off with a guy named donald trump. i told her that is exactly how i speak and feel. personou think he is a you feel like can lead america into this new role? caller: i think so. will noto things, he pay attention to what other people are saying. he can let it roll off his back. most people are pretty thin-skinned, but this leadership thing that he did, calling people into trump tower, bring them up on an elevator so tv, was be seen by the brilliant because i could see who was going up to talk to him. media, which the was born part of, i

just a few miles away from where you are sitting. it was brilliant, because he never gave them a chance to come on all these channels that i could turn off and not listen to , and discourage him and the rest of the people, anyway. thank you very much. host: that is our last caller on today's washington journal. we will be back right here, tomorrow morning. until then, have a great tuesday. ♪

>> a look at some of the why the vents are covering on c-span. later this afternoon, a discussion on policing and criminal justice after 153 commutations, the most ever by a president in a single day. we will have a conversation live at 12:30 eastern time on c-span. that'll will be live this afternoon starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this week, tonight at 8:00, the cofounder of ben & jerry's ice cream talks about creative and responsible business practices. >> the idea that we could not sell enough ice cream in the summer months, that forced us to look for other markets. >> former vice president dick

cheney and former suit -- defense secretary on the future of the defense department under president-elect donald trump. >> i think we have over the course the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet those threats. >> there are a lot of flashpoints and a new administration is going to have to look at that kind of world, and obviously defined policy that we need in order to do that , but then developed the defense policy to confront that kind of world. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the leadership of mike pence. >> amidst the shifting stands that shifting sands of policy, we have looked at the importance of marriage and the freedom of religion. >> on friday night beginning at 8:00, several outgoing senators,

including harry reid, arbor boxer, kelly ayotte and dan coats. this week in primetime on c-span . taking a look across the water at donald trump's home in florida, where he will be spending the holidays with his family. it is where he was, yesterday when the electrical college made his presidential win official. meanwhile, preparations are underway for his inauguration in washington, d.c. a live look outside the white house at some of the work underway constructing bleachers and viewer stands for the parade and ceremony on friday, january 20.

>> the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20. c-span will have live coverage of all of the ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org.

listen free on the c-span radio at. -- radio app. sunday, january first, in-depth will feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama. we are taking your phone calls, tweets and emails. -- author of the presidency in black and white, a myopic view of three presidents and race in america. a princeton university professor -- and pulitzer prize winning journalist at the -- and the soviet and desk editor of the washington post. watch in-depth live from new to 3:00 p.m. eastern on sunday, on booktv, on c-span2. >> former secretaries of state henry kissinger and madeleine albright talked about what they expect in u.s. china relations

under the trump administration will stop the discussion was hosted by the national committee on u.s. china relations. it is about an hour and a half. >> i am the president of the committee, and it is a pleasure to welcome you all to the fourth leaders speak, which is the 50th anniversary of the national committee of u.s.-china relations. for 50 years we have been , educating americans about

chinese about america. from ping-pong diplomacy until today we have sought to , strengthen the bilateral fosteringip by exchanges and informed discussion. this year we have gathered , secretaries of defense, secretaries of commerce, and u.s. trade representatives as well as national security advisers. next year, we will gather u.s. secretary treasuries, pay, commanders, and we will hold a similar program like tonight in china, where i will interview chinese leaders, many of whom are alumni of our programs. today, i am truly honored. it is one of the great honors of my life, to be joined by two former secretaries of state.

both are living legends, for what they accomplished during their tenures. dr. kissinger was national security adviser and secretary of state in the nixon and ford administrations and was instrumental in the reestablishment of relations with china. he has spent 45 years helping leaders on both sides navigate this important bilateral relationship. we especially appreciate your being here today because on friday, we all saw you on television with president xi jinping and we know you might be jetlagged after that. we also know you recently visited trump tower so we hope to hear more about that. [laughter] the national committee has been fortunate to have you serve on our board of directors now for more than 12 years. today is the 20th anniversary of

secretary albright's nomination to be secretary of state under president clinton. having served -- having served -- [applause] mr. orlins: having served four years of u.s. ambassador to the u.n., sheep became the first -- she became the first woman to serve as secretary of state and at that time, the highest-ranking woman ever in the united states government. a heroine to my three daughters, secretary albright played a leading role in the negotiation for china's succession to the wto and represented the united states at the 1997 transfer of sovereignty over hong kong. we have been fortunate to have secretary albright serve on the board of directors for seven years.

before beginning, i want to thank our sponsors, the china center, mastercard, new york and sidney austin for funding this program. i would especially like to thank the china center for providing this incredible venue. for those not with us in person who are watching on the internet or television, this morning in new york, it was overcast and drizzly. we worried that we would not have this spectacular view. but the day turned into a bright blue sunny day and we watched this incredible sunset and my hope, as corny as it may sound, is that it will be u.s.-chinese relations in the future. it may be cloudy now but it will clear up and be sunny in the coming years. [applause] mr. orlins: last, but certainly not least, i want to thank both secretarial bright and secretary -- secretary kissinger and

secretary albright for joining us today. you have both contributed to world peace in ways too numerous to enumerate. if i started to list all of your accomplishments, we would not have time for any questions. so i just thank you for being here. let me start with the question for secretary kissinger. secretary albright: can i just interrupt and say how happy i am , to be here with you and with my good friend henry kissinger. you mentioned today was the 20th anniversary. well, dr. kissinger was the first person to call me when i was named secretary of state. and he said, madeleine congratulations you will do a , great job but you have taken away my one unique characteristic of being an immigrant secretary of state. and i said, no henry. i do not have an accent. [laughter and applause] mr. orlins: so we will even go further back than that to 1971,

and there had been no contact at that point between the united states in china for 22 years. what kind of made you go to china? what did you seek to accomplish and what lessons from that visit can we apply to today's u.s.-china relationship? i know you could write a book on that, you probably have written a book on that, you have written a book on this. but we'll try to keep it to five minutes. dr. kissinger: let me say madeleine and i go in different been closet have friends and have never looked at the policies as partisan policies, and one of the strong elements of the u.s.-china relations is that a succession of american presidents and chinese leaders have followed a

fundamentally similar course that has been a great achievement now. in 1971, what made me go of course was that president nixon asked me to go. [chuckle] dr. kissinger: we had entered office with the attitude that we would want to improve relations with china. specifically that we would try , to bring china into the because,onal system, to think of international order without china was a contradiction of history. but, each country had its own set of problems. we had the vietnam war, china had the cultural revolution.

