that is the national walkout. >> vice president pence will speak at she's back -- speak at cpac's morning. we will hear from don mccann, senator ted cruz, betsy devos and alex acosta. live coverage at 10:35 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events and washington, d.c. and around .he globe -- around the country c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite fighter.

-- satellite divider. -- satellite provider. joins us now. he previously served in the obama administration and he recently released "the world after trump." first, explain what we mean when we are talking about the international order. what does that include? guest: it is not world government, a group of people calling the shots for the united states or anyone else. it is a group of sovereign states, the world and fall, led by the united states, who built the world after the end of the aroundworld war alliances, the united nations system, a system to deal with international and comics and finance, and the basic purpose of this set of institutions and

partnerships is to manage disputes so we do not get into wars, to mobilize cooperation to do with challenges like climate change and nuclear floor affiliation, and set standards around aviation or maritime security so that we are all working off of the same page in a world where there is so much interconnection in the country. it is changing. in the years after the second world war, the locusts of cooperation centered around the nato, theions like world bank. today because things are so much messier and more complicated, there is a much more informal and diverse set of institutions. you have the paris climate agreement on nuclear nonproliferation, you have world

powers coming together in an informal way to deal with the nuclear challenge. global health, it is no longer just the world health organization, but now public-private like global alliance and vaccines. of what today and part the united states has done is taken ingenuity and flexibility and created a set of institutions. the march april issue of foreign affairs, the world after trump. you say there is no doubt trump represents a meaningful threat to the health of the american democracy and the international system. how so? american democracy, what trump as basically suggested over the year and the office is that traditional democratic institutions, normal checks and balances, those are inconvenient to him and obstacles he ought to be able to push over.

basicain set of democratic norms, starting with fundamental, which is that truth matters and the sense that you have got to make an argument based on facts, it is something he has attacked on a daily basis, suggesting that everyone can have their own reality, very hard to have a -- ineffective democracy in a case like that. what trump has argued over time is a world in which everybody basic he just looks out number one and no one looks out for their neighbor, that the united globalshould think of problems in zero-sum terms. if we are gaining in someone else's losing, that is good even if over all, everyone is getting relatively worse off. what i thinkway has been the most important principle of american leadership , which is the united states can do better and other countries can do better and that we,

uniquely among global leaders in the past few centuries are committed to a principal in which we rebuilt our vanquished enemies. we did not just leave them there in the rubble. interest in our self per trump sees self interest but does not see the enlightened part. host: you have a lot of confidence in the article in the resilience of the national order. what is it based on? guest: three things. first, as much as it is commonplace now for international relations experts to say the rest of the world is moving on and leaving the united -- united states to decide and they want something new and different, the fact is most countries in the world have seen that they have in a fitted from a global order the united states has led, and they bought into it and continue to even now. that applies to china, who makes a lot of noise about wanting to

take things in a different direction but is fundamentally committed to the rest of these principles and institutions i have laid out. we have managed the transition from the formal institutions to more flexible and practical approaches. better than people think. on climate, proliferation, trade, things like managing the outcome of the global economic crisis and making sure the recession did not turn into a global depression, this has worked better than people think. finally, trump himself has not been able to do that level of damage that he threatened to do on the campaign trail because he found himself constrained by congress, his own national security team, and sometimes reality. host: we have got about 25 minutes to unpack it. us, aullivan is with senior fellow at the endowment for international peace, former nationalist -- national security

adviser to vice president biden, served in the obama administration is director of policy planning at the state department, and he penned "the world after trump" in the latest issue of foreign affairs. -- as folks are calling in, i want to point to another part of your essay. you specifically say the world order can survive one term of trump, but you go on to say president trump must not be handed another term. the difference might not be one time versus to, but one time versus 10 times. the reelection would confirm trumpism is the new normal -- the how do you see that?

