not living up to what he believed the republican party should be. and he was willing to say it. announcer: the impact -- france's ambassador to the u.s. spoke about the u.s. relationship with europe and the nato alliance, the european union, the iran nuclear deal and international trade. this is one hour. bill: good morning. my name is bill burns. i am delighted to welcome all of welcome myiged to thend and former colleague,

french abbasid or to the united states, gerard araud. there is no such thing as permanent friends, only permanent interests. i have had the good fortune to make a number of enduring friendships with diplomatic counterparts who i respect and admire, and whose company i have enjoyed. one of them is gerard araud. he was an ambassador to israel before service to the united states. political director in the french foreign ministry. the care --ive is rare combination of wisdom, it and, and -- w

honesty. he is a straight shooter. receiving and the in thetarget practice questionab culinary choices in the state department dining room. deep commitment to the transatlantic alliance. the partnership has placed a ntral role in our sd esover many years. it is a partnership under challenge today in the wake of the american decision to pull out of the paris climate treaty and the iran nuclear agreement anthg- summit. even as eyes are focused on the

promise of the singapore summit between president trump and kim jongn, critical to focus on structural challenges before us, in particular, the f cthe alliance which has been so essential to the 70 years of international order we have tried to build together. i look forward to his opening reflections. then we will open up to your quesons. ambassador gerardraud. [applause] ambassador araud: good morning. thank you for that introduction. it is a pleasure to be here.

it is very rel beas telling bill it might so relevant it is dangerous for me. -- ated to say a few we few words before having a discussion with you. now, the city right erything which is happening american domestic politics when you analyze what is happening in singapore. the subces important, not really criticizing or supporting it --esident area we see president. we see it now after the meeting in cinema or.

inanted -- meeting singapore. crisis in the transatlantic relationship, it is because of one person. the president. everything wilme a normalcy. it is something i do not believe to be true. underlyinghave an question mode about the transatlantic articulations. that af people forget strong relationship isent. diplomacyhe american

wanted to avoid any involvement in european affairs. ofwas the basic tenet american foreign policy stemming address bymous last president george washington in 1797. americans have been involved in two world wars. it was against their will. and 1939 made914 the decision to be neutral. because, in the first world war, the famous submarine war. harbor because of pearl

and the declaration of war on germany. expect americans to withdraw from theay the in 1919, but they did not do it. first because the british and wanted to ensure the security of the continent, soviet.ly facing particularoted in context, the cold war. the shape of the relationship was a military alliance under american leadership. i was telling bill i was at nato in the late 1990's and i remember the question we raised nato,hat is the future of

considering that we do not have a common enemy anymore? humans avoid raising difficult questions. there was also the afghan crosses -- crisis in the late 1990's and now thereputin, and s have allowed us not to really raise difficult issues. alliance without an enemy? it is a new concept in foreign relationsh , i do not wantn to be too long because it would i a long conversation and would have to bring answers to

what i said, but my basic point today, the relationship is fragile. the foundation is not here anymore and we need to define a common agenda. we do not have a common threat anymore to face. russia is a geopolitical problem, but it is not the ussr. why ahave a question, strong transatlantic relationship, to do what? very basic questions and i do not believe we are really able to answer these questions. i am ready to answer all of your questions, please.

[applause] thank you very much for a provocative way of opening up conveation. as mentioned, you ani were speaking beforehand about the they were a huge changes on the international landscape as we enter the rise of new global powers like china, the information and technology revolutionchanges to the system.conomic changes we would have to come to grips with. but there are equally significant changes going on domestically in france and the united states. you your sense of the domestic mode in this country, outside of washington.

it is pretty obvious there is a disconnect between those of us in washington and those around .he country they have not always a disciplined leadership. what is your sense of the mood in both our countries, and how do you come to grips with the question you ended on, which is how do you sell the trip -- sell the significance of the transatlantic relationship to the republican both of our countries? the wider question of shared values and interests that bonds the relationship? i'm a big araud: believer in the sense of our citizens. based on the belief of the citizens, i of our

am sibley raising the question -- i am simply raising the , alliance is based on public opinion to fight if necessary. d.c. ise washington, not asking itself the question, are our citizens ready to fight? if you ask this question, i think you know the answer is not obvious. war, europe was fighting ussr. happen?y, what would i think president obama and

president trump -- i remind you that the two presidents are very they are raising and were raising more or less these questions, because i think they were sensitive to the moods of the country in terms of fatigue what happened under george w. bush. so i think it is one of the is the doubts i have of thehe commitment americans for the security of europe, we do not unifying threat.