so it took a while to establish contact. it took about three years to establish contact in very complicated ways. one of the major decisions that was made was that there were constant clashes between the chinese and the soviets at the chinese russian border and we looked at a map and we came to the conclusion that russia probably was the attacker in most of these circumstances. and so we had the problem of deciding if these two countries get into conflict, where should the united states be? and very early, even before we had been in china, we decided

that it was not in the american interest for china to be defeated in such a conflict. so out of this grew a series of moves which culminated in 1971 and in my visit to china. in my first meeting with the prime minister, i was reading a statement to him and i said, "and now here we are in this , to us, mysterious country. he put up his hand and said may i interrupt you for a moment? what is so mysterious about china? i said something, i forget what

said think about it. there are 800 million of us and we are not mysterious to each other. so maybe that lesson was that we ought to learn of each other's thinking and motivations and i think this was advice that was important to take and which is still valid today. host: that more understanding, understanding their motivations and them understanding ours. dr. kissinger: i think the chinese culture background is different than ours. therefore, the way it is important to understand how china looks at problems. host: secretary albright, similar question.

obviously, you were secretary of state just as china was joining the wto. talk about the relationship at that time and kind of what lessons you learned from that experience that are applicable today. secretarial bright: i was in the carter administration working for dr. brzezinski and the national security council so i was there for the normalization and watched what had an fact -- had in fact been a very organized way to follow-up on what dr. kissinger had done and proceed with normalizing the relationship and i was sitting outside the situation room and constantly seeing different people going in and then all of a sudden this wonderful moment came with normalization coming to the united states. i think that what was very important was we were determined to kind of pursue the story of

bringing china into the system. i think that was a very important part. when i was at the united nations , i sat there with my chinese counterpart, part of the issue was we could never get the chinese to participate in discussions unless it had something to do with interference and an internal -- and internal affairs. so you see the same people all the time. we got to be very good friends. so i finally gave him a little blue ball so he could practice getting strong and putting his hand up in order to become part of the discussion. and then i established a very good relationship with the foreign minister in terms of talking about more then just our talking points always. i wanted to have a strategic discussion. i do think that one of the issues that was so important was how to bring china into a normal

trading relationship. the clinton administration worked very hard on that by really,ermanent pntr, because whenever we were doing the renewal on the msn it was basically pulling up the plan to -- the plant to see if it was growing. a great source of irritation. pntrirst step to do the was to bring them into a normal part of the administration this , was an idea of putting them into the international system. we thought it was fair, and frankly, it made it possible for some of the rules of trade to be enforced internationally, not just in a bilateral way. so i think it is all part of the same story of trying to make sure that china was respected and was a part of a functioning international system and that i think certainly was the view

that president carter had, president clinton had, president obama has had. it is something went to -- we have to consider, that they are the number two economy and they need to be part of a functioning international system. host: did it work? did it work for america? albright: i think, mostly. the thing i always found so interesting about china, by the way, any of us know that any diplomat has a set of phrases that they have. the chinese do. it is a consistent and hence appalled position. -- and principled position. everything was a principled and consistent position. the bottom line, there were times that there were issues. they also want to be seen as the world's largest developing country. it is a little hard to be the

number two economy in the world and still talk about being the largest developing country. so those are a little bit of the arguments. and then there are specific cases, obviously. host: dr. kissinger, do you think accession to the wto by america worked for america -- to the wto by china worked for america? dr. kissinger: yes, i do. i think the fundamental issue has been whether china and the united states could achieve parallel objectives. it was never going to happen that we would have identical views on all of the issues. the problem has been whether we could achieve parallel objectives.

now, are there situations in which the chinese had got the better of some negotiations? undoubtedly. it may even equally be true the the other way but having china , as part of the international economic system is better than having a trade war between the united states and china. within that general proposition i would hope that improvements can be found and improvements should be found and maybe even systemic discussions could be held. but the fundamental objective which was to treat china as a member of the international system was very crucial. , when we first opened to china, chairman mao did not really want

economic relations with any foreign country. in 1976, the trade between china and the united states was less than the trade between the united states and honduras. so one has to see this within the context of the rapidly expanding, almost exploding economic relationship and there is room for improvement but it was a good thing. host: i will come back to that in a moment but i think because we're sitting at one world trade, the epicenter of the 9/11 tragedy, i think we're actually today celebrating the rebirth of this area. i mean, that we can come here and hold this event i think is

really terrific. what is the role of fighting terrorism in the u.s.-china relationship? what is it, and what should it be? sec. albright: i think we are clearly threatened by terrorism in a number of different ways and we have similar issues in terms of those who feel there is something about what we are doing that is wrong. what i think the role is, frankly is to share information. the question is that we have more and more today, what is information and how is it gathered? i think there are ways we could cooperate. while we don't think of you see -- think of piracy as much as terrorism, there has been cooperation on that. the chinese have been very helpful on that. they have also been very helpful

-- inms of -- for me, it terms of terrorism it is not how , you deal with the and but how -- deal with the end, but how you prevented in the first place and i think those are the issues we can work on together. trying to figure out what the roots of it are. and you might think this is pushing it but i think the fact that the chinese are now participants in u.n. peacekeeping operations also helps in terms of looking at areas because i think we, on the issue of stability generally i do think there is help while the only problem, frankly is that we might define certain groups that we think are terrorists, they do do -- they don't think so, and people they think are terrorists we do not think so but they are not the only country we have some disagreements with on that and i do think ultimately that whatever the right word is civilized countries of the , world, have to figure out how to share information and try to rid ourselves of that. mr. orlins: dr. kissinger?

dr. kissinger: there are various levels of terrorist attacks. there are terrorist attacks within countries and there are terrorist attacks that are based on the whole international system. the underlying tendency of terrorism has been to destroy the state system and to create a universal caliphate to which all believers would then be subjected. but that has been the manifestation that we have been most exposed to. the chinese do not have the same

sort of issues that we have had in some of the countries although there are parts of china where that issue has been very important. so we and china both have at least two common objectives. one is to prevent the spread of terrorism around the world within various countries and secondly to try to create an international system which makes it more and more difficult for terrorists, particularly to have a common interest in inventing terrorists from acquiring geographic territory so that they can link their activities with acting like sovereign states.

this is where the isis problem is very important and why evolution of some parts of afghanistan can be of grave consequence. madeleine albright mentioned the issue of pirates. in terms of the general objectives, we and china have parallel objectives. how to apply them in specific circumstances, that is a subject that has to be explored and discussed. i think there has been considerable progress made in those discussions. mr. orlins: is there any

evidence, and would it make any sense for north korea to work with china and iran to support isis? do we have any evidence that is the case? have you ever heard of anything like this? dr. kissinger: what's this? mr. orlins: china working with north korea and iran to support isis. dr. kissinger: inconceivable. irantary albright: actually does not support isis. mr. orlins: in the world of fake news, this is being talked about. [laughter] mr. orlins: the elephant is in the room secretary kissinger. what did president xi say to you on friday. what message do you convey to him and what message did he convey to us?