guest: i think a world in which the united states lays a key leadership role in which we are mobilizing cooperation around major issues and driving the conversation about the rules in benefits that world america and americans and that is what we have to fight for. what concerns me about going from one to two terms of trump's right now, many of our allies and friends around the world are demo attic partners, countries that share our values and worldview, they are putting their heads down and say maybe we will get back to an america that leads from purpose to principle. if trump is reelected, many of those countries will say things have radically changed and it is a different ball game and they have decided they will no longer play the decisive leadership role in the world and now we have to look elsewhere, maybe to , to ourselves, to take

matters into our own hands. that isthe u.s. say fine, let everyone else still their own problems for a while but when it comes to it, if you do not help set the table, you are likely on the menu. think the united states should play the leadership role at the head of the table. why it is important we do not tell the rest of the world trumpism is the new normal. in lancaster, california, go ahead. caller: good morning. they start of the storm in libya and egypt where they were throwing rocks, and then you armed them. you created isis out of it. moneywondering, how much in you lose over there

supplies, $6 billion that you left over there, buying new military equipment and supplies -- fourof that crisis isis? -- for isis? wasn't the united states, the state department or the obama administration starting the arab revolutions you refer to. it was just arab citizens pulling out into the streets in huge numbers. thousands, tos of protest governments and dictatorships. led to the overthrow in egypt and it led to other significant changes in the region. some positives, many negatives. i do not think the u.s. approach to the aftermath was by any means perfect. we made mistakes to be sure. at the end of the day, i believe

the united states should stand up for principle that people around the world have the right to self-determination. what ronald reagan believed, what franklin roosevelt believed. that has not been a democratic or republican principle but an american one. we can learn from our mistakes in the middle east. ,he most fundamental of which was fighting that war in iraq, which we should not have done. we are still dealing with the aftermath of that today. i think prudent, sensible policymaking should involve the united states not putting as much of its own money and personnel and material into the region, but rather trying to drive diplomatic solutions to the problems in the region. host: providence, rhode island, jack is a democrat. caller: i'm a conservative democrat.

leftist elitist like this sullivan. host: let's not call names. what is your question? caller: all right. here it comes to my wife is chinese and i will talk about the korean peninsula here. you know the obama and clinton administrations were perfect when they doubt with north korea. nowave got a problem right thanks to bill clinton giving them billions of dollars. the north korean government, conned the clinton administration, giving them all that money, and they put it in their pockets and then they built nuclear forces. coinhey are almost out of or they could talk cities in the country. months away, ok?

thanks to the clinton and obama and the bushns, administration. host: what is the question? this and menstruation will have to do with it because they do not want them to target u.s. cities. guest: thank you. i appreciate that. my view on the united states being a global leader and playing an important role in the world and being the one to help set the agenda and drive out positive outcomes for our people, it came from growing up in a middle-class how -- household. i grew up in the cold work turn ronald reagan and i agreed with him when he said america could be a shining city on a hill. i believe that still. i do not think there is anything elitist about a proposition that the united states can have a

principled and effective foreign policy in the world in which we are rallying our friends and allies to solve the great problems of our time. nothing inconsistent with that and wanted to stand up first and foremost for the interests of the american people p or north korea specifically, i think you are partially right actually, that the clinton administration and the bush administration and the obama administration did not succeed in solving the problem. the trump administration has had to take on a challenge that three prior presidents could not solve. i have great sympathy for them because it is a difficult issue. i disagree in that i do not think the north korea can't bill clinton in 1994. i think they have a diplomatic framework that could work. we lost that during the bush administration. was the time north korea began to finally test weapons. we have to get back that

blueprint. it will not be a perfect diplomatic outcome but we need a figure out how to avoid catastrophic war on the korean peninsula on the one hand or north korea having the capability as you just said to be able to effectively target american cities with nuclear weapons. the third path will require diplomacy and the diplomatic totallynot of us are but that is what i hope the trump administration is working on. host: your home state, we will take you to minnesota, independent, go ahead. but that is what i hope the trump administration is working on. host:caller: good morning c-spad america. i was born in many net -- in minneapolis. i am calling on a couple fronts. one is, jake, i have seen you all over the place.

if you know anything about being a statesman, you would understand you do not go around all over, with the kind of bad talk you are talking about our president here that is my first point. my second point is you probably the that button with russians. that is just a side note. what happened in libya? how many beheadings happened in libya? hillary clinton said we came, we died. if that is leadership, bullying and violence, you should not be a part of our state department or any foreign affairs. thank you. yout: first of all, thank for a fellow minnesota and, for your views. i think of we sat down and had a cup of coffee in minneapolis or somewhere else, you would find we agree a lot more than we disagree on all of these issues. degree tod with the

