and that is when they set up these two separate households, about a mile from each other. and they stick to this very rigid schedule. they would live in one house for wife, and, with one during these three days, chang was basically the master of the house. and the twin will give up his free will. that is called alternate mastery. three days later, they moved to angus house. house.'s >> didn't work? >> apparently it did. they had 21 children. the national defense

university foundation honored former secretary of state james baker and defense secretary leon panetta. before receiving the honor, the former secretaries joined fox news for a discussion. it is 40 minutes. we are happy to present the patriot award. americans who have truly demonstrated profound service to their country, and whose global leadership significantly contributed to democratic ideals, global peace, and there is no doubt about that. the american patriot award symbolizes the national defense university's mission of educating, developing, and inspiring strategic leaders through a comprehensive, collaborative academic inexperience. so the leaders, the men and

, who willisdom personally lead the charge and their respective countries around the world to find new ways to integrate military and civilian, foreign, domestic, and public-private sectors. new ways it to leverage and synchronize the wisdom and knowledge and experience of they gained and present it in disparate parts of our national and international security structure. forging new partnerships, strengthening existing ones, all of this coming together to overcome shared threats around the world. and changing and dealing with the threats and challenges to our national security. ultimately, achieving the shared goal of universal peace.

the 2008 american patriot award is presented to the 62nd of theetary of state, honorable james a baker is the third, and the 23rd secretary of defense, the honorable leon panetta. our nominees are going to participate in a discussion on national and international defense, diplomacy, and peacekeeping. please welcome secretaries of baker and panetta. [applause] >> that has got to be a good feeling. thank you for doing this.

this is a great place, and we have some big issues to talk about. today, obviously, was a breaking news day with the iran deal. i guess i would like to get your ,erspective on that news today and what comes next with this administration. first of all, i'm not sure anybody can tell you exactly what will happen next, because i do not think anybody knows. i would have to say that, in my opinion, the deal was questionable to begin with. i don't believe it was an extraordinarily great deal for the united states. , and i say that because it does not cover ballistic missiles, a dozen cover terrorist activities in the region by iran.

if we were going to pull out, i would have liked to make sure we had our allies when we pulled out. the iranianson came to the table was the strength of sanctions. us,if they are not with unilateral sanctions don't work as well as multilateral sanctions.

i am not sure where we go from here. i would not have gotten into that discussion to begin with. gotten into it, i do not think i would have pulled out abruptly, unless i knew our allies would be there with us. >> is the prospect of getting iran back to negotiate another deal realistic? >> i do not think so. is that thefact president has torn up that agreement and sent a signal to iran that it is not worth going theyto the table, the does are not sure even if they negotiated whether or not the president would be there. i think that is one of the prices that is being paid here. look, i had reince priebus out at the institute. how thetalking about

president operates. he said something that really impacted me, because i think it is true. it is that this president operates by chaos, and that he uses chaos as leverage. i think that is what we are seeing right now. when he walked away from ttp, he tore it up. there was noas, strategy as to where we were going. he did the same thing with regards to the paris agreement, where was the next step. and he did it on terrorists. but, where are we going with that? the same thing is true for iran.

basically throwing the agreement out. but what is the next step? nobody knows what is going to happen next. this, we aret say where we are. experts, how do we as we are watching iran react to what has just happened. >> well, we are going to be there for israel. there is no doubt about that. but we should not have to be there if that attack is provoked. if it is really an attack against the country, then we let me back upe

to the point about the iran agreement. be in this place today if the obama administration had done what they should have done, and that is sent that agreements to the senate for ratification as a treaty. then we would not be here debating all of this. that is what should have happened. but you know why they didn't, it was because they did not think it would get it through, because it was not a good agreement. they just said they would treat it as an executive agreement. would not be here in this situation if they had sent it to the senate. what jim is pointing out is something that i think has really changed. bit to do with my concern about the dysfunction on

