case. just push it through. it was easier to do in '70s and '80s than it is now. we got some forbearance from congress. he got for the observation post in afghanistan. generally if you have a good idea and can sell it, importance of troop welfare and security to have it you get the support you need to get that done. you have to take a chance. if it is wrong, if you make a mistake, you know who is going to get ripped to pieces as a result. so you better be sure you're

right when you do these outrageous things. >> very interesting example. that is not really applicable directly to your question but the development of the spy satellites, i wrote a book about this. no one knew more about the problems and deficiencies in the pentagon acquisition system than dwight eisenhower. so when he became president and these new technological innovations were being promoted by some scientists, he took them out of the acquisition system and gave them to the cia of all people. and so in the development of the first photo reconnaissance satellite system, corona, it was managed by richard bissel director of operations at cia who had zero technological background but knew how to get something accomplished. that was summed up best in a little anecdote, one of his aides was ride with him in

washington and racing to get back off to the cia, he was driving wrong way down one-way street. she shouted at him, mr. business sell, we're going wrong way down this street. as long as there is no traffic coming we'll get there faster. that is the way he ran the satellite program. other questions, please. here is a mic up front, please. my esteemed journalistic colleague, jim hoagland. >> thank you, phil. >> i think it's on. go ahead. >> i was struck by ash carter's statement here that information technology protection is job number one. it comes on the heels of mike hayden having said, verizon does a better job of protecting information than the u.s. government does. i think he is accurate on that because after all the cloud system and everything shows we

have this enormous amount of information. >> yeah. >> that we depend on. u.s. government depends on verizon and others to protect. is there disconnect between the priority number one and the fact that there is not an effort by the government to accelerate u.s. government protection of information? to do a much better job what ash carter just described as job number one? >> yes, there is a disconnect. one thing i will say though, jim, in some aspects of our protection the ones which are most important, supremely important to us we're paying special takes to that connect. when you consider vast amount of data and vast amount of people in the defense department, there will be plenty where we get mediocre effort. but, for example, in protecting

other command-and-control links, directs our nuclear missiles to be fired, very, very important in some of these we go to extraordinary links to protect them. we have, i think technically the best cyber capability in the world. i can be wrong on that but i believe it. but, we also have the most networks in the world and most vulnerable in the world. so even though we apply this capability we're not going to get it right much of the time. so here it is not just a question of having the best technology but applying it to the problems that by far are the most important problems. there are half a dozen of those problems which absolutely have to have top priority and protection. >> in the back, please. >> darrell kimble with the arms

control association. i have a related question from jim hoagland. as you know the pentagon appears to be planning for how to use cyber capabilities with respect to enemy nuclear command-and-control as part of a new push for what is being done for full spectrum missile defense. there are many who see this as perhaps a useful approach. there are some who see this as possibly a the other edge of the sword here. could be a double-edged sword. it could create destablizing dynamics. not just with the u.s. but with other other countries. what thoughts do you have about what considerations our policy planners need to make, our decisionmakers need to make as cyberattack and defense issue intersect with the nuclear command-and-control? >> i said before. i will repeat it. i think we have the best cyber capability in the world.

part of that cyber capability is an offensive cyber, sometimes the way to deal with an attack from cyber is to attack back. in some cases though, for example, command-and-control, for example, that doesn't make any sense. we have to be the very best at even passive protection and that's probably where we are the weakest i think. it is very, very hard, we have so many networks and so complex. and we have civilian and military in these networks. it is a very difficult problem. the internet after all was designed to be open. trying to fix that after the fact is exceedingly difficult problem. at various times people have considered building a parallel internet, specifically for maintaining security on the

links that are most sensitive and most important. for variety of reasons we've never done that and probably never will. but it is just hugely difficult problem. nobody should ever believe that we can, even if we're diligent, even if we're smart put all the effort in the world on it, no one should ever believe we'll fix the problem. we'll always have vulnerability to a cyberattack. we can minimize that. we have a way of responding back when that is appropriate but it is always going to be there. we also need to be be prepared to live with that problem. to take that vulnerability into account in our broad every planning. >> so i think we are a the witching hour. i want to appreciate for everybody coming. tom, thank you for hosting the event. bill, thank you. >> excellent job kind of moderating. [applause]