it is a secret, only we in the room will know. [laughter] dr. kissinger: i had a memo i was going to read from but the security people took it from me when i came in. [laughter] dr. kissinger: i obviously, my point of view has been frequently published. in fact, the united states and china are the two countries whose tensions could spread around the whole world. whose conflicts could make any solutions very difficult and whose cooperation is needed for peace. so it is important for the

united states and china to be transparent with one another about their objectives and general strategy in the world. we are both major countries and we are both apt to step on each other's toes because of the magnitude of our efforts but we must not permit a situation to arise like the one that led to the first world war in which an accumulation of irritations finally led to a crisis that was no different from many crises that had been solved. and one day they could not manage it. so the united states and china have to try to decide a way by which they can cooperate and and by which people can work for common objectives.

fundamentally, there has been significant progress made in every administration. and whenever a new administration comes in, it is a concern that maybe it will take a different course. if madeleine forgives me, in the early clinton administration, president clinton tried to deviate from the established pattern but within two years he realized that the established pattern was based on outcome and interest and he became one of , the strongest supporters of this way of international relations. so, that is the spirit in which i have talked to every chinese president.

i am sure that madeleine has followed similar approaches and there are specific issues that require special attention but i believe this is needed now, at the beginning of a new administration and i am hopeful that it will develop. sec. albright: let me just say, i have told chinese friends not to pay attention to things that candidates say about them. governor clinton had said "the butchers of beijing," but once president-elect, he took a different approach, or he did not speak about it very much. i think the chinese have gotten used to some of the things our elected officials have said,

but i am concerned about what has just happened because it in some ways raises questions about all of the things that henry did and terms of the shanghai communique and the one china policy. so, while in fact what president clinton was saying was that people had been arrested or mowed down by tanks which did not deal with our values, i think america's always have to -- americans -- always have to stay, and i always had to whenever i met with the chinese was to explain our human rights policies and issues to do with tibet which is a little , different than kind of questioning for seeming -- i mean i have no idea what happened i only know what i , read. but basically questioning the issue of what our relationship with taiwan is.

the question is, as part of president carter's normalization, we did have the taiwan relations act that was part of the agreement. but the question is, what was the intent of the phone call. mr. orlins: dr. kissinger, did president-elect trump ask you to go to china? [laughter] dr. kissinger: no. mr. orlins: did he ask you to deliver a message to the chinese? dr. kissinger: no. not in this sense. i was, of course, aware of some of his thinking and he knew that i was going but i was not going as a residential emissary. i was going on a trip that i had planned many months earlier. mr. orlins: were you surprised that he accepted a call?

-- accepted a call from thailand? -- from taiwan customer do you that is -- do you think that is in the interest of sound and productive u.s.-china relations? dr. kissinger: i was one of the drafters of the shanghai communique and so there are clear promises of that communique and clear obligations and i will not separate my views from the shanghai communique and from the established procedure. i think also that at this moment i have been very impressed by the calm reaction of the chinese. the leadership suggests that a

determination to see whether a calm dialogue can be developed. but there is no question that the policy of opening to china has been based on the premise of the one china policy. mr. orlins: does this, accepting a call when he is not yet president, i would argue that what our prohibition is about official contact and since he is president-elect and not yet president, that actually is not an official contact. no? dr. kissinger: well, that is a

good way to describe it. [laughter] mr. orlins: since i look to avoid confrontation that is the way i choose to describe it. i look to the secretary of state in taipei and i know since i worked in the state department the prohibitions and i said wait a minute, you're not supposed to be here. he said i have been named but i have not taken off yet. i am not official. so there is precedent for that kind of contact. so what do you think after that turmoil, the president-elect sent out a tweet after he was criticized and i had to write it down to have it precise. "did china ask us if it was ok to devalue their currency, making it hard for our companies to compete? heavily tax our products going

into their country? the u.s. does not tax them will -- does not tax them. or to build a massive industrial complex militarily in the middle of the china sea? i do not think so!" what does that mean for the u.s.-china relationship? dr. kissinger: i think it is madeleine's turn. [laughter] expect to getnot easy questions from me all stop dr. kissinger: look, it is obviously obvious what my views are, on the subject. i think it is also not desirable that at the beginning of a new administration that is finding go into everyi .ne of these issues i believe in a one china policy all stop i believe it has to be preserved, i believe that the dialogue should be calm and

focused on long-term objectives. but, i do not think at this point it is important for me to second-guess every move that may have been made. sec. albright: it is a statement of fact that the most important relationship we have is with china and we all, diplomatically speaking when they are complicated, you say it is multifaceted so it is definitely multi-faceted. i think what we have seen is through a variety of administrations beginning with president nixon and henry kissinger, we have developed a way of talking to each other and it is very well, kind of patterned and there are certain way of of diplomacy, by virtue

of talking about it you have to put it yourself into the other person's shoes. it is not negotiating for a hotel. i think the point is how to develop the right parlance here. i know it takes a while to kind of sort it out but in the , meantime what i have found, and i have traveled abroad a lot since the election, is trying to explain to anybody, chinese or -- i was born in czechoslovakia so i went to prague right away, to say stay calm. i agree with henry. they are learning. the bottom line is, tweeting has not actually been a foreign policy tool before. mr. orlins: but it did not used to be an election tool, either. sec. albright: but the big question is how technology is used these days. but i do think also the number of issues we have with the chinese weather through the

strategic and economic talks or military to military talks really do depend on relationships and having all the information. let me just say, the transition. -- the transition period is both too short and too long. i have been transitioned into and have done the transitioning, and the latter is more fun. people in this country are talking to each other and somehow forget that foreigners are listening to them or hear what they are saying. and i hope, i really hope that my good friend henry kissinger has a very strong influence on president-elect trump. [applause] mr. orlins: that is shared. sec. albright: you are the only

hope. mr. orlins: lets go from one sensitive issue to another sensitive issue. secretary albright, you were the only seniore americans to visit north korea. then father of kim jong-un. foralmost arranged president clinton to visit north .orea president-elect trump is also talking about having discussions directly with kim jong un. what lessons from your visit, you're dealing with them, more than any american official in

decades, tell you about his idea. sec. albright: we had had a lot of talks with the north koreans throughout the clinton administration. there were breakdowns with them. a lot of issues that came up in the united nations, we had the agreed framework and a number of different ways and then president clinton had asked us because things were not moving in any way to do a complete , review of korean policy and he asked former secretary of defense bill perry to do a review. and then we had some meetings with the north koreans and explained this is fork in the road time. you will either negotiate about some of the missile limits or we are going to take some action here and they chose negotiation. what happened was, they chose -- the vice marshal came to the united states and invited