capitol hill. lifetime, i see washington work, and not work. in my day, we work together. it was a republican administration and i was a democrat on the hill, but we work together and were able to do a lot of things. ronald reagan passed an awful lot of legislation that was bipartisan. is the are losing today ability to use our diplomatic capability. to be able to get things done. and so, it takes a lot of work. a lot of negotiation. a lot of capability. can slam theseu agreements, you are crazy. it takes work and preparation. caution and negotiation. if there had been some careful negotiation that keeps the

senate informed. control, we had a lot more communication. so if you are working with congress, and you are negotiated, and know where you are headed, have a much better chance of getting it approved. if you are not, you know, we are going to continue to have situations where agreements will be made, but because you cannot pass it on the hill. >> last thing on this. for foreign governments, if they look at the u.s., potentially ,ulling out of this agreement the opponents of this move say that sends the signal to foreign countries that when the u.s. gets in an agreement, who knows, administration to administration, they might not stay in it.

>> yes, that is a concern. i don't know how big of a concern it is. the reason north korea is talking to us is because the sanctions were binding. out, thisn pointed agreement with north korea is not going to be all that easy to do. a good agreements, a verifiable agreements, anywhere or any time, is going to be hard to get. my worry about the north korea deal is that we have seen this movie before. and we seen it a lot. the first time in 1994 in the clinton administration. then we had the clinton, bush, obama administrations. administrations, all trying to appease north korea. and it did not work. so are we going to accept a promise.

people say they want to denuclearize the peninsula. what it means to them is probably what it means to us. so that is a great transition. secretary of state mike pompeo is on the ground as we speak at this hour in pyongyang. as part of laying the groundwork for the stalks. -- the visa talks. -- these talks. what should we think about these talks? as the administration and gets ready to do this in the next couple of weeks, what are the landmines? the landmines have been their time and time again. >> he says he is going to walk

if -- >> look, north korea, in many ways, from a strategic and intelligence point of view is an easy read. their first goal is to protect their regime. that has been true for all of their leaders. have you protect the regime, by developing nuclear weapons. so, the idea that somehow they are going to walk in and denuclearize, and suddenly say we will get rid of it all, goes right to the heart of why north korea exists, which is to protect the regime. so they aren't just going to throw up their hands and say denuclearize. it does not mean we should not negotiate and try to work things out, but the problem i see is that that takes a lot of work.

the secretary of state knows them well, if you are preparing for a summit between the president of the united states and kim jong-un, you have got to do a lot of preparation and you have got to determine what steps are you going to take to denuclearize on a transitional basis. how are you going to verify it? how will you do the instructions. how are you going to develop testing? how are you going to be able to develop some kind of transition? all of that needs careful work. >> my concern is that if they are going to have a summit in a couple of weeks, i don't think the president will be prepared,

even with pompeo's visit, to go in and figure out the kind of comprehensive agreement that should be done. this isn't to say that they shouldn't meet, but the reality is the best you can hope for is that they will agree on framework, some goals, and then put the negotiators to work. that is the most hopeful approach. but if they have a summit, and it ends in and disaster, i think you are in worse trouble than you were before. but this is the same trouble that we had with the iran deal. we have to be extremely careful to bring our alliance partners along with us. australia, japan, south korea. others who participated in sanctions against north korea, including china. china is not happy with what

north korea has been doing. nuclear't want to see a armed korean peninsula, and we don't either. so there is room there for cooperation. if i were in china, and have been driving this issue from the gone tog, i would have xi jinping and said look we don't like what's going on, we will sign a peace treaty with north korea ending the korean war. recognition toll any government you put into that in north korea repudiates the acquisition or maintenance of nuclear weapons. , we willrade with it exchange full diplomatic relationships. to put a job is government in power there that doesn't seek or required nuclear weapons. i think we could have cut that deal with china.