that russia might be analyzed as a real security europe,but in western you can consider that russia is youopolitical problem, but do not see it anymore as a unifying threat. so you have all of these elements which i think are our alliance in the long run. bill: what to think of the wider argument? broader basis for the transatlantic partnership, of which nina -- nato is an

essential part but not the only feature, what you think of the argument that in that kind of a world, tla partnershi matters just as much as it ever? in termsf challenges that emanate across the other side of the mediterranean. a there an argument for different kind of transatlantic partnership? ambassador araud: of course. in transatlantic relationships, i am simply expressing my worry about the resident status of them. -- prenti think we have common s to defend. in a sense, beyond the usual spectrum of transatlantic policies. for instance, trade.

president trump is raising a real issue with trade. what is fair trade compared to free-trade? we have simply believed that that globally you have pluses and minuses. our citizens are sending the message that enough is enough with this global crisis. so what does it mean, free trade? tror of intellectual property and so on? the same question is in all of our societies throughout the western world.

the high-tech company are raising a lot of questions in our countries. for instance, taxation. all of the taxation systems we have are based on brick-and-mortar buildings. so the reality is we have to tocuss what it would mean tax. and access to personal data. we have a real problem in terms of enforcement. there is a case in the supreme court where the doj is asking access to microsoft and microsoft is answering. when fighting terrorism, we ask for data from twitter, and they

say sorry. we also have privacy. has stringent rules about defending privacy. cyberspace. security. if we do not do it together, it will come from other countries. china will be able to impose its own rules. environment. the oceans, for instance. here we are beyond the theological debate of climate change. the defense of the oceans. i have been repeating this for the last six months so summer board to hear that. d to hear this.e

protection of strategic sectors. on the hill you have a negotiation of a stringent rule. why don't we do it together, the europeans and americans? andefend our industrial technology goal basis? we have a positive agenda -- i believe we have to form a positive agenda. we need it. what is theook at future of our societies, what does it mean, and we have common interests emma visions come -- common interests, visions, and

values. we are facing the same challenges. so we have to adapt the a wayip and do it in that involves both sides of the atlantic. there lingers some traditional threats. us ukraine crisis reminds there is still a significant challenge posed by vladimir putin's form of aggressivenes president trump called for the readmission of russia to the g7 for the g8. principles amongst european countries. what do you think is the right approach to russia in that context, and how do you bridge some of the differences? amssadorraud: nice easy

question. you can fall on one or the other side. as a diplomat, i prefer to stay on the wall. is, i have been a representative to the united nations for four years. it is a great place to see the world from another angle than just the western side. hen people talk about liberal order. we are the only ones who call it that. the other countries call it the western order. is, the western world is not anymore. that is a fact.

the balance of power has dramatically shifted and the u.s. remains the most powerful country but in a more baland way. the u.s. is not anymore the hyperpower that the french minister of foreign affairs was referring to. we have the world based on the balance of power, so like it or not we have to take into account their vision of interest and try to accommodate them to see if we can. to find a compromise. so the russians have a vision of their nationalnterest. it is not to us to say if we like it or not. it is their vision. find each topic we have to whether there is a compromise,

so to see if we can find a compromise between ours and theirs. that means we have to be firm and not accept what they are in crimea.example we also have to draw the , for instance membership of nato. what should we do? what does it mean? looking at the situation in a frank way. it is easy on one side to say every country has the right to choose its alliance. is what do do if russia reacting brutally to prospects?