>> we have some commemorative gifts. a lovely hoover tie. >> i see a tie in my future. >> i want to thank all of you for coming out today and invite you to stay for the reception for a while. thank you. >> i see some of you have a gift of my book there. one of them is read at least the preface in chapter one and secondly, go on to our website, wjperryproject.org. describes nuclear nightmare where a nuclear bomb destroys washington, d.c. since you all live here, you should be very interested. >> then send secretary perry a note how well you slept that night. >> thank you. [applause]

>> house homeland security committee chair michael mccaul releases his new counterterrorism strategy today. we'll have live coverage of his news conference at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. later director of national intelligence james clapper joins the "the washington post"'s david ignatius to talk about intelligence gathering and national security threats. that's live at 6:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. you can also watch live at c-span.org or listen live on the c-span radio app. now a look at the future of argentina with that country ace foreign affairs minister. the council on foreign relations hosted this hour-long event.

>> welcome to today's council on foreign relations meeting. we are truly honored to have the honorable susana malcorra here with us today, the minister of foreign affairs and worship. appointed by president macri in december of 2015 and she brings extraordinary experience to the ministry in management, economics, technology, technology and international relations. you all have a copy of her impressive resume'. we have only one precious hour, so i'm going to limit my introduction most undiplomatically to just a few points i would like to make about her magnificent achievements. she has been a systems engineer

for ibm. she was executive officer of telecom argentina, then the third largest argentine company. chief operating officer of the united nations food program. undersecondary general for the newly-created u.n. department dealing with providing field and financial support for our peacekeeping missions. and last but not least, chief of staff to u.n. secretary ban ki-moon. the minister's remarks and our conversation following are on the record and with no more words i'm going to invite minister malcorra to the podium. madam minister.

>> thank you very much, ambassador. pleasure to be here, hosted in an important organization, related to all matters of interest in international affairs. i see good friends sitting around the table. it is good to be among friends. i will take a little bit of time to tell you where we are in argentina. as the ambassador said we will be open to questions and we can speak about anything you want us to talk about but i think it is my duty to start from home and to describe home is these days. as you know president macri took office last december. it has been nine long months of hard work trying to have a different approach to argentina

and argentina in the world. it is our view, it is the view of the president that in this day and age, the only way for us to really get to the point where we need to be from a development, from a consolidation of institutions perspective, from the perspective of a, being a mature democracy, a mature country, to do that, within a very integrated view into the world. president macri came with a very clear preobjective set for our government. the first of all is elimination of poverty. it is a, hard to say, it is heartbreaking in a way, argentina has a poverty level of 30%.

a little more than 30%. such a rich country, a country with so many resources of all sort. it is hard to understand how we are where we are in this field. so the first objective is to eliminate poverty. this is much in line with the view that the world has of sustainable development, on climate change, on doing it in a manner that will be sustainable long term. so, the first objective which seems so geared towards the internal perspective of argentina, is the marching orders that i have of as the foreign minister of argentina. clearly our job is to bring argentina back to the the world but it is to do it so we can generate business opportunities, investment opportunities, trade opportunities in a way that that

allows us to create jobs that are sustainable in the long term, not jobs that depend on a particular subsidy. not jobs that feel like falling from skies. but jobs that are real, that are quality jobs in the long term. so that's the first objective. the second objective that president macri described for ourselves and set for ourselves is the fight against narc cotraffic. this is something that many people do not fully know but argentina has evolved to be a country passage of narcotics of significance.

being a transit country there is always something that is left behind. that something left behind has created a very, very sad situation in our society. not only of course the use of drugs has increased but out of that we have now a situation of drug trafficking internally, which is not of the sort of big cartels we see somewhere in the world you but it has created attention and and has created problems of security that are really serious. and again here us in the foreign ministry are working with colleagues in the different ministers, ministries, to first get as much lessons learned information, capabilities coming from countries such as the u.s. but also others, that have done this throughout time, and work

together with the neighbors because this is a clearly a question that affects the region in order to attack this horrible, horrible situation that we are facing. so that is the second objective. the third objective that the president has set for us is the, what in the u.s. probably you will say rule of law, but in our terms we call the coming together of the argentinians under democratic institutions. and the notion of coming together, the notion of being able to work with each other no matter what your view is, where you come from, what your thinking is and being able to work out your differences because you have institutions that are solid, that is absolutely critical for a un