prime minister's questions at the british isles of comments. it airs live every wednesday on c-span2. you can watch anytime online at c-span.org. next, former secretary of state james baker and former defense secretary leon panetta talk about foreign policy channels, including north korea and the president's decision to withdraw from the iran nuclear agreement. they were being honored by the national defense university foundation. this is 40 minutes. ♪ >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm really excited about this section of thext program. i had a great dinner and a wonderful table. we are presenting the patriot exceptional

americans. americans who have truly demonstrated profound service to their country and whose global leadership significantly contributed to democratic ideals, global peace, there is no doubt about that when you look at all they have done. the american patriot award inspires, develops leaders for collaborative academic experience to anticipate and confront national and global security challenges. so the leaders, the magnet and women who are -- the men and ,omen who are imaginative constructive leaders will personally lead the charge in the united states and in their respective countries around the world to integrate military and

civilian military and domestic public and private sectors. new ways to leverage and synchronize the wisdom, knowledge, and experience they oured in disparate parts of national and international security structure. a forge new partnerships, strengthen existing ones. all of this coming together to overcome shared threats around the world and changing and then dealing with the threats and challenges to our collective national security, ultimately achieving the shared goal of university -- universal peace. to that end, the american patriot award is presented to the 67th secretary of state, the at thele james baker 23rd secretary of defense, the honorable leon panetta. this evening, our distinguished honorees --

[applause] >> are going to participate in the discussion on national and international events, diplomacy, and peacekeeping. please welcome secretary baker and secretary panetta. ♪ >> the standing "o." that has to be a good feeling. we have big issues to talk about. today is a breaking news day the iranaround deal -- deal. perspectives on that move today .nd what potentially comes next

what happened today pulling out of the iran nuclear deal. surerst of all, i'm not exactly how anybody can tell what happened. i'm not sure anybody knows. wasy opinion, the deal questionable to begin with. i don't think it was in extraordinary great deal for the united states. thatg said that, i think because it sunsets after 10 years, doesn't cover nuclear missiles. preferred to see is not get into that negotiation to begin with. once we got into it and came to an agreement, i do not think it is an hour best interest to

abruptly pull out unless we know what is going to happen next. i do not think anybody knows right now where our allies will be on this. we were going to pull out, i would like to see us make sure an hour high with us when we can keep sanctions. for theto the table sanctions. we are are not with us, going to leave those sanctions. we have our own, but unilateral do not work as well as multilateral sanctions. so i'm not sure where we go from here. it, i'm notn into sure i would've pulled out that abruptly unless i knew that our allies would be there with us. >> is the prospect of getting the iran backed to the table a

issue? >> no, i do not think so. i think the fact that the president basically has torn up signalreement has sent a iran worth going back to the table. they are not sure the president would be there. >> the price being paid her, primus --d reince ebus at the table and we were talking about how the president operates. he talked about something that really impacted it which i think was true. this president operates by

chaos. he uses chaos as leverage. i think that is what we are there are,t now is when he walked away from was therethe problem was no strategy as to where we were going after that. he did that same thing with regards to the paris agreement, where was the next step. he imposed the tariffs. where were we going with that. -- same thing for a ron bank the same thing for iran, basically throwing the agreement out. ishink nobody knows what going to happen next. let me say this. we are where we are. >> we are where we are, you two

are experts. israel, arabian, hezbollah war, as we are watching a ron react to what just happened. iran reacte watching to what just happened. securityk of israel's is threatened, i don't care if we ever republican nor democrat president we should not have to be there if that attack is provoked, ok? if it is really an attack against the country, then we need to be there. but not unless it is exactly that. let me back up. we would not be in this place today if the obama administration had done what they really should have done. that is, send that agreement to

the senate for ratification as agreed. then we would not be here debating all of this. that is what should've happened. it you know why they did this. he did not do it they did not think they would get it through. they did not think they would get it through, so they said, we are going to treated as an executive agreement. but we would not be heard this situation if they had senate to the senate. >> i think what jim is pointing out is something that i think has really changed. which is, i mean, it is a little thelike my concern about dysfunction up on capitol hill because in my time i saw washington work and i saw washington not work. in my day, we worked together. it was a republican administration, was with the democrats on the hill but we all came together on legislation and we were able to do a lot of

things. ronald reagan passed a lot of legislation that was bipartisan. today, we don't have the ability to use our democratic capability to be able to get things done. it takes a lot of work. it takes a lot of negotiation. ability.a lot of if you think you can slamdunk this, there's preparation. negotiation.t of if, in fact, there has been that kind of negotiation that keeps the senate informed on what you , with arms control the senate knew pretty much what we needed to get this things ratified. >> you busted your but. >> yes. so if you are negotiating, you