of balance.tion you have to find the right balance and to understand that for a lot of countries, the western dominated world was not perfect. on our side, there are moments where we have forgotten the order. nobody is forgetting what , whichd in iraq in 2003 was a brutal violation of rnational law. very difficult and bloody consequences in the middle east. i refer to this because when i was at the u.n., it was something that was coming all the time. i remember one day we had

diult detes about human rights. other. shouting ach as good diplomats, as we left the room we went to have coffee together after insulting each other. about the situation of human rights in cuba, it is not perfect. but i did not hear you talking about another country. countries were human rights situations are worse than cuba. and he was right. so we need to leave the ground that is comfortable and look at the world as it is. it is not a perfect world, but we are not perfect either. one question from me and then i want to open it up to questions from the audience.

the singapore summit meeting, it is an opening to a serious negotiation over a thorny problem you worked with on the u.n., north korea's nuclear missile program. what are your impressions about the diplomatic possibilities ?hat have opened up logic between the enthusiastic opening on the part of the u.s. administration and the equally enthusiastic closing on another significant nuclear challenge, the iraqi nuclear agreement? ambassador araud: on the second ,uestion, i am not very french anyuse i am always against

idea of logic and foreign overrated.is you have to treat each topic on its own merit. that means there is also domestic politics and so on. i think when people say, you should do this on iran ron, you canno that on north korea, the answer is, why not? avoidinga way of answering your tricky question. i think french are prisoners of this. on koreawe have always supported our american allies

and japanese and south korean friends. we are nott line for geographic reasons but we are behind our friends and allies. we support the policy of maximum pressure against north korea and we believe -- president trump has launched this initiative, so let's wait and see. other policies have not been very effective to handle the issue emma so why not try to findew approach -- handle the issue, so why not try to find a new approach? beginning, for the people the way they are commenting

about what happened in singapore, it is not so much a comment about donald trump, it is about what happened. we do not know what really happened. we have to wait and get more information to see what will be the follow-upwhat are the plans. i thiwill bdr a conclusion. in france, we are supporting the americans. bill: setting aside the lack of connection between the two issues, on the iran nuclear agreement, france is working with the remaining parties of the agreement. what do you think the prospects are for sustaining the agreement in the face of the american administration? ambassador araud: we are doing our best.

we believe the jcpoa is a good agreement. it is not perfect. on purpose, we have treated the nuclear issue as separate from the other, because it is such a complicated issue. we did it without naive assumptions about the behavior of iran. we are expecting the situation in iran to worsen because we think the regime will be obliged to show up the americans, so we were not surprised.

a policy of balancing against iran in the middle east. so we discussed the question of ballistic missiles and what would happen at the end of the agreement in terms of the activity of a ron -- a ran -- iran. so we are trying our best to preserve the agreement but it is difficult. as you said, the american sanctions are more or less leading most of the european companies to leave the iranian market. that means for the iranian regime, it becomes complicated .nd difficult to assess

it was about monitoring and limiting the program in exchange to have the reoning of normal .rade relations with iran if their radians are not getting ans are notrani getting anything o the front, why would they stay in the agreement? so there is a risk. end, is a risk that at the the force in tehran will say, let's get out of this agreement. they can do it in an incremental way or in a dramatic way. we will see. as for the relationship with the united states, we are still

waiting. we had the speech of secretary pompeo, but it stated the objectives. from are still expecting our american friends what they intend to do in the coming days and what it means in diplomatic terms. weeks we in the coming will have a meeting between the secretary of state and the europeans which will allow us to have an answeabout thet steps. i do not wanto molirsation any , so ieir -- any further open it up to questions. the micrhone is right behind you. >> hello. the g-7 summit, the ending of

it. what repercussions do yoink it will have for the future of the transatlantic relationship and the criticism from trunk towards the european allies -- criticism from president trump towards the european allies? the presidentud: has an unusual way of conducting foreign policy. we had the g-7 communique and there was an agreement in principle. what matters now is whether the andicans are going to stay follow the lines of the communique. it would be a mistake, and i am not sure we have avoided the

mistake, to enter into a tweet against tweet. what matters at the end of the day is the substance of foreign relations. >> i was fascinated by the use of a phrase during your talk. it thatthe -- what is the united states would use its military force for? at wld be the purpose? i am curious if you believe the united states government today is prepared to use its military might to protect all of the governments that are part of nato. ambassador araud: yes. i have no reason to doubt the