president clinton to go to north korea. we were in the oval office antes -- and he said i might come at , some point but first secretary albright has two go. the truth is we knew very little about kim jong un -- kim jong-il. i had to talk to another to see. they had spent some time together. our intelligence said kim jong-il was crazy and a pervert. he was not crazy. [laughter] sec. albright: when i got there, they put me in a guesthouse and because we did not have an embassy there, we had no idea what was going to happen. i first got instruction i had to go see his father also. it is very hard when you are trying to pay respect to somebody not to bow to low because that is too respectful, and the press will be furious, and not to kind of pay no

respect. once i had agreed to do that i went back to the guesthouse and all of a sudden i get a message that the dear leader would see me. so we in fact had a meeting and press conference and it was something out of the 1950's, really. i standing there next to him and am i see we are the same height. i knew i had on high heels and then i looked over and so did he and his hair was a lot puffier than mine. we had amazing talks in terms of -- in terms of arranging for missile limits. kim jong-il said we can keep our forces in south korea, and there were a number of different agreements made and began, it was one of those strange times, -- those strange periods i hold , no grief for the north koreans but the bottom line is many americans were confused about the election of 2000. he certainly was. when i came back, i briefed colin powell about what we had done. he was very interested and what

we had done and then the washington post that headline "how to continue clinton policies." he was hauled into the white house office and told no way. i do think the north koreans had reason to be confused. by the way, dennis rodman and all of the basketball stuff is my fault, because there was one other thing we knew about kim jong-il he liked basketball and , michael jordan. i brought him an autographed basketball which he put in their holy of holies. the bottom line is, i do think we need to either get some version of the six-party talk. we need to talk to them. i do think that is a very important part, and decide that having a nuclear north korea is dangerous for the chinese. we have to do it with the chinese. they need to understand that they do not want a nuclear-armed north korea either.

i think that within some kind of a multilateral context it is important for us to talk. mr. orlins: but what president-elect trump seems to be suggesting is a one-on-one with kim jong-un. sec. albright: if it comes to that, it has to be really well-prepared and the bottom line is we do not know enough about kim jong-un and and the and and the, question is, who does the one-on-one and how they understand each other. at some point, we have to talk to them. the situation with iran is quite similar but different. there certainly were a lot of talks that took place. mr. orlins: do we know if in president obama's conversation with president-elect trump that there has been reference to a real threat and that threat was north korea? sec. albright: we were told that. mr. orlins: secretary kissinger,

if president-elect trump asked you should he meet directly with president? dr. kissinger: let me explain my general view of the situation. korea has played a major role in china-american relations. it got us into a war in 1950 that neither side really wanted. because when the north koreans attacked south korea, they thought it would be an easy victory. and then when the united states came to the assistance of south korea and moved north, china felt itself compelled for its own historical reasons to intervene. so you cannot separate north korea from china-american relations.

secondly, the basic objective for the immediate future has to be to remove nuclear weapons from north korea. there is no maneuvering that can nuclear weapons in north korea tolerable because china will , feel threatened. japan will. every country in the region will feel threatened and they are working on weapons that can reach the united states. they have shown a total disregard for proliferation. of course you could say if north korea is prepared to give up nuclear weapons and wants to exist as a separate state, it is not for the united states to

question its existence beyond the point where they threaten us. but the likelihood is, in my opinion, that if north korea gives up its nuclear weapons it will be a regime that will disintegrate. it is the only thing they have achieved in their history as a national effort that is a demonstrable success. so therefore, it raises the question of what happens if north korea disintegrates. which incidentally is a question in any event because a regime so strange can maintain itself by brute force for some time but , sooner or later something may happen that raises the issues.

-- issue of its survival. opinion, if that issue of survival arises into an unprepared international community in which there have not been discussions of what to do in such a contingency, it has the possibility of a very dangerous escalation. so, i think it is important for the united states and china to come to some understanding. not just about removing the nuclear weapons but about the evolution of korea after that. and that in turn will involve other countries in a continuing and subsequent negotiation.

so in a sense, korea is a threat in the military sense but it is also a threat in the long-term sense. many invasions of china have come through korea. china will never be in different --will never be in different indifferent to the evolution of korea. but nor will japan be. and of course, south korea has a huge interest. so it is very important to call attention to the need of building korea into in international framework. now, who should negotiate with who? in that what stage?

-- and in what stage? i think it is too premature in this administration to discuss this in a realistic fashion. one has to distinguish the short-term policy, that thereot likely can be one dramatic movement negotiation that takes care of this. the administration has to be the people have to be given a chance to consider

rather than going into every tactical statement that may be made. secretary albright: i do think people need to be aware that these kinds of talks happened in the first place. henry mentioned all of the stakeholders in this that have some interest, what does happen is there are multilateral meetings, where various people six party talks in a table, but then there are breakouts, where people can have pull asides and have the beginning of some bilateral discussion. i don't think you begin -- i agree with first let's get the leaders together, because it -- because it has to come in this context of what the region is like. the thing that has happened is has twoed states allies, korea and japan, that don't exactly love each other. we have responsibilities there. the region keeps shifting, some

of the things that happened in the philippines, recently. to require aing way of us having these discussions with the chinese, within that larger context, and i personally believe there has to be some kind of multilateral talk. as it happened when we were in office, evolve into something, not just flat out get them together because the preparation for this is going to be huge. i do think it is one of the biggest threats out there for exactly the reasons that you got someone we don't know who he is, and he does ask scientists and people that know how to develop this stuff. host: you made reference to the changing geopolitical landscape, especially the philippines. let's talk about the south china seas, which has certainly been a near attend in the u.s. china relationship -- been any written nt in the u.s.ita

china relationship. china building these huge military establishments in the middle of the ocean. how do we fix it? what do you suggest? albright: i think we have an interest in having freedom of navigation. i get so tired when people say what are we doing in the pacific? the -- i always say we are not monogamous. we are an atlantic and pacific power. , andve very great interest navigation and trade routes are very important. i think that we have not gotten question ofthe sovereignty, but i do think we are concerned about the navigational aspect and the right to fly and those things have to be worked out if the

chinese cannot unilaterally decide. in the philippines, leadership does make a difference. the international court has ruled on this and the new president of the philippines has somehow changed his mind, but the bottom line is there is a way to do this. the problem is that the united states is not a signatory of the law of the sea treaty, which puts us in a somewhat weaker position for arguing the rules that the international system has put down. we depend on freedom of we have not ratified it. host: any suggestions on the south china sea? iny would say we believe freedom of navigation. in fact, the greatest loser of

the freedom of navigation was impeded, it would be china. their trade goes through more than ours. sec. kissinger: this is an example. waysample of the different , culturally, the two countries look at it. the dotted line and of the chinese claim up to the dotted line, this was made by some emperor 300 years ago. and when the idea of freedom of wasgation and so forth developed, it has been maintained. it has been maintained by every chinese government. view, in fact, current authorities in taiwan have the same view about the significance of this. on the other hand, the united