have a much better chance of getting approved by the senate. if you are not, we're going to have situations where agreements will be made but because it cannot pass on the hill, you just try to put it in effect -- >> the last thing, for foreign governments, if they look at the u.s. essentially pulling out of the opponents of this move say that sends a agreements.reign is that a concern? >> i don't know how big of a concern it is. north korea is talking to us is because of sanctions. as leon pointed out, this

agreement with north korea is stark wouldn't be all that easy to do. -- this agreement with north korea is not going to be that easy to do. anything on the ground will be hard to get. my worries about the north korean deal is that we have seen it a lot. we sought the first time it 1994 in the clinton administration. that we had the clinton, bush, and obama administration. 38-yearre administration's trying to appease north korea. it did not work. say they are going to denuclearize. what does that mean? what it means to them is probably a lot different than what it means to us. transition. great

secretary pompeo, the new secretary of state is on the ground. as part of laying the groundwork for these talks, he will lead .robably with the two hostages that is likely. what should we think about these talks. concerns.ned some as the administration gets ready to do this in the next couple we, what are the landmines? >> the landmines have been their time and time again. to walk.s he is going in many ways, is from an intelligence point of view, from a strategic point of view, it is an easy read. north korea's first goal is to protect its regime. protect the regime?

by developing nuclear weapons. somehowthe idea that they are going to walk in and suddenly getand rid of that goes right to the korea exists.rth which is to protect the regime. so they are not just going to throw their hands up and say, ok , denuclearize. we don't needan to try to work something out on that transitional basis but the it needs a lots of work. the secretary of state knows dam well. an agreement between the secretary of state and kim jong-un, you have to do a lot of preparation. determine what

steps you are going to take to transition. how are you going to verify. how are you going to develop nuclear testing as well as missile testing? how are you going to be able to develop some kind of transition in terms of structure? all of that needs careful work. onthis is a bit of policy the fly. >> mike concern is, if they're going to have a summit in a couple weeks i do not think the president is going to be prepared even with pompeii's visit to go in and develop the kind of comprehensive agreement needed. go ahead and meet. but the reality from my point of view is that the best you can hope for is they will agree on a

framework. they will agree on some goals. then they will put the negotiators to work. that is the most helpful approach. if they have a summit and it ends in disaster because they can't work anything out, then we are worse than before. >> with the same problem here we had with the iran deal. extremely careful to bring our alliance partners along with us. participated sanctions against north korea. including china. happy they don't want to see a nuclear armed country. neither do we. i have beenng and having this issue from the

beginning, i would've gone to she shone paying and said, -- i jin-pinge gone to xi and said, we will give full recognition to any government you put into power in north korea that repudiates the acquisition or maintenance of nuclear weapons. exchange diplomatic -- your job is to put a government in power there that does not maintain nuclear weapons. i would go beyond that, negotiating directly with north korea. the verification part of any agreement is going to be where the rubber meets the road on this. we can't just take a promise. so how about these

relationships. >> and south korea, people of looked at the new leadership. not particularly warm to the u.s.. >> no, they are not. >> not as much is the last administration. how do you deal with something like the south china sea? andare dealing with china china allies. it is a game of three-dimensional chess. andt is very serious important. what we need to do first and foremost is make sure we maintain a robust presence in the pacific in the form of a fleet. we need to continue to do all of our freedom of navigation exercises. we need to look at the full lines of diplomatic end political and economic sanctions for any behavior that is against

international norms. that is the only way i know to approach that. having said that, there is a bigger issue. that is the emergence of china as the new global superpower. biggest geopolitical and geostrategic challenge facing american policymakers today. of we react to the emergence china. it is extremely important for the united states to have the best possible relationship we can have with china. it is extremely important to chinatown the best possible relationship they can with the united states. we have to look at it that way. there are areas we could cooperate with china. note are areas where we can have to confront china. we can manage those differences

very carefully. thatthink it goes to diplomatic challenge. i had the honor of actually hereng with president xi when i was secretary of defense, before he became president. he came out to the pentagon. i have to tell you that even though he is obviously concentrated in power, he is a very thoughtful guy. he speaks very directly. i mean, most presidents, as jim have, will sit down and talking points with another leader of the country. xi had no talking points. he was basically concerned with our redistributing our power to the pacific. he was concerned about that. i said look, you are a pacific power.

we're a pacific power. we have common interests. you are concerned about north korea, you are concerned about trade. you are concerned about the freedom of the seas. those are issues we are concerned about. we can work together. he said, you know, we can't. in the end, this is about he sent prosperity. the thing with china is to communicate. be there, talk to them, negotiate. but do it from strength which means we have to have navy power in the pacific. we have to be clear that they have to protect the freedom of peace in the south china sea. >> how does the tariff situation factor in? >> you know, the trade tariff war back and forth? >> well, as i said, this is, [chuckles] -- >> this is something we fought over. both parties.