commitment of the u.s. government to the security of europe. i was raising the question, we are a democracy. at the end of the day, there is no policy which holds if there is not behind it a strong commitment of our public opinion. i was raising the question understand can during the cold war that the americans were defending europe and it was part of defending america. now is not the case anymore. question,aising the saying whether the little guy in wisconsin is ready to fight for europe now? how can you explain to him that he has to do it? it was more a question about the

common sense of our voters. there is a nato system of fragility. >> i got the impression that you are suggesting that what was after world war ii is not now. and if it is not now, what is the fundamental difference? ambassador araud: in 1945, we were united by a common threat. are united to say we by values. 1939e had common values in , and you are not here. i am sorry. there are countries that are close to you with which you do

not have common values at all. so what is important from an interest, of course common values and friendship makes a stronger foundation. it makes the relionship easier, deeper, more solid. but at the basis is the common interest. in 1945, the americans could consider that the security of the u.s. was depending on the security of western europe. today, i am not sure that is the case. so i do not doubt the commitment of the u.s. administration, but weave a problem. it is also a problem in europe. our vision of russia is not the between western europe and eastern europe.

>> i work with private equity in the technology sector. thank you for your insightsn the american attitudes. for a lot of reasons i wind up talking with a number of people who are part of the 60 million americans who voted for trui thl for you to speak not to the grid. dupont circle, -- not speak to circle,p here in dupont but speak to a group in allentown. what would you say to them? graduate withnts thousands of dollars in european -- in debt. the number and cause of

bankruptcy in the u.s. is medical bankruptcy. europeans do not understand what that means. americans take one week of vacation, europeans take two or three months. all of that is ris what e president has focused on, which is not that the soviet threat is gone, that rather that we have been ripped off. that europeans have outsmarted us. we are paying for their defense and they get two months vacation and get one week. so speak to that resentment, because it will help us viewers millions of people felt that way and voted for trump. it was not that the soviet union was gone. it was resentment, not independence. ambassador araud: i share your view 100%. i am convinced when people say

that a large part of the americans approve the ied tariffs. to try to understand the .mericans when i travel the country, nobody is talking about president trump's. -- president trump. everybody is talking about the economic euphoria. the economic situation is really great. suddenly you realize that the front page of the washington

post that you are reading every morning, most of the americans don't care. so i am aware of the system. after the end of the mandates from president trump, i do not think that the transatlantic relationship will come back to a normalcy. it is easy to impose tariffs, it is difficult to leave them. cause you have to explain it. so it is a real crisis which is also stemming from the discontent of our citizens, especially americans. >> thank y for y comnts.

i am with northrop grumman. you termed the relationship beeen u.s. and europe as fragile. would you apply the same term to the eu? regards toat you discussed cyber and things which are modern threats. would you put china in that category? china which has been so active .conomically in the world do you see it as a potential future military threat for nato? ambassador araud: on the second i remember one day coming from the departnt of defense, i do not remember if it

was this administration. i am reluctant to enter this vocabulary. international relationship is based on competition. every country is defending its interests and there are moments when the interests bump into each other. at is normal. maybe also because of the geography of europe, but i would not qualify china as a threat. like russia. for russia, they are raising a lot of questions and problems, but that is what foreign policy is for. every country is defending its interest and you have to balance and find friends and allies.

you have to pat the back of some fields if you can. that is the normal game -- you have to pat the back of friends if you can. that is the normal game. china is the big boy on the block. there are issues in terms of individual property and that is an issue where we could work with americans, how to dend and protect intellectual property. china is suddenly raising substantial problems. but in terms of threats, no. as for the eu, they are facing challenges. , which is a lose lose situation. loss for europe. we have the questions raised by

our easter partners. -- eastern partners. we have italy and throughout europe the same political situation you have. brussels is seen as the horse of --y of normal is him normalism. revolting against free trade, you are attacking brussels. it is managed by brussels. so a lot of challenges. was elect ocron or eurean platform and wants to respond to the working to tryis

to convince our german friends to move forward and improve the sustainability of the eurozone. the problem is the sustainability. he has put a lot of proposals on the table and cap slow markle d -- counselor angela merkel has started to respond. it is a process. is whether what president macron and others will do in the coming months to convince our voters. i do not have the answer. so the european union is not fragile, but it ising h challenges. in a sense, the same challenges you are facing here.