states position of freedom of the seas has been developed over amount of time. so, if one tries to settle this in absolute terms, it will probably be a very protracted and difficult issue. on the other hand, we have experience in the shanghai community. and in the evolution of the various agreements that we have made, between the united states thechina, following shanghai communique by administrations of both parties. how the two sides can find a way

of living with disagreement. nature of this issue and that is tolerable to both sides. approachnk that is the that should be sought now. the economic architecture, the economic architecture of the the obamas administration sought to re-craft it through the negotiation of the transpacific partnership. that died as a result of the them not wanting to pass it and president-elect trump has said on day one he will withdraw american signature from it. economiche architecture of the region going to look like and what should it,

from an american perspective, be crafted to look like? we decided -- countries decided that tdp isn't what we want but what should we he adjusting to donald trump? there isight: i think a whole? the architecture, not just economic but the architecture of the region. i am so old that when i was in college, we talked about seto. attempte is always an to have some kind of architecture. i think from a perspective of wasonal security, tpp offering that in many ways. 12 countries coming together and part of the problem was that it didn't deal with the economic situation of the workers. and so i can see what the problem is. i think the united states made a being further

with the bank that the chinese were setting up. i think that was very important and it would have made a difference if we had been enthusiastic about it instead of standing aside. i do think that we need to see -- by the way, i think a point to add to what henry was talking about with culture -- i have gone to china a lot. and more and more, with easy about the fact that they have not been respected properly internationally and back to various grievances and now with the one belt, one road idea, it is a very large, expensive program that they are interested in. so the question is, how can they go about their economic infrastructure without having it be contradictory to what we might want to see in the region. it is very interesting now that the chinese say they now have to -- they haveorers

to get their labor is too expensive. so they have to send stuff to other countries. no longer the largest developing country. and i think there needs to be a better way of trying to find a structure that may not be tpp but is based on the concept. now,es what is happening the chinese are taking over what we have left on the table and i think that is going to cause issues for the new administration. think this regional comprehensive economic partnership that china is was tpp-liked, that would be my description of it. it doesn't have the investment projections but it is more a tariff agreement. sec. kissinger: a number of american leaders have said that has a vital interests in asia. way, andwe are, in a

asian power. actually, president ts except that in a number of his statements. tpphe strategic purpose of or of something like tpp is to symbolize and formalize some kind of structure relationship andeen the united states those asian countries that want to have this relationship. and it cannot be in anybody's interest. either china or the united states, to see the world breakup into groupings in which each grouping then conducts themselves like national states

towards each other. with even greater consequences. tpp wasasic concept of important, whether it is the specific conditions meeting , as aody's concerns concept, i think it was important. investment. the national committee spends a lot of time looking at chinese investment in the united states and u.s. investment. in china. and even though trade is controversial, i think there is a consensus that investment is basically good. it is job creating, that, if president-elect trump is , he would say yes.

investment creates jobs. think it is a reasonable theory to come up with that president-elect trump will president obama could not conclude, the bilateral investment treaty? that it will look to a business person as a little hesitant through and job creating? and that it would be a way to kind of lay a constructive foundation at the beginning of an administration? because they were this close to getting it done that they couldn't get it done. is that something that you think may be in the cards? sec. albright: not if that tweet t he you read is what i thinks. they would have to be a number

of adjustments on tariffs and a number of different ways of looking at it. and the question is, whether in a negotiation on a bilateral treaty -- bilateral investment treaty -- for: so china would open sectors to u.s. investment and the u.s. will agree not to discriminate against china, but we don't anyhow so the u.s. doesn't give up very much in this. sec. albright: but there is an overlay in having said certain things about the way the chinese are treated. i happen to think it is a good idea for the chinese to invest in the u.s.. there are a lot of infrastructure things that need to be done. and they don't run into the problem and they are worth doing. i think it is also worth americans investing in china. question is, whether the atmosphere that has been created

, whether, if in fact, we can move forward a bit at this point. host: anything on that? i think it is: useful for me to go into what should be an immediate negotiation. particularly in the economic field. the secretary of treasury fails adamant when we were both me.eagues, said about that my knowledge of economics one an argument against suffrage. [laughter] we have talked about the where itinfrastructure

was reevaluated u.s. bases in japan and in south korea. restructuring how they are paid for. what is that going to do to the existing security architecture? does the architecture need to be changed because it is overly reliant on cold war thinking? let me say, i teach at georgetown. and i teach a course where i say foreign policy is trying to get some country to do what you want, that is all it is. so the question is, what are the tools that we have? my course is called the national security toolbox. one of the tools is obviously the military tool. which is not just the fighting forces and the number of aircraft carriers, that, in fact, the basis and how they are

used. who is on them. how they really enable us to have a presence in countries. the think that some of things that donald has said generally about what our allies have to pay or not pay, whether it is nato or in asia, i think we do need to have a more cooperative approach to it. but we want those bases there. and we consider them important. and i do think that blackmailing allies into things is not a great idea. what ourwe know national interests are in asia. and it is a two-way street. they need us and we need them. people make to think of bases as part of that will box, to some extent.

by the way, what i find interesting is that there was a story in the papers today about the fact that -- has set the and moreeed a smaller effective military. so there are also having questions and how the money is spent, generally. how do they use the tool? as we all have the same toolbox. sec. kissinger: an alliance always has a particular assumption about the nature of security. that is inherent in an alliance. that as timeitable goes on, that there are periodic reconsiderations of what the proper balance is within an alliance. and also, what the proper relationship is of the alliance

to countries that are not part of the alliance. so i consider this natural that such discussions should take place. one really has to evaluate it in terms of the nature of the assessments that are made. what should not happen is that loadlly makes his conditional on the other countries. is a verymething that last resort. but i tell you, we are here in a very complicated situation. when i agreed to this. discuss theg to basic relationship between china and the united states. my position on that is firm.

fully explained in many articles. including a long interview in the atlantic. it has now become a discussion of specific statements that are i don't want to participate in that part of the discussion. i am perfectly willing to repeat and strengthen. i believe the united states and close and have a friendly relationship. of the worlde depends on the ability to do this. that many principles have been established to achieve this.