bottom line is in a global world, you want to protect free trade. that is important. yes, you have to be tough negotiators. yes, you have to protect your interest. au are not going to engage in trade war. so the key right now is having implemented these tariffs, the real test is going to be if they can negotiate so they can move forward with agreements that would allow trade to take place that would not result in a trade war. >> i understand politics. i have done a lot of it and have the scars to show for it. but i think one of the biggest mistakes this administration has to pull out of the transpacific partnership, because that was not just an important issue economically,

that was a really important issue strategically for america's leadership in the pacific. whole.s filling that your report,hear there are some indications we may be trying to claw our way back into the transpacific partnership. that was a terrible mistake to leave that. >> leon is right. nobody wins trade wars. free trade used to be the holy grail of the left in this country and the right. but free trade has gone down the tubes. that is too bad, because yes there are losers. anytime have a free trade agreement, there are more winners and losers. free trade creates economic growth and that is what creates jobs. >> understanding russia's

actions have caused some reenergizing of nato because of this expansionist effort, what do you think about the fundamental strength and status of the alliance today? russia.forward about >> nato is incredibly important to national security. nato obviously was first established as a bulwark in dealing with russia. it has proven successful in that effort. more portly, nato has shown the ability to be able to adjust its mission. 9/11, nato helped us in wars in iraq and afghanistan. you heard the ambassador talk about uae fighting wars

alongside the united states we thatnato in a way protected our national security on a number of fronts. nato is important. we have to continue to supply leadership. americant work without leadership. we can't stand back and say you take care of it. if the united states does not lead nobody else will. the problem. that is essential ingredient here. the court needs to provide more money for nato. they need to eval of more capabilities. we do a lot of these drones and reconnaissance. that with u.s.o leadership.

nato is alive and well, we will apply article five. >> you were the tip of the spear of unwinding the whole war from a u.s. perspective. i know because i just wrote a book about it. it is called "three days in moscow." it is at a book start near you. [laughter] >> i did not tell them i was going to do that. you are in their a lot. putin, what he is trying to do, is he trying to kind of re-energize the old attacks,ion with expansion, the cyber stuff? what do think you trying to do? >> i cannot read his mind. i don't know what he is trying to do. i was there at the end up the cold war. when we won the cold war.

for 15 years, after the collapse the closing ofd the soviet union, we had pretty dam good relationships with yeltsin and vladimir putin. there was cooperation. there were joined efforts. that is all going to pot. has gone to pot because of them. did he get in trouble politically, domestically? i don't know. but he has turned nato into a whipping boy. do not think for one minute we are not back into a full-fledged cold war. we are. you asked what we should be doing. we should be doing the very same thing we did when we thought the first cold war over 40 years. confrontingbe

russia when she is unreasonable, the way she has been. state.secretary of he is a secretary of defense. he may not be able to see this. i think we ought to shoot one of their airplane stuff. i mean, i really mean it. [laughter] -- was shot down, not much happened after that, did it? >> it didn't. >> but we saw progress. we saw an ending to that conflict and now we are right back into it. not because of the united states or our allies. >> the new cold war. >> i think jim is right. we are in a new chapter of the cold war. , a lot is it happened vladimir putin playing his games thei think putin read

weakness on the part of the united states and on the part of even european countries in terms of whether or not they're going confront the things that were being done. that is why he went into the ukraine and crimea. that is why he went into syria. itause he felt he could do without any kind of response. >> with impunity. >> yes. i think we can deal with putin, but we have to deal with putin from strength. the best way to do that is to draw those lines jim talked about. you draw lines and say, you are not going beyond these signs. if you make that clear and stick to it, then i think we can take the next. bags but before we do it, we ought to make sure we have our allies. you know, one of the strengths

of foreign security policy are our worldwide alliances. we should definitely do this but we need to bring our allies along behind us. >> admiral mike rogers was here and we were talking about cyber security. it is a little tougher to make a public case if there is not an "ism." communism, terrorism. in this new world where we are getting attacked all the time by bad actors, how do you generate the public support to fight back in a public way. >> people up understand cyber is the battlefield of the future. this is an area that is expanding on a basis that i have

never seen before. technology. i'm on a board of a company in silicon valley. i mean, that development of new technology and new capabilities is incredible. we are not the only ones doing it. -- can now not only steal intellectual property, but the biggest problem is cyber can destroy. you can develop a sophisticated virus that can literally destroy computers. tookdeveloped a virus that down 30,000 computers. appliede virus can be to our electric grid, chemical systems, transportation systems, government systems, financial systems. it could paralyze this country. that is the threat. we are not, frankly, that aware of the potential of what cyber

can do. somehow, the government is going to have to take responsibility to say to the government -- to say to the american people that this is a threat and we damn well better deal with it. >> you said you were sitting next to an ambassador and the shift has changed. the gulf has taken a different take with this administration. shift in the that middle east and how it affects region?tions in the >> i think it is a significant end important shift. as one who has worked very hard to try to promote arab-israeli peace, i'm happy to see the shift because you now see saudi arabia in the gulf arab states teaming up with us more to fight isis. to fight terrorism.