we are beyond that. the verification part of any agreement is going to be where the rubber meets the road on this. -- i just hope we don't just take a promise. >> south korea is the new leadership. they are not particularly want to the u.s., trying to trade, but not as much as the last administration. dynamic, how you deal with something like the south china sea? dealing with china and trying to rally allies, this is three-dimensional chess. what we need to do first and foremost is make sure that we maintain a very robust presence in the pacific in the form of

the seventh fleet. we need to do all that we continue to do. need to look at the full range of diplomatic, political, and economic sanctions, for any behavior there. and that is the only way i know to approach that. having said that, there is a bigger issue, and that is the emergence of china as the new global superpower. they are already an economic superpower. is, this challenge us today, how we react to the emergence of china. it is extremely important for the united states have the best possible relationship we can have with china. it is extremely important for

china to have the best possible relationship they can with the united case. so we have to look at it in that way. there are areas we can cooperate with china, areas where we have to confront china. shoulde can cooperate we , and we should manage the differences very carefully. i think it goes to that diplomatic challenge. i have the honor of meeting with president she -- xi. and i met with him here before he became president. you, that even though he is obviously , heentrating flour -- power is a very thoughtful guy and speaks very directly. most presidents, when you sit down with the leader of another country, they usually have some talking points, so you have to play this game of talking points.

he had no talking points. aboutically was concerned our redistributing of power to the pacific. one of the things we had in our defense plan. he was concerned, and i said look, we are a pacific power. we have common interests. you are concerned about terrorism, about north korea, trade, freedom of the seas, those are issues we are also concerned about. so we can work together. >> he said, we can. is this is about peace and prosperity. >> i think the key to china is to communicate. to talk and negotiate, but to do it with strength. that means we must have our navy power in the pacific, and be clear that they must protect the freedom of the seas. >> how does the tariff situation factor into that? you know, the trade tariff war.

, this trade issue is something that we fought over. that both parties have thought over. the bottom line is that if a global world, you want to protect free-trade. that is important to our economy. you have to be a tough negotiator, but you aren't going to engage in a trade war. it would be a disaster. the key right now is having implemented these tariffs, i think the real test is going to be, is there a strategy to negotiate so that you can try to move forward with some agreement that will allow trade to take place and will not result in a trade war. i think i understand politics.

i have got a lot of it and have the scars to show for it. i think one of the biggest mistakes this administration has made was to pull us out of the tpp, because that was not just an important issue economically, that was really important geostrategic lay for america's leadership role in the pacific. and we have withdrawn now. china is filling that void. there are some indications that we may be trying to claw our way back into the tpp. that was a terrible mistake to leave. right, nobodytely wins trade wars. free-trade used to be the holy grade of this country. the consensus for free trade has gone down the two, and that is too bad, because yes there are

losers anytime you have a free-trade agreements, but there are more winners than losers. and generally speaking, free trade creates economic growth, and that's what creates jobs. understanding that russia's actions have caused some re-energizing of nato because of their expansionist efforts. what do you think about the fundamental strength and status of the alliance today? nato is incredibly important to our ability to provide for national security. nato obviously, was the first to be established as able work in dealing with russia. it has proven successful in that effort. , nato has shown the ability to be able to adjust its mission. article11, because of

they helped us in wars in iraq, in afghanistan. you have heard the ambassador talk about united arab emirates fighting wars alongside the united states. in a way thatnato did protect our national security in a number of fronts. nato is important and we have to continue to provide leadership. it does not work without u.s. leadership. the united states has to be there, be at the table. states, if the united does not lead, nobody else does. that is the problem. that is the essential in agreement here. of course european cup countries

and to provide more money refueling. we do all of the refueling, the drones, the reconnaissance. they need to develop those capabilities, but they can only do that with u.s. leadership. that we makeential clear to russia that nato is alive and well and that we will abide by article five. you were at the tip of the sphere of unwinding the cold war from the u.s. perspective. i know because i just wrote a book about it. anyway, vladimir putin and what he is trying to do. is he trying to re-energize the old soviet union with attacks,

