legislation does. so congress created first -- put it under ntia and then indicated that $7 billion from auction revenues would be made available to first net to go ahead and design and construct this network. >> tonight, national telecommunications and information administration head lawrence strickland on spectrum policy and other telecommunications issues at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. it's been nearly ten years since the release of robert corow's third volume of the memoirs of lyndon johnson. in just a few weeks, the fourth volume will be published. here he is on "q&a" in 2008 with an update on how volume four was taking shape. >> this is really a book not just about lyndon johnson but about robert kennedy and jack

kennedy and the interplay of their personalities, particularly robert, i guess. and it's a very complicated story that i don't think people know of two very complicated people. and robert kennedy and lyndon johnson. and i had to really go into that and try to explain it because it's part of the story all the way through the end of johnson's presidency. that's done. and i suppose chronologically at the moment johnson is passing the 1965 voting rights act. and that's sort of, you know, one way up to now. >> watch the rest of this interview and other appearances by robert caro online at the c-span video library. and watch for our upcoming "q&a" interview with robert caro on sunday, may 6th. former secretary of state condoleezza rice talks about the u.s. leadership role in the world. she examines u.s. foreign policies with countries such as

iran, iraq, and china. she also touches on domestic issues such as the educational system and immigration reforms. this is about 55 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone, ladies and gentlemen. i'm pleased to welcome you to the heritage foundation for this timely and important event. it is timely because events overseas are constantly raising questions about our national security, as we saw yesterday with the north korean test launch of a ballistic missile. and timely as well because foreign policy has been a topic of great interest during the presidential debates. it is important, of course, because americans are debating how we should respond to events not only in north korea but in afghanistan, iran, syria, and

other hotspots. and there are many questions raised by the actions of the obama administration, actions that suggest that the president wants to change the way the united states engages the world. there's the pivot to asia now that troops are coming home from afghanistan, and there's a president's now famous request that certain countries be patient and wait until after the election to see what he will do. foreign policy often takes a back seat to domestic problems that are plaguing our country, problems like debt, jobs, and health care, and sure she's issues are vitally important, but as several of the recent presidential debates have shown, foreign policy also matters to americans. americans want to know how our leaders, today's leaders and those we elect in november, will protect our nation and safeguard our liberties at an in an increy threatened world.

we have with us today someone who is imminently qualified to talk about american values, american interests, and american leadership on the world stage. i had the honor of working for dr. condoleezza rice when she served as secretary of state under president george w. bush. she previously had served as president bush's national security advisor and also before that on the staff of president george herbert walker bush's national security council. during both of these presidencies, america faced particularly grave threats from nuclear proliferation, terrorism, to rogue regimes in the middle east and elsewhere. in both presidencies, dr. rice helped shape policies that enabled america to help free thousands of people from tyranny and set them on the road to freedom and to prosperity. today dr. rice is teaching new generations about american values, about american interests. she's a professor of political economy and political science at stanford university and a thomas

and barbara stevenson senior fellow on public policy at the hoover institution. i recall the words of the heritage president fulmer on occasion of one of dr. rice's visits to the heritage foundation. he called her, and i quote, a woman of many talents -- a musician, a writer, a teacher, a scholar, a leader, and as secretary of state a representative of american values and american interests here and abroad, and, frankly, the best america has to offer. and i couldn't agree more. ladies and gentlemen, it is my high personal honor to welcome america's 66th secretary of state, dr. condoleezza rice, to the allison auditorium of the heritage foundation to talk about leadership, america's critical role in foreign policy. please welcome dr. rice. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you.

thank you. thank you. well, it's a pleasure to join so many friends, and thank you very much, ken, for that wonderful introduction and your service to our country. i very much enjoyed our time working together. it's now been a while since i left government, and there's a question that i'm asked all the time, and that question is, is it different being outside of government? well, yes, it's different being outside of government. in fact, one of the big differences is is i get up every day and i get my cup of coffee, i go online to read my newspapers, and i read them and i say, "isn't that interesting." and i'm able to go onto other things because i no longer have responsibility for what's in the newspaper. but i, like you, am concerned about the state of our country, the state of our world, and i'm concerned because it's been quite a decade or so. it's been a decade in which the international system has experienced three great shocks.