to do a lot of other things that i think are very, very important. bitt has changed quite a since i was there some years ago. i think it is a healthy change. i think it is really important we stay close to all of our allies and don't get separated. one of the worries i have about this a rim deal and pulling out -- about this iran deal is it will create a vacuum between us and some of our allies. i'm afraid they might not come along. i hope they do. if they don't, it is not a good thing. >> we are living in a world where there are a lot of flashpoints. than since the end of world war ii. we are confronting isis, dealing

with failed states in the middle east, dealing with syria. dealing with north korea, iran, china, cyber. a whole series of crises. cannot dealtates with those challenges by itself and wait for the problem to explode and that react to the crisis. the way you deal with that is through alliances. work with our allies to be able to put pressure on different situation so that we are taking action. but we are doing it together. jong-un just spent the last day sitting down with china. why? because he knows damn well he needs china on his side when he sits down. the united states ought to be doing the same thing with south korea and with japan and with

the other countries in the pacific like australia to build the kind of alliance that says, we stand together in this negotiation. >> if i could say one thing , if you look at what george h.w. bush did in the first gulf war, first of all -- this is i you fight a war. you tell the world what you're going to do, then you go out and get people behind you and then you do exactly what you said you're going to do. no more, no less. bring people home. then you get other countries to pay for it. what did he do? we did. [crosstalk] $10 billion for that war is what we paid, other people paid $65 billion for it.

aboutwere concerned deficits. [laughter] and i wouldo up testify on the hill and they would eat me up. mr. secretary, how can you talk about spending money when we have all of the social needs in this country. how many americans is it worth to do this? those guyst one of that beat up on be that way, but there were a lot of people that did. what i cite that example because it shows you the leverage you can achieve if you create alliances. but, alliances need care and feeding. you have to tend to them all the time. >> if you think about the public-private synergy that is trying to be established in numerous elements of the government, what about the

future role for envy you? what about the future role and what can be done to facilitate things going forward? >> look, we described the kind of world we live in in which we are confronting a number of challenges. we talked about cyber. we talked about the kind of new technology being developed. the united states cannot be a world power of less we have anders who are educated ,nderstand the new technologies the new kind of wars we're going to be fighting. my god, russia has developed a hybrid war in which they are using cyber and proxy troops and the ability to undermine other countries. we are going to have to be able to deal with that. we're going to have to be able to deal with the potential of major power confrontations.

all of that is going to demand leadership. nvu is in the business of her texting national security but more importantly is in business of developing those leaders, and it is absolutely critical to our ability to have a first-rate national defense. >> i second that. ha ha! [laughter] [applause] tobefore we wrap up i want one more time acknowledge our medal of honor recipients in this room. you have a story. >> i would like to knowledge his presence as well because he is a marine, i'm a marine. i first became secretary of state and the first air was in my office on the seventh floor of the state department, and

eight came in and said -- there is a gentleman on the phone who says he is in the marine corps and wants to pay a courtesy call. would you receive them? >> i said, are you kidding? you bet i would receive a. i've never been higher than a captain in the marine corps. ofit comes the commandant the marine corps. four stars on his shoulder. to standupi could do and salute. he you look at me and said, mr. secretary this is a courtesy call. i want to congratulate you on being secretary of state and i brought you a little gift. he handed me a box of business cards that were printed on marine corps camouflage james a.nd and it said " "marineith marin

warrior" it really big letters. and that down at the bottom, it said "secretary of state." >> gentlemen, it has been an honor. we have some awards to be given. secretary baker and secretary panetta, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> step appear. up here. to present the american patriot award, please welcome the american university president at the and the chairman national university defense foundation. ward.sent you the 2018

james bakere iii and leon panetta. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. ♪ announcer: 1968 was the year of political assassinations and the space race. a fractious presidential election. riots of the political left and right. turmoil."8: american >> joining us from new york with

his latest book "president carter: the white house years." more than 900 pages. thank you for being with us. why did you write the book? >> i broke the book because i wanted to have a reassessment of the carter presidency. his hero was harry truman. harry truman signed "the buck stops here" and put it on his desk. truman is now remembered much achievements than his failures. i wanted the book to have the same impact for president carter. a reassessment of his presidency. not just to be seen as a great former president. i make the case that he was one of the most accomplished one-term presidents we've had in modern history