expansion, the cyber stuff? >> i can't read his mind and i don't know what he is trying to do. i can tell you i was there at the end of the cold war. for 15 years, after the collapse of communism and the implosion of the soviet union, we had pretty dam good relations with russia under boris yeltsin and under vladimir putin. there was cooperation, joint efforts, beyond just space. that has all gone to pot. not because of us, in my opinion, it has because of that. did he get in trouble domestically? and need a whipping boy? i don't know, but he has started nato into a whipping boy. for one minute that

we are not back into a full-fledged cold war. we are, and that you asked what we should be going about it, we should be doing the very same things we did when we fought the over 40 years and we ought to be confronting russia when she is unreasonable. buzzing our ships, our airplanes. i am a secretary of state, he is a secretary of defense. this, not be able to say but i think we ought to shoot one of these airplanes down. i really mean it. [laughter] the turks shot one down, and nothing happened. [laughter] it really is regrettable that we ending progress we saw that conflict, and now we are right back into it. and we are back in not because of the united states or our allies, we are into it because of russian.

i think jim is right. we are in a new chapter of the cold war. and the reason that happened, a lot of it is putin playing his i think who read weakness on the part of the united states and only part of european countries, in terms of whether or not they would confront him for the things he was doing. seeing thatof weakness, that's why he went into the ukraine and crimea, that's why he went into syria, why he attacked our election. because he felt he could do it with impunity. and if we are going to deal with food, which i think we can do, you have to deal with putin from strength. and the best way to do that is to draw those lines that jim talked about.

and say you are not going beyond these lines. if you make that clear and you stick to it, i think you can take the next step. it, we ought to make sure we have our allies with us. >> one of the strengths of our foreign security policy is our worldwide alliances. when we do it, we need to bring our allies along behind us. we don't have to have a hiatus between us and our nato allies. from the nsa is here and we are talking about cyber security. it is a little tougher to make the public case. obviously terrorism is one thing, but in this new world where we are getting attacked all the time, from different , haveactors on computers

you generate the public support to fight that in a public way. well, people have to understand that cyber is the battlefield of the future. this is an area that is expanding on a basis that frankly i have never seen before, in terms of technology. i am on a board of a company in silicon valley. the development of new technology and new capabilities is incredible, and we are the only ones doing it. cyber can now not only interfere with service, to steal but thetual property, biggest problem is that cyber can destroy. you can develop a sophisticated virus that can literally destroy computers. , run developed a virus deployed it on aramco oil in saudi arabia, and took down 30,000 computers.

you take that same virus, apply against our electric grid, our chemical systems, our transportation systems, our government system, our financial systems, and paralyze this country. are is the threat, and we frankly not that aware of the potential of what cyber can do your -- can do. the government has to take responsibility to make it clear that this is a threat and informed them. the shift in the middle east has changed. both nations have taken a different take with this administration. your sense of that shift in the middle east and how it affects our relation. >> well i think it is a significant shift and important. as someone who has worked

very hard to promote arab-israeli, i am happy, because you now see the gulf arab states teaming up with israel to fight isis, to fight terrorism, to do a lot of other things that i think are important. so the chessboard has changed quite a bit as i was there some years ago. i think it is a healthy change. i think it isre, important that we stay close to all of our allies. i had aboutorries this iran deal, about us going is it will create a vacuum between us and some of our allies. i am afraid they might not come along. i hope they do, but if they don't, it is not good.

do you share my concern? >> absolutely. we are living in a world with a hell of a lot of flashpoints. isis, dealingting with failed states in the middle east, dealing with syria, dealing with north korea, with iran, with russia, with china, with cyber. crisis.ous in the united states cannot deal with those challenges by itself and wait for the problem to explode and then react to the crisis. the way you deal with those is through alliances. the ability to work with our allies, to put pressure on these different situations, so that we are taking action and doing it together.