which i should be directed my views and concerns about this president. i believe deeply in bipartisanship in this country. i do not think we will solve anything without democrats and republicans worked together but i believe donald trump represents a unique threat to our institutions and democracy so i cannot stay silent on that weird i would like to get back to a place where there can be a republican president in the toure who i would be happy not fully support as a democrat but to stand behind and want to step up for. , notis about trump generally about republicans. on libya, i would say what we faced in 2011, when the crisis started, was a combination of factors. number one, qaddafi was heading toward benghazi where he was threatening to engage in mass slaughter. our closest allies in the world were asking us to bring our

unique capabilities to bear to help and protect civilians. the entire arab world was saying not just what you help us but we are willing to participate and put our skin in the game. for the american president to decide not that we would take a ,entral spot in the conflict and in fact, we handed over operational controls in just a few days, but that the u.s. would participate. i thought that was appropriate. a comment from secretary clinton was an offhand comment. could do it over again, she would not repeat that. her view is not that the united states should be going around the world bullying or that we should be leading with our military. we should be leading with diplomacy and cooperation and should only use our military when we have to end we should use it decisively to achieve outcomes that work for the american people. what was your role working

on the hillary clinton campaign? guest: senior policy advisor. i advised the campaign and candidates on a range of issues as we try to work out what the nintendo might look like. pieceyou talked in your and hear about the resiliency of world order when it am sue what you call trump-ism. you also talk about the internal constraint, the internal members of the trump servo that are constraints on the trumpism you describe. who are you specifically referring to? guest:constraint, the internal s of the trump servo virtually eve leader in his administration, national security adviser, even senior members of his they are notunity, working against donald trump but working overtime to convince him believeake actions they

are undermining nato, like trying to remove sanctions on russia that were put in place and the new ones added by congress, like pulling out of examplesese are some of where it has really been not as much outside pressure that the people in the room with the president that have kept him from taking some of these steps. who would you be most concerned about leaving the administration now? guest: it is hard to say because i do not know is who is -- will who is doing what on any given dam would you be most concerned about leaving the administration now? guest: the -- in the room. , secretary ofttis defense, whether you're a republican or democrat or independent, a trump fan or a trump opponent, it is hard not to look at a guy with his ability -- his abilities and integrity and say gosh, we would be fine with him leaving.

think everyone has to see him as a national treasure who is playing a pivotal role. about thedo you feel job nikki haley is doing in the u.n.? i have my quarrels with this administration's north korea policy, though i am sympathetic to the difficulties they are facing, but i have to say with respect to nikki haley, i haveon north korea policy, ss done some really effective work. she has produced two different sanctions resolutions. way.is america leaving the that has tightened the screws on north korea, applied pressure to a level greater than any previous administration was able to. she hasings, i think not been as effective, the way she responded on the vote with the question about recognizing jerusalem in israel, but i would give her credit for

what she has done a north korea. democrat.york, john, caller: good morning. i'm glad to hear jake talk about this. aboutly i have read renewed violence in syria and how the assad regime is , and theyhospitals have lost hundreds of women and children in the witnesses are ongoing with ae constant bombardment with safety zones. i would like to know what he thinks about it. , we sometimescies

find ourselves backing aside. i just wanted to see what he has to say about that. host: walk us through that. guest: what has been happening is a moral and humanitarian catastrophe. hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives and millions of people lost their homes and were forced to flee the country. starvationhas used as a weapon of war trying to literally starve people out. as you mentioned, they renewed a campaign, because they have been doing this throughout the course hospitals, to bomb knowlinics where they women and children are gathering to get food and medical attention.

in eastern damascus -- damascus, they previously did it, and they a disregardve shown for any basic principles of for the sanctity of any human life. the united states response to this has been frankly inadequate. i do not think we need to start our own war in syria or invade toh a massive ground force more effectively apply pressure on the assad regime and the russians and iranians to get them to curb some of the practices leaving tens of -- tens and hundreds of thousands of people dead. my view is the united states for a long time now should have pressurep with greater to stop this violence and that

would lead to a future in syria where the country was able to move the on to the assad regime. you talked about the iran .uclear sanctions president trump tweeted about it, saying on saturday, never gotten over the fact that obama was able to send 1.7 billion dollars in cash to iran and no one in congress, the fbi, called for an investigation. i want you to respond to that. a classics is misdirection from a president who is under pressure on the , so hisnvestigation first instinct is to find a way to blame obama for something. sometimes russia related things, other times, things like iran. what he is actually referring to is a long-standing international legal dispute between the united states and iran for the u.s. actually exposed to having to