it happens to be that this date was set at a moment when nobody knew. host: nobody predicted what was going on. now we haveer: and to discuss specific conditions. i would think, normally, madeline and i agree on the essence of these issues. whether we agree on every tactical point is not so important. say, weright: let me definitely do agree on the overall issue. thenobody has done more for u.s.-china relationship spanned henry kissinger. -- was viceay, when premier, he came over and we had a meeting with all of the former people. and he was explaining how he felt about the united states and

that he had spent time here and wanted to know what we had learned over the 35 years and what our relationship was. so then as we are leaving, i said to one of the others, eating and a meeting with henry kissinger and the chinese is a demigod.with and the other person said, leave out the demi. i do agree. i think the problem that we have, and i don't blame henry for not wanting to comment on this, i am, however, free. the things that have been said can't be erased. which is something that i said initially. we forget how much foreign countries listen to what we are saying. and when it looks as though there is going to be -- and i emphasize the "looks as though, quite different approaches to talked such as when he about a nuclear rise japan or

various other aspects, i think we have to understand what the effect of this is. whether you can just blurt it out from the consciousness of the consciousness of the people we are dealing with. i do think we have to be concerned about the importance of the u.s.-chinese relationship. i think it is absolutely essential. and there are so many aspects to it. so i hope very much that there is a learning process here. but how your race what has been said? if i were going on the other side into a discussion, i would say, what did you mean by that? i think it is hard not to consider it. host: i understand. sec. albright: i haven't been asked to go to the trump tower. [laughter] of the bright, shining moments in u.s.-china relations is the agreement between

president obama and china with the agreement on climate change. that was the view of many in the that it was an example of america and china jointly leading the world. of globalhe myriad issues -- if the united states and china can cooperate on them, we would have a chance at solving them. if we don't cooperate, then we are doomed to failure. and climate change -- the obama administration did a great job of getting that and ultimately signing the paris agreement. what should we do going forward? during theht: clinton administration, we did try to deal with this. and one of the issues was that it was unfair that developed countries had created the environmental mess and the

developing countries were going to suffer about it. the chinese ato lot about leapfrogging with new technologies and yet, that continued to be at issue. i do think that what has been done on climate change is remarkable. that the parist agreement is quite different, in terms of the various requirements of it that the fact that the chinese president and the american president were able to do this is remarkable. it would be most unfortunate if it were not followed up. todayicle going around that vice president gore, mr. climate change, he has had a trump'swith donald daughter, because apparently that is the thing she is interested in. i do hope there is progress on climate change. and those people who think the earth is flat and don't believe in climate change actually are not the ones that influence

donald trump. and that he really does continue with this. this doesn't relate to recent news. , theter both of you served strategic and economic dialogue was created as a mechanism to kind of a strengthen u.s.-china relations. it had various different ministries and agencies in the united states that have many cabinet members go and many ministers from china come. perspective, your is this an effective mechanism? should it be continued? to have anger: dialogue on these issues, it is very important. the evolution of these

institutions is that they group thatin with a have an enough to effective dialogue. and then it gradually expands. increasingly, the outcome of it is influenced by the communique and so they begin working on the communique before they even meet. criticalhere is a group of membership that permits an effective dialogue. so, for example, what is now the -- it wasd as actually started as a g5 and then it was these people permitted on each side.

now, it is a very large group. it still is useful. because it permits dialogue. it permits focusing on issues. is tot i think is needed keep the basic idea of the dialogue going. and then periodically, examine whether the size of it needs trimming or whether it is kept as a symbolic subgroup but the and should beful continued. i think it should be continued for a number of reasons. ouris that we know in government and in other governments, things are not just contained in one box. so the strategic and economic things go together. the military. the other part is that we have a

tendency always to talk about how the leaders of a country get along. the bottom line is that it is nice to have the personal relationship but there has to be carried out by bureaucracies in both countries. and the institutions. and so this is a way for some of the other people with in institutional structures to get to know each other. and then smaller groups can do drafting or whatever. but it does provide a useful mechanism. we do this with some other countries, in terms of having big meetings of getting various ministries together. importanthink the part here is how lower-level officials begin to work together under the leadership's of the leaders. so i do hope this continues. have an illustrious audience. let me open the floor to questions. right here, in the front.

and please, identify yourself and keep the questions short. for have a question secretary albright. i'm a partner of the company in shanghai. i currently conduct research at columbia university. and secretary madeleine albright, you said to not pay attention to what the candidates say, but something happened , such as thection phone call from taiwan and we don't know what is going to happen tomorrow. to be honest, for the chinese business people, what are they concerned about, most about -- so, in your

how will the political issues influence the economic relationship between china and america? thank you. i have to say. i think campaigns are one thing. but once someone has been elected, it does make you question where this is going. i do think that it is important for president-elect trump and his people to know that the reaction that it has created. i think would will be important are the people that he chooses in the government and how they will look at it. i have to tell you, at this moment, it is unclear. it is unclear to me. , i the most important thing

think now is for everyone to stay calm. and not to -- i believe that the relationship, as i have said now kissinger, a u.s. chinese relationship, whether it is economic, military, security, it is the most important relationship. and therefore, to make decisions informationack of is very dangerous. thato, i would hope beijing is not overly insulted people was said or that are thinking that this is the policy. as we don't know what the policy is yet. that is my suggestion. let's see. right here? i am with a chinese news

agency. i have a question under -- i have a question for dr. kissinger. you just praised china's calm reaction under the taiwan issue. and as you mentioned, everyone needs to stay calm in this current situation. but some people say that the phone call was just diplomatic by the president-elect, due to his lack of knowledge. secretary kissinger has made it clear he doesn't want to talk about the issues you are raising. but my question is, some people say it might be an intentional move to test china. so china's call reaction might be interpreted as weakness and lead to more provocation? and bullying? so my question is, how do you, and on that?

tried toinger: i have explain to this group. seen 10 american administrations. believe that one of the big challenges to america has been the division of our country. on many of the foreign-policy issues. so i do not think it is desirable that at the beginning of a newly elected administration, we now elaborate on the points that can be made. we can be divided. i have just spent three days in china. and i believe that it is

possible to have a creative relationship between our two countries. and to make me say something, it is clear i do not have any intention of saying. to my view of the current necessities. believe what i have said. there are americans who have spent 40 years on this problem who have the same view. and we will make our views known. important to

permit an opportunity for this concept to be developed. if it does not develop, we all have to make our own decisions. as far as the u.s.-china believe that i there are positive prospects. i believe they should be pursued. i have hope they will be pursued. as far as you take my view seriously, you should focus points and not see what we can find which give us concern. picked --tate was

when this date was picked, it was not considered to be in such a particular period. there are reasons for concern. there are reasons for hope. and one should concentrate on those. points my fundamental which cannot be massaged by other questions. host: have i only called on chinese? let me call on a non-chinese. >> i am daniel burke and i work for the american economist lyndon larouche, my question is for dr. kissinger, mr. larouche has proposed that he is strong in agreeing with you that the u.s. and china must cooperate.

he is emphatic that the u.s. and china to cooperate on the one belt, one road policy, that this would be a clear way to rebuild the united states, collapsing economy. further, he said we could work together on space, science, and the development of thermonuclear fusion. do you have comments? i have never: thought of lyndon larouche in this context. i do think that we can cooperate. now is one of the issues cyber. and various problems that are there and various possibilities. -- question is -- how are our two great countries can cooperate in a way that requires a certain amount of trust. ? i hope there is some pursuit of cooperation in a number of different fields but i do not

think we can underestimate what the difficulties are in that kind of corporation -- cooperation. sec. kissinger: the one road, -- belt concept is important is an important idea and i think that china and the united states can and should find a way of talking about it. it is one of the issues in which cooperation is possible. i think perhaps my most useful contribution is to stop. host: last question. right here.

