a lawyer. ♪ host: you are watching al jazeera. u.s. president donald trump has pardoned his former national security advisor michael flynn who pleaded guilty about lying to the fbi during the investigation into interference in the 2016 election. our correspondent is more. reporter: this is something trump started talking about nearly nine months ago as michael flynn was trying to change his guilty plea and accusing the federal prosecutors of basically interrupting him.

this has been a legal saw about as overhung the trump administration, allegations of russian meddling in u.s. political processes, of corruption, and other untoward, possibly treasonous behavior by members of the trump administration as well as trump's outside supporters. host: u.s. president-elect joe biden issued a thanksgiving message to urge americans to stay safe during the pandemic. he acknowledged growing fatigue with restrictions but a positive news on vaccine development. the sucker world is morning for diego maradona, who died of a heart attack at the age of 60. he is regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, captain to argentina to victory. these are life pictures from buenos aires. if you will is rejecting international mediation efforts during the crisis in the

northern region. the deadline issued to forces to surrender as pies. -- denied being surrounded by government forces. germany is extending coronavirus restrictions until late december. chancellor angela merkel says the infection rate remains to i. turkey is registering a surgeon covid-19. asymptomatic cases are being recorded for the first time. over 28,000 new cases were reported in just the past 24 hours, by far the largest since the pandemic began. stay with us. ♪ >> i am steve clemons and i have a question.

is the united states in a better place or worse on the global stage that it was four years ago and what should joe biden consider if he takes u.s. foreign policy and different direction? let's get to the bottom line. ♪ steve: outgoing president donald trump love to be the anti-diplomat, insulting countries and their leaders and even his own ambassadors and bureaucrats and making sure everyone felt on edge all the time. he was a transactional is, wanting to do deals but often it was hard to see if those deals made sense in the end for the country. what are the consequences been for the united states under a president who preferred dramatic decisions and one-off deals to long-term alliances? what parts of trump's foreign policy should be thrown out and what parts will joe biden presidency keep? today we will talk with one of america's most experienced diplomats. robert selleck as advised six

presidents, was deputy of state for president bush and former president of the world bank. he just published a deep dive into the people and factors that have shaped america to of u.s. foreign policy since the founding of the country. ambassador, thank you so much for enjoying -- for joining us today. as i read your book, it is a fascinating collection of consequential personalities, whether it was looking at a moment on how technology needed to be woven international security or taking and expanding foreign policy to look about america to a prehistory position in the world and i am interested in your insights on people and moments that matter and what -- and whether we are at one of those inflection points as we move from trump to biden. guest: it has been a momentous four years. trump was delighted to disrupt the international system the

u.s. had helped to create 70 years ago. it is natural [inaudible] one is you are seeing the importance of what i will call new security issues, things like climate along with the traditional ones. then you have also got on the economic side the phenomenon of globalization continues, but you are seeing fragmentation in the international system, and the third one is a lot of discussion about rivalry. at the same time we have to figure out how to deal with transnational literals -- issues in a multilateral fashion. how will it work at home and with allies? go ahead.

steve: can you walk through these different terrains joe biden is going to have to consider? [inaudible] i am wondering if you could give us a structured survey of the territory the president is going to have to consider. guest: i think the start goes back to some advice my former boss gave to president ronald reagan in 1981. he said, mr. president, you have got three priorities, economic recovery, economic recovery, and economic recovery. in this voice -- case the focus is on the pandemic recovery. then the question is whether the biden people can connect some of their domestic agenda internationally. for example, with vaccines and medical treatments we expect next year, not just rejoin the who but could they come up with

a -- that president bush did to help the developing world see the expression of the who's role. my old role in the world bank will be critical in extending the who which does not have the capacity to help the developing world. if you do something on immigration which rumors, -- dreamers, why not connected to policy with mexico and it will be connected to an area that biden worked on in the past, central america and its development and security. in climate, you do not just rejoin the paris accord. you have to focus on the 10 biggest economies, about 80% of the problem, but also bring in the developing world with so carbon, which could help africa and avoid deforestation and adaptation. the challenge is can they

connect the dots on some of the new issues, while they also have to watch the traditional ones, like nuclear proliferation and regional dangers. steve: what you are basically saying is given the domestic agenda, which will be huge, enormously time-consuming is you are suggesting key connectors, whether on the pandemic or economic growth to something bridging it internationally, that that would be away to skilled global opportunities but linked them to a very active domestic agenda. >> yes, and think of the benefits. for many americans and people around the world, issues of pandemic or climate are local in effect. you are partly trying to explain to the public, who has to support your policies how these are connected with the global context. if you think about the agenda i

just talked about, that is a reasonable set of topics to rebuild ties with europeans and partners in the asia-pacific, and based on that cooperation, which has freed a lot over the past four years, you can build would have to be the two most important issues, the futures of free society and how you deal with china. it is a multilateral strategy as well as a domestic strategy and it focuses on what is on people's minds. steve: you were one of the people who laid out during the last bush administration what our contours would turn it needed to be. you gave a very important speech saying china needed to aspire to more, it needed to become a responsible global stakeholder. i remember speaking to you at that time and it was almost as if you were the only one in that administration focused on china. i would love to hear what you think we go. do you think the biden team will

take your heat and pay more attention to this country, both in negatives and potential opportunities? how will that be shaped and will they go back to skipping over donald trump and saying that ought to be our goal? >> remember the context. that was a speech i gave in 2005, and what i was trying to point out is for 20 years administrations of both parties had been seeking to integrate china into the international system, wto, world bank, treaties dealing with proliferation or ozone development, and my point in 2005 was integration was on its way. the question was whether china can step up to responsibilities, and i do not think china nor the united states has acted as a responsible stakeholder. i think right now the relationship is quite dangerous. i think it has been in freefall.

the immediate challenge is to get off ramps. across the political spectrum there is a lot of frustration and concern about china, so it will not go back to the way it was in the past, but the natural process is first you have to focus on what is at home, and that is science and technology and education and democratic agenda. then you work with your allies and partners in east asia and europe will be important in this. then you will have to have a multidimensional strategy with china on issues such as naval maritime security. you will probably need to adapt your capacities to have what strategies call anti-access area of denial, which requires retooling our capabilities. in the trade area, can you push china on an intellectual

property route? do you have expended intellectual property rights. the penalties are not high enough. you want to push to raise the penalties. odd force technology transfer that is prohibited by china's [indiscernible] but you need to get rid of a lot of the joint venture requirements. the trump approach over the past four years was the focus on the trade deficit with china. they did not change it one iota, they raised a bunch of tariffs, and the deal they got with the purchases has been halfway in terms of its set of targets, so it has not worked. the challenge for the united states is do things i don't, work with partners -- at home, work with reporters, press china on these issues and i believe we need to stand for american

values. as a good example in the case of hong kong rather than sanctioning leaders, i would open the doors to some people to hong kong to come to the u.s. that which of the difference between the two societies. china will be the biggest challenge for the united states, overcoming decades, but my recommendation is you do not approach it one-on-one. you have got to do it with other partners. steve: thank you for that. as you wrote your book, which i found instructive, you talk about the