a way wheredeals in they would have to pay much less. it.hey paid it has nothing to do with the fbi, congress asked 1000 questions on this subject at a hearing on the issue and came to conclusion that this was a normal diplomatic protocol of working out a final settlement on a legal case that was before thatribunal conclusion in thisa somehow the administration was buying the nuclear deal were buying hostages i think is wrong. a decade-long dispute, it came up with a number of people do with contracts or anything else in the country, and they worked it out. host: if the obama administration could do it again, should it not have happened around the same time the nuclear deal was being negotiated? there isdo not think

anything untoward about the nuclear deal and trying to get american citizens out of iran, saying let's try to do with as many issues as possible now, that you use leverage and momentum and diplomatic context to produce that outcome. i think that is fairly common in american diplomacy and the people who cry foul, i think deep down they understood that. i think it was to score political points. in massachusetts, republican, go ahead. you with us? oh ahead. this gentleman, when he first came on, the first thing he said was, we want a seat in all of these countries and our proposed here and everywhere. that half of our own country does not like the way our values are put out there.

we're doing the same thing as russia, with propaganda all over the place. our value do not want spirit we do not wanted half the time the way you're messing with everything. you should get hillary a big box of reset buttons. you guys have some really bad ideas. raise a think you really important point, one i becauseuggled with effective american foreign policy has to rest on a foundation of a common vision of the country for democracy and society here at home and you are right that we are a divided country and that is impairing our ability to speak with one voice internationally. we are divided in part politically but also in other ways. theme inequality is at highest it has been in memory. there is a sense we are not all in a common way and not

all rowing in the same direction. is a sense american democracy are not delivering for a large number of people. i have heard this over the country in the last few years as i traveled around. that is not just a domestic policy issue but a foreign-policy issue for the reason you raise. if we do not understand exactly what american stance -- stands for, it is hard to tell others that this is what america stands for. i am not arguing for interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries. i am not arguing that we go around and push other countries around. i argue that the united states historically has had a unique set of assets, a unique set of values we can bring to bear to help partners around the world, andcare and deter enemies to deliver more peace,

prosperity, and progress in the united states. i think stepping back and saying none of these problems are our problems and we do not deal with them, this is the point. a terrorist getting their hand on the nuclear bomb or climate change ravaging our communities, things are happening other parts us andworld matter for we should be putting investment and effort into solving the problems. host: last call, virginia, independent. caller: with respect to comment about syria, the way i look at why we aren't doing anything constructive to help people on the ground, it is because we lost our moral standing completely in the world when we under false pretenses and we are directly responsible for the deaths of at least a half million innocent people.

as a country, every 9/11, i get upset because we mourn the 3000 people who died. i mourn them as well. as a country, how do you expect us to have any feelings for what is happening to the people of syria when we as a country have not come to terms and expressed remorse for invading a country, destroying it, and killing at least half a million people? host: got your point. guest: i think the war in iraq cast a long shadow on american foreign policy and i believe president obama believed that. he spent eight years trying to get invested to the maximum extent we can, in rectifying that mistake. it is not an easy thing to do. i believe one thing that stuck -- sets the united states apart as we have the capacity to look in the mirror and say we screwed things up, we will do better and

self correct and improve. that capacity for self correction is not something that is common in a lot of places and we are sometimes not that good at it that we have the wherewithal to do it. it makes us innovative. when we take one step back and figure out a way to take two steps forward. i think we should remember the history ever -- of iraq and remember the lessons but not be paralyzed by it, try to operate a more effective and principled and humane foreign-policy going forward based on the lessons of the past. host: jake sullivan is a senior fellow for international peace. his piece is in the march april issue of foreign affairs.

cabot phillips talks meredith mc, and gehee will discuss congressional reform. watch "washington journal" live this morning to join the discussion. event and discussion on the shifting dynamics and health care markets. 9:00 a.m.egins at eastern on c-span c-span2. then a conversation on the future of iraq and the middle east. on c-span 2nstitute a number of russian at lets were

banned from the winter olympics. look at the russian doping schedule and efforts, including protections. that gets underway at 3:30 c-span2.lso on next, the panel looks at russian u.s. elections. and federal election commission spoke at the unrigged at tulane university in new orleans. nonprofit organization known as represent us hosted the organization. >> hello, everyone. i'm glad you are here. withis from russia facebook. foreign influence and the u.s. elections. ke