>> thank you. i am from american express, now celebrating 50 years of the national committee. what do you think the cap three or five things we should be looking to celebrate at the 70 year reunion? 20 years from now. sec. albright: first of all, that many of our students learned to speak chinese. that we have more and more educational exchanges. that we understand each other's history and culture. and that our work internationally is actually not in competition but in cooperation in terms of to pick up of the one belt, one road. in terms of infrastructure, which brings people together, ways of understanding how

dependent we are on changes in the climate. fact drop the in fact that we are enemies when we are -- when we have to work together. iither of us will be here but do think that we need to look forward to that kind of relationship. what was ther: precise question? >> 20 years from now, what could we celebrate in the u.s.-china relationship? sec. kissinger: a creative cooperation or a degree of tension which will be spread all over the world by forcing every country to make the choice which would lead to confrontation. tohink our obligation is

expect that the corporate of relationship about which both sides are talking and both sides have proclaimed in the administrations of both parties will continue. that is what i expect. host: the perfect note to close on but before we close, let me ask secretary albright -- she is famous for her pins. these are monkey pens. of. albright: it is the year the monkey and i already bought my rooster for next year. [laughter] [applause] i want to thank secretary kissinger and secretary albright for so generously of their time. secretary kissinger not only has given us this evening but a week from thursday will be honored by the national committee with his

lifetime achievement award. for the contribution to the u.s.-china relationship -- [applause] advice tomy president-elect trump would be very simple, watch this video. [laughter] [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> coming up live today in c-span, and under an hour, policing and criminal justice come a discussion after president obama granted to the eight pardons and 153 commutations yesterday, the most ever by a president in a single day. the conversation on criminal justice live from the brookings institution at 12:30 eastern time. more from brookings with a conversation on economic growth and inequality. that will be live also on c-span. c-span, tonight at 8:00, jerry greenfield,

cofounder of ben & jerry's thoughts about creative and responsible business practices. >> the idea that we could not sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business. it forced us to look for other markets. >> wednesday night, former vice president dick cheney a former defense. leon panetta on the future of the defense department under donald trump. i think the challenges are very great and we have unfortunately over the course of the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet those threats. leon panetta: living in a time for there are flashpoints and a new administration will have to look at that kind of world. obviously, the fine policy that we need -- defined policy that we need and develop the defense policy to confront that kind of world. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the career of

mike pence. ofamid the shifting sense contemporary culture we have stood without apology for the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage, and the freedom of religion. beginning atnight, 8:00, farewell speeches and tribute to several outgoing senators including harry reid, barbara boxer, kelly ayotte, and dan coats. this week in prime time on c-span. >> a live look at donald trump's home in florida across the water where a number of news organizations yesterday spent time with the president-elect at an off the record event. the washington post reporting those organizations are now defending their attendance at what turned doctor be a cocktail party with the president-elect who has not held a full on the record news conference in months. d.c.,hington, preparations underway for his inauguration, just one month

away, a live look outside the white house and above the work already underway. constructing bleachers for the parade and ceremony on friday, january 20, inauguration day. ♪ >> the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20.

c-span will have live coverage of the events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio at -- c-span radio app. defense secretary ashton carter was in simi valley, california, reflecting on his tenure at the defense department, he offered recommendations on key worldwide military theaters including the middle east and asia-pacific. he spoke earlier this month for just under one hour. [applause] sec. carter: thank you. thank you all. good afternoon, and john, thank you for that kind introduction. it is very good to be back here at the reagan forum, and i am pleased to join so many longtime friends of mine and the defense

department, among the dedicated and patriotic americans here, including two of my predecessors, former secretary of defense and former vice president dick cheney, former secretary of defense leon panetta, as well as so many dedicated public servants like chairman mac thornberry and the congressional delegation here today. current colleagues like my deputy bob work, the chairman of joint chiefs of staff, joe dunford, and i believe joe had to leave a little while ago, and many others who contribute to our defense enterprise, such as lockheed martin ceo, raytheon ceo tom kennedy, all part of the team america. thanks all for your continued support for service members and their families. there is marilyn.

hello, marilyn. and for all your own contributions to our national security. each of you knows well that america's defense is so vital that to we whom it is entrusted must ensure its excellence and continuity across the years and across the domains of foreign conflict, not just in air, sea, land, but also in space, cyberspace. from strategic era to strategic era, from presidential administration to presidential administration, across our government and across parties. ensuring that continuity is important at a time of change of administration in washington. i'm proud of the way the men and women of dod conducted themselves during the last presidential campaign. standing apart from politics, staying focused on the mission. i am committed to overseeing the orderly transfer to the next commander-in-chief.

that's something dod takes a lot of pride in and has done for a long time. we are carrying out this year's changeover with the excellence that is expected of us. let me also congratulate general jim mattis for being chosen to take my place. i've worked with jim for many years. he is is a friend, and i hold him in the highest regard. of course the excellence the american people expect of our is due to the continuity and leadership defense secretaries of both parties have provided over the last seven decades. each one of them has strengthened dod to meet the challenges of their strategic eras and the future challenges as they saw them. with bold action such as unify the armed forces at the dawn of a nuclear age, moving to an all volunteer force after the

vietnam war. leveraging leap ahead technologies like stealth and precision-guided munitions and battle networks to fortune on -- to forge an military edge against the soviet bloc. winning the cold war and defining u.s. leadership in the era that followed in waging 21st century counterterrorism and counterinsurgency campaigns. i myself have lived through, witnessed, and served in all but the earliest of those eras and the strategic transitions between them, also. contributing to programs involving missile defense and space in nuclear triad during the cold war, overseeing the project to prevent the vast stockpile of soviet nuclear chemical and biological weapons from falling into the wrong hands after the cold war ended. in more recent years, helping develop and field capabilities like the mine resistant

ambush protected vehicles for the fights in afghanistan and iraq, among other places. in this strategic transition that we're in right now, we must widen the spectrum of our current and future capabilities to account for this great change -- the great change economic, political, social and technological underway -- and the greater and fiercer competition we face. i say this because today, dod confronts no fewer than five immediate but also distinct and evolving challenges. we are countering the prospect of russian aggression and coercion, especially in europe, something we haven't had to worry about for 25 years but now we do. we are also managing historic change in the asia-pacific, the single most consequential region