the rebellion of part of our voters, the rebellion against the elites. >> i would like to go back to the russia issue and ask you a philosophical question, which i realize does not really have an answer but deserves thinking about in the context of the 20th centy history. how do we determine whether or not we are really accommodating strategic interests of a potential adversary? or are we abusing aggressive ambitions when it comes to policy in organization like

nato? line,ador araud: the red it is a decision our political leaders have to take. there is no other place to take it. with is disn senator mccain. there no answer. it is a potical decision to ukraine instance, should not be a member of nato, some people will say that is appeasement. i think it is really is him. so that is to our political

leaders to tell us how far they are willing to go. it has to be based on a realistic assessment of what we can do and if we are ready to put actions behind our words. was defendingthat inich and the argument was 1938, the british were not ready to send more than two divisions to france. nobody was ready. sowers are not easy there. >> i feel the need to come to the defense of my fellow countrymen. you talked about your travels

across the country and that the only thing that matters is the economy and that that is all you are hearing about and that what is in the washington post is not important for most ameri. i think all of us in this room travel around the country. in pittsburgh we just had a congressional election that had what had happened years ago. in western kentucky i would -- i with aking fundamentalist christian who was disturbed about the behavior she sees from the president. you see through polls that the president is unpopular. toi want to know if you want revisit your commere y set americans do not care.

ambassador araud: you are right that i was wrong to say americans mostly do not care. i just wanted to convey the opposite. it is of session. -- obsession. have a discussion about nuclear physics without 15 minutes lat hwi talking about president trump. it is true that i have a lot of discussions and the political issues in washington dc are very regularly raised. but the economic issues arthe real issues that most people are

referring to. bill: last question. >> i am a jr. in high school in indianapolis. about at macron talked greater assertion being necessary of the european s heescribed it. my question is, does european sovereignty equate to europe -- to greater european protectionism, especially against china? :am a number of aestions which are raised in

direct way by this administration, there is one about the europeans taking care of themselves. and it is true. look at sowhen you of the problems we are facing in terms of migration, it is to europe to handle that. so that is what the message of the president had been. also, to say that we have to act by ourselves. it is not possible anymore to rush to washington dc whenever there is a problem. that was the case in previous it decades. what does european sovereignty mean? does it mean protectionism? the european union is the most

open market in the world. it is the largest market in the world and one of the most open markets in the world. thatally do look protectionism leads to nowhere. two things. the first is the idea of fair trade. i said in the beginning that our are styled to free-trade agreements. we negotiated a free trade agreement with canada. they are the closest society, relationshipountry thuropean can have. so the agreement for the negotiators was an example of

so, free-trade agreements are not really frankly at the end of the day. we have to try to figure out whether it is free-trade, they are asking free-trade. whatonversations, that is we should have with our american friends. one of the elements of fair trade is with china. president marcon told president trump we should work together on some issues, and one issue tellecalrty. but you have market access. you have procurement. that will be much more effective and powerful if we go together to beijing, saying, we have a

problem, and we do not accept it anymore. again, we are saying we have to work. it will be better than squabbling. i hate to bring this conversation to a close, but thank you for your thoughts on this, and your candor. thank you all for coming. please join me all. [applause] >> c-span's "washington

journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. tomorrow morning, inside elections, and results of primary day in five states. from the u.s. capitol, members of congress way in -- weigh in on the north korean summit. illinois democratic congressman brad schneider, texas democratic congressman and foreign affairs committee member, joaquin castro. californiaubcan, dana rohrabacher. watch c-span's "washington journal," joined the discussion. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies.

today, we continue to bring you unfilted coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. you by yourought to cable or satellite provider. next, a discussion about the singapore summit between president trump and kim jong-un. panelists gave their assessment of the summit, and what it means for u.s. policy in the region. from the carnegie endowment for international peace and they are -- this is 90 minutes. >> good morning. thank you for coming out. i am the codirector of the nuclear policy program at the endowment.