of course, first, the shock of september 11th, a day that none of us will easily forget. and those of us who were in a position of authority remember september 11th as the day that every day after became september 12th, because as we fought to keep the country safe against terrorists who would try and do it again, we recognized that it was fortune and not perhaps skill but fortune that led us to be able to protect the country. there were those who, though, were skilled. our intelligence officers, our homeland security people, and perhaps, most importantly, our men and women in uniform who volunteer to defend us at the front lines of freedom. and we owe them our eternal gratitude for doing so. [ applause ] and so after 9/11 we suddenly

confronted the fact it was failed states and ungoverned spaces and the potential nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that threatened our very country. the fact that a stateless group of terrorists had come from a failed state, one of the poorest countries in the world, afghanistan, to attack us, to bring down the twin towers, to blow a hole in the pentagon and perhaps they had paid $300,000 to do it. after that, your conception of physical security is never quite the same. and then, of course, in 2008, there was another great shock. that was the shock of the global economic and financial crisis. and that was a shock that exacerbated and accelerated underlying tendencies in the international economy and called into question whether or not democratic capitalism, which had been at the core of the economic system since at least the collapse of the soviet union, was, indeed, itself in trouble.

it exacerbated the international contradictions of the european union, which is still trying to work its way through those contradictions. it exacerbated the contradictions in russia which demonstrated yet again that it has not made it will transition from an oil, gas, and minerals syndicate to a real economy based on the potential of its people. it raised the profile of brazil and india and china. but brazil and india remind us of something that is very important, the strength that they have, something that is going for them that we should not underestimate. and that is they are multiethnic democracies that are stable. somehow they managed to make the transition from government to government by peaceful means. unless you underestimate that, remember that these are countries that do it with huge

multiethnic populations, especially india. what a miracle that a billion people who don't speak the same language and don't worship the same god can still somehow manage the peaceful transfer of power. and they remind us of the essence of the third great shock, the arab spring, and what is unfolding in the streets of the middle east. and that itself is a reminder that authoritarianism just isn't stable in the long run, that those who for 60 years looked to stability, not democracy, have been demonstrated to have been wrong. authoritarianism is not stable because of what i've come to call it will ceausescu moment. he was the romanian dictator, demand 1989 with revolution spreading all over eastern europe -- poland, hungary, east germany db ceausescu went into a square in bucharest to exhort

the romanian people for what he lad done for them. and as he stood there with 250,000 people in the square, one old lady yelled "liar." then ten people, then 100 people, then 1,000 people, then 100,000 people are yelling "liar." and ceausescu, realizing that something has gone wrong, decides to run. but of course the young military officer who is supposed to deliver him to safety delivers him instead to the revolution, and he and his wife, yelena, are executed. the ceausescu moment is when what separates an authoritarian from his people, fear, breaks down. an old woman yells "liar." a soldier refuses to fire on the crowd. a general turns his tank away from the protesters. or a policeman gives way at the berlin wall. and at that point, the only thing that stands between the authoritarian and his people is anger. and anger is a terrible way to

make political reform. and so we are watching in the middle east what happens when reform comes too late and it is replaced instead by anger and revolution. and it's going to be a rocky ride in the middle east. but all of these shocks together, taken together, portend fundamental shifts in the underlying balance of power in the international system. and the question that i'd like us to consider today is, as those shifts are taking place, will there be an american imprint on that new balance of power? after all, the united states has been willing to imprint on the international system. we have believed that free markets and free peoples would ultimately result until a more peaceful and prosperous world. we have had a view of how human history ought to unfold. since world war ii, in

particular, we have actively promoted that view of human rights, religious freedom, the rights of dissidents, the rights of women, not just because, indeed, it is a moral case but because there is also a practical case for those rights, because we have learned many times the hard way that states that do not respect their own people are, indeed, dangerous states. now, that has helped reduce that view of human history. remarkable changes over the last several decades. a europe freed of soviet power that is whole and at peace and free. it has produced in asia powerful democratic allies in japan and in south korea and in parents of southeast asia. it has helped produce in latin america a turn away from

military coups toward free, stable, democratic states like brazil or chile or colombia, a state that we, the united states of america, over two administrations of two different parties, helped to pull back from the brink of state failure. and even in africa, where sometimes people are so patronizing as to say, well, africa is too tribal for democracy, we have seen the rise of a norm for democratic governance. we've seen in places like ghana and tanzania and botswana a commitment to free elections so that those who wold govern have to ask for their people's consent. oh, yes, there have been decades -- over these decades there have been setbacks, but it's been a remarkable stream in favor of those who believe that