for america's future. we are strengthening our deterrence and defense forces in the face of north korea's continued nuclear and missile provocations. we're checking iranian aggression and malign influence in the gulf and helping defends our friends and allies in the east. we are countering terrorism and accelerating the certain and lasting defeat of isil. and of course, we're preparing to contend with an uncertain future. ensuring our military is ready for challenges we may not anticipate today. defending our country in this strategic transition requires our military deters the most advanced adversaries while continuing to fight terrorist groups. to be clear, the u.s. military will be ready to fight very differently than we have in iraq and afghanistan, or in the rest of the world in recent memory. we will, as we must, be prepared

for a high-end enemy, which we call full-spectrum. our budget, plans, training , capabilities and actions we must demonstrate the potential that if they start a war, we will win it. because a force meant to deter conflict can only succeed if it can show that it will dominate conflict. that is the kind of force i have been determined to build my successors. -- for my successors. that is why, amid this strategic transition, it has been necessary and will be necessary for dod to change, adapt, innovate, not only to meet today's challenges but also ensure defenses continued excellence well into an uncertain future. i want to speak today about the changes underway to respond to the challenges, focusing on the military campaign to accelerate the lasting defeat of isil, our

strong and balanced strategy on russia on the rebalance to the vital and dynamic asia-pacific. also to describe the actions we are taking and pioneering innovations underway to ensure dod has the technology, the operational plan, the organization, and the people to continue to defend our country and make a better world for decades to come. let me start in the middle east. the region of great turbulence and confusion but where we are not confused. we are clear about our pursuit of america's national interest. among them is dealing isil the lasting defeat that it deserves and that it will certainly receive. we have reached a critical milestone in the counter-isil military campaign plan as we meet here today, american forces are engaged in intense effort to isolate and collapse the control

of isil in mosul in iraq and rocca in syria. from bringing the great weight of our entire range of capabilities to bear in the enabling of capable and motivated local forces. the seizure of these two cities is necessary to ensure the destruction of isil's parent tumor in iraq and syria, the primary objective of the military campaign, and put isil and irreversible path to defeat. reaching this is the result of deliberate actions taken since last year. going back to last summer i consolidated the work for iraq and syria under a single unified command. streamlining our command-and-control for the fight against isil. last october, president obama approved the first in a series of recommendations that i and joe dunford made to accelerate

the campaign against isil, introducing every tool of our military to the fight from airpower to special operation forces, to trained advice and assist capabilities to our intelligence and cyber tools. i should tell you that since then, president obama has approved every single recommendation the chairman and i have have taken to him for additional forces and capabilities as we saw -- as we have additional opportunities to accelerate the campaign. the overall coalition military campaign plan we devised last year has three objectives. the first is to destroy isil's parent tumor in iraq and syria. the sooner we crush both the fact and the idea of an islamic state based on isil's barbaric ideology, the safer we will be.

that is necessary but not sufficient, so the second objective is to combat isil's metastases everywhere they emerge everywhere around the world. in afghanistan, libya and elsewhere. and the third objective is to work with the intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement partners to help protect our homeland and our people from attack. that's ultimately our most important mission. this strategic approach of our campaign is to leverage all the tools at dod's disposal to enable capable and motivated local forces to apply pressure to deal isil a lasting defeat. we recommended this strategic approach because the only way to ensure that once defeated, isil stays defeated, is to enable local forces to seize and hold territory rather than to substitute for them. we have been squeezing isil from all sides and across domains

through a series of deliberate plays to continue to build momentum. for example, when our special operators conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture isil leaders, it creates a virtuous cycle cycle a better intelligence generates more targets and more raids, more airstrikes, and more opportunities we can seize to gain even more momentum. as a result, since last year, play-by-play, accelerant after accelerant, in town after town, the campaign has delivered significant results. in iraq, we been helping iraqi security forces and the kurdish peshmerga to systematically dislodge isil from city after city -- ramadi, falluja, kiara, others. our coalition is now doing the same in mosul, having isolated

the city, the iraqis, with our help, taking back easter most of mosul and moving west. there is a complex mission will take time to accomplish, but i'm confident that isil's days in mosul are numbered. in syria, our local partners put an end to isil's expansion and then began to systematically roll it back towards raqqa, an important objective since the so-called capital of the caliphate and the hub for plotters of external attack. after helping capable and series -- and motivated local syrian forces defended kobani, we enabled them another forces to retake other places, denying isil control over those areas and cutting off their primary lines of communication into turkey and iraq. we are now helping our local

partners isolate raqqa from which there's only 15 miles away. as the isolation phase continues we are generating additional local forces necessary to seize and hold raqqa. in addition to taking back territory, our campaign is yielding results and if denying isil the finances, supplies, freedom of movement command-and-control it needs to survive. we have systematically targeted isil-controlled oil wells, trucks for smuggling the oil, revenue repositories. we have deliberately focused on severing isil controls and syria from the territory of controls in iraq. leaders of the terrorist group can no longer travel between raqqa and mosul without the risk of either being hunted down our that's by our expeditionary targeting force or struck from the air.

in fact, since we began accelerating the campaign last year, we have killed some of isil's most senior leaders. while these results in iraq and syria are encouraging, we have to stay focused on the continued execution of this plan. the inevitable collapse of the control over mosul and raqqa certainly put isil on a path to lasting defeat. there will be much more to do after that. to make sure that once defeated, isil stays defeated. we will need to continue to counter foreign fighters trying to escape and isil's attempt to relocate or reinvent itself. to do so, not only the united states but our coalition must endure and remain militarily engaged. in iraq, in particular, it will be necessary for the coalition to provide sustained assistance and carry on our work to train, equip, and support and support local police, border guards, and other forces to hold areas

cleared of isil. beyond security, there will still be towns to rebuild, services to reestablish, and communities to restore. those are not military matters, but they are part of how after winning the battle, one wins the peace. that's why my principal concern at this juncture is international community stabilization and governance efforts lagging behind the military campaign. there will also need to be continued political support for an inclusive and multi-sectarian iraq. in a region rife with sectarianism, the threat of isil has brought people together for now against the common enemy. that is really true in iraq thanks to the unity and leadership of prime minister abadi and cooperation between the iraqi security forces in the

kurdish peshmerga in the battle to retake mosul has reached a level that would have been unthinkable a year ago. we are taken steps to help promote and maintain the unity. we know that's the only way to keep isil defeated. as i said earlier, success in in iraq and syria is necessary but it is not sufficient to deal a lasting defeat. that is why were focused on two other critical objectives of our campaign -- combating isil's metastases around the world and helping protect our homeland. when it comes to combating the metastases, we've taken strong actions in support of capable and motivated local forces in libya and afghanistan and elsewhere. in libya, the u.s. military has provided air support and forced to isolate and collapse their