>> kim jong-un just spent the last day sitting down with china. because he knows them well he needs china on his side sits down. the united states ought to be doing the same thing with south korea and with japan and the other countries in the pacific like australia and others, to build the kind of alliance that says we stand together here in this negotiation. >> if i could, just say one thing about alliances. if you look at what george h.w. -- first of all, i tell people this is the textbook example of how to fight a war. you tell the world what you will do, then you get the world behind you, and then you can do exactly what you said, no more no less.

bring people home, then get other countries to pay for it. [laughter] that is what we did. paid $10 million for the iraq war, and others pay $65 billion. i was in the budget committee, and i told jim thank god. in those days, i was secretary of and i would go up and testify on the hill. they would eat me up. mr. secretary, how can you talk about spending money to do this when we have all of these needs in this country, and how many americans is it worth to do this" wasn't one of those guys who beat up on me in those that but i only site example because it shows you the leverage that you can't achieve if you create alliances. care, youces need

have to tense to them. here, you wrap up think about the public and private synergy that is trying to reestablish numerous elements of the government, what about the future role for anti-e.u., and the -- and what can be done to facilitate leadership going forward? look, we have described the kind of world we live in. cyber, about the kinds of new technologies being developed. the united states cannot be a world power, unless we have leaders who are educated and technologies, new the new kinds of wars we are fighting.

my god, russia has developed a hybrid war in which they are and proxy troops and the ability to undermine other countries. we are going to have to deal with that, to be able to deal with the potential of major power confrontation. all of that demands leadership. and indeed you is in the is in the- ndu business of protecting national security and developing those leaders. that is why it is absolutely critical to our ability to have a first-rate national defense. >> i second that. wholeheartedly. [laughter] [applause] up, ially, before we wrap want to one more time acknowledge our medal of honor recipient room here tonight. and you have a story about his boss. >> well i would like to

acknowledge his presence as well, because he is a marine, and i am a marine, and when i first became secretary of state, the first day i was in my office on the seventh floor of the state department, he comes in and says there's a gentleman on the phone says he's in the marine corps and wants to pay you a courtesy call, would you receive him? , are you kidding, the commandant of the marine corps, of course i will. i had never been higher than a captain. in comes the comment on of the marine corps, in my office, four stars on each shoulder. it was not -- all i could do to not stand up and salute. this ismr. secretary, just a brief courtesy call, i want to congratulate you on being secretary of eight, and i brought you a gift. box of business

cards that were printed on marine corps camouflage and it said in the middle of the card james a baker the third, marine warrior in big great letters, and at the very bottom, it said and secretary of state. [laughter] [applause] >> that's good. well, gentlemen, it has been a real pleasure. you have some awards to be given. sit right here, we will bring them up. [applause] [applause] >> to present at the 2000 eight

american patriot award, please welcome national defense university president and ceo and dr. sheila, board of director at the university. ladies and gentlemen, we present you the 2018 american patriot award recipient. james a baker the third and the honorable leon panetta. [applause] [piano interlude] >> sunday morning, american turmoil. at the cold war as the

backdrop for 1968, including the vietnam war, the presidential campaign, and the space race. joining us to talk about that turbulent time, is a historian and documentary filmmaker, and mark kramer, program director on the project of cold war studies at harvard university. watch 1968, america in turmoil, live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's washington journal and on american history tv on c-span3. connect with c-span to personalize the information you get. c-span.org/connect and sign up for the. the program guide is updated .ith the most updated schedule word for word gives you the most interesting highlights. is aook tv newsletter

weekly look at upcoming authors and book festivals, and the american history tv newsletter is you the upcoming program exploring our nation's past. visit c-span.org/connect and sign up today. british foreign secretary boris johnson spoke to members of the house of commons, one day after president trump announced that the u.s. would withdraw from the iran nuclear deal. he told members that the u.k. had no intention to walk away from the deal, and was asked about future relations with the u.s., president trump's upcoming visit to london, and whether it would impact commercial interest between british companies and iran. this is just under an hour. welcome to the ministerial statements. i will call the secretary of state, boris johnson. >>