free markets and free peoples will ultimately triumph and that, indeed, the value of freedom is a universal one, not an american one, not a western one, a universal one. now, there are many challenges ahead. yes, there is china. and to be fair, china challenges the concept, challenges the idea that authoritarianism is not stable. there are some who say, well, it's actually more efficient, this authoritarian capitalism. but let's not forget the strains and stresses that are emerging now in china as it makes the greatest socioeconomic leap in human history and does wit a 1.4 billion people. i was first in china in 1988. and the streets of beijing were competition between a few horse carts and a few automobiles and a whole lot of bicycles. that's not beijing today. they have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but they've got many,

many more to go. and the stresses and strains are showing whether on labor unrest that are driving wages up and changing china's profile in the international economy, to product safety problems, bullet trains that fall off the tracks or baby milk formula that is poisoned, and, oh, by the way, the first impulse was to execute the guy in charge of product safety. not a long-term solution to that problem. but also in the stresses and strains that one sees in reported riots of over 180,000 but perhaps most importantly in the stresses and strains that one sees in a kind of lack of confidence, perhaps, in the chinese leadership about where they're going. you know, i'm not suggesting that there's going to be a jasmine revolution in china. but if you were go to the chinese internet during the egyptian revolution, there are three words you would not have seen -- egypt, jasmine, and revolution. it suggests that the information age is, indeed, a challenge to

the chinese leadership and they understand it. and some of china's leaders are beginning to suggest that maybe legitimacy based on prosperity, which is what china bases its legitimacy on today, is is difficult to maintain because people's expectations keep growing. and some, like premier wen jiabao, seem to suggest that maybe something that looks more like legitimacy based on consent might be necessary. now, the idea that these leaders have is that perhaps people could elect their local leaders. but, you know, people elect their local leaders, pretty soon they'll want to elect their provincial leaders and elect their national leaders. authoritarianism isn't ultimately stable, and it is not consistent with the development of human potential. now, it is also true that china is a challenge for us in strategic terms but only if we seed that ground. can china really challenge us?

we are alpa civic military power unmatched in human history, and we should remain so. and if we pay attention not just to being bigger and more expensive but being better in cyber, in space, with missile defense, then, indeed, we will be able to sustain our dominance in the pacific. if we pay attention to the wonderful strong alliances we have with other democratic states in japan and south korea and the philippines, in australia, then we have a basis for american leadership to dominate for years to come. and there is a relationship with india, the other great multiethnic democracy, which is rising as a power in the region. we have, nonetheless, seeded the ground in one important area in asia, and that is in trade, where we have really been absent. the last three trade agreements that were finally ratified in the congress m, the korean/south

korean agreement, panama and colombia, were negotiated in the bush administration. but between 2003, china has secured nine ftas in lay sha and latin america, free-trade agreements, five more are in negotiation, and four are under consideration. indeed, trade is the one place that we have not tilted toward asia, latin america, or anyplace else. free trade is one of america's greatest assets in helping both free markets and free peoples. now, asia, then, we have an infrastructure for dealing with the challenges there, even a rise in china. the middle east is much more chaotic. it lacks infrastructure. many of the pilars of our influence have been rattled by the events of the arab spring. one senses that the united states wants to pull back from the middle east. in fact, sometimes i wonder if

the so-called pivot to asia is because the middle east is too hard. we can't afford to pull back from that middle east that is so hard. it's fashionable to talk about insulating ourselves by an energy policy that finally frees us of dependence on middle eastern oil. we should do that any way, we should do everything we can to build north american platforms from oil and gas to transportation to new technologies, we should build north american platforms for energy security. but we know that we will not be insulated from the middle east. one way or another, the malignancies of the middle east as they did on 9/11 will come back to haunt us. and so, we need to move from what has been a series of tactical responses since 2009, to a more strategic view of how we want the middle east to

unfold. without a strategic view either the regional powers will exacerbate already strong sectarian tensions in the region, we have to remember that when our british friends drew the lines of the middle east they owe blit are rated any notion of sectarian divides and therefore you have a circumstance and had a circumstance in which one has had to dominate the other so that in iraq the 20% or so sunni population dominated the 65% or so shia population and in the eastern provinces of saudi arabia there are shia with a sunni monarch and so on and so on. and this sunni/shia divide will be worse without a strategic view of how the middle east might unfold differently. so we need to look to build nuclear stability. it begins first with a recommitment to our friends in the region and in particular to

israel, which still stands as the one strong democratic state in the region. we need, too, to press reforms among our other friends. the mubarak situation didn't have to work out the way that it did. indeed i remember going to egypt june of 2005 and urging mubarak and the egyptians to undertake reform before their people were in the streets. we need to do the same with our other friends with the monarchs who have some personal authority and might make a move toward greater constitutionalism and greater representation for their people. for those republics that are emerging, tunisia, which is a place that seems potentially to be on the right course, or egypt where there is great confusion, to continue to press for institutions that are democratic. we need to have a relationship with turkey. a complex but critically

important country that after all, we forget once really wanted to be part of europe and was rebuffed by a european union more concerned about what turkey would do to it than what it might be able to do with turkey. and so the reaffirmation of a relationship with a democratic turkey is key. also, to recommit to iraq. and i know that it's complicated in iraq and i know that sometimes it feels like the iraqis have gone off course, but you know, when you look at iraq today, at least we're not talking about a nuclear arms trace between iran's mahmoud ahmadinejad and saddam hussein. the iraqis have institutions in place that might help to give an answer to the sectarian divide between sunni and shia where you can have majority populations and even majority governments of one sect or another, but where the rights and interests of

others are protected. iraq needs our re-engagement. we have to challenge iran. not just because of its nuclear ambitions and its exist stennal threat to europe but because iran is a revisionist power. iran is not satisfied with the balance in the middle east and would seek to undo it. it is why they have supported the terrorist shia groups in southern iraq, why they have stirred up trouble in the eastern provinces of saudi arabia, why they use their 10 tackles of hezbollah and hamas to try to cause problems whether in the gaza or in lebanon. in this regard sear eighty is critical. it's a strategic opportunity coming from a strategic challenge because the collapse of the regime of bashar al assad would deprive iran of its hand

maiden in the middle east and its launching pad for hezbollah and for trouble in that region. now, it's a pretty big agenda to react to this changing world that's undergone these shocks. and there are those who ask, can we handle this challenge and still pursue our values? i would suggest we can handle this challenge only if we pursue our values. this is what has made the u.s. successful, this belief in free markets and free peoples, a willingness to try and promote them abroad, and a belief that the world would be more stable and more prosperous as freedom wins out. that exceptionalism is critical for another reason. we cannot ask the person people to make the sacrifices for leadership if we have nothing special to say about how human history ought to unfold.

if we are just one among many representing the lowest common denominator collective will of the so called international community. rather than leading a common cause with like-minded states and longtime awho lies who share our values, then why should we make the sacrifices of leadership. in that way, american exceptionalism and american leader inex linked. it's reasonable that the american people are tired and i take some responsibility for that. i told president bush as we were leaving office i said you know, mr. president i think they're just tired. it's terrorism and war and challenge and it's been vigilance and i think people are tired. i understand that. there are those who say that we sapped our strength by our overextension abroad to deal with our domestic problems at

home. but i want to suggest to you that there is another side to that coin. that perhaps it is our lack of confidence at home that is sapping our desire and our will to lead abroad. the confusion at home becomes an excuse not to engage the world. and it's directly related to our willingness and our ability to lead. much comes from domestic strains and entitlements but there is something deeper going on. human potential is so key today. and america has been better at tapping human potential than any country ever in human history. if in the 19th century it was the resources that you could dig out of the ground that made you powerful, and in the 20th century, those resources and the

industrial processes to make a better widget, in the late 20th century and now in the 21st century, it is human potential and creativity and innovation that are at the core of influence and power. as secretary of state i got to travel around the world and i got to see what people admired about the united states and what worried them. but the one thing that i always saw as a source of admiration is what i've come to call our great american national myth. a myth isn't necessarily untrue, it's something a little outsized in your thinking. ours has been the log cabin. you can come from humble circumstances and you can do great things. and that belief has been the key to unleashing human potential because we have never believed that the human potential comes as a result of class or circumstances. but rather, as a result of

opportunity. and that belief has led us to be a magnet for people from all over the word. the most ambitious people in the world have wanted to come here. and whether it's the guy who came here to make $5, not 50 cents, or sergei who founded google the united states has been enriched by immigrants, it has been made stronger by immigrants, and by the way, it has been kept from this demographics of japan and russia by immigrants. we must reaffirm ourselves as a country of immigrants, and find a way to have a systematic set of laws and practices that allow us to continue to have the human potential come here. but it's not enough to have people come here. it also has to be true for people who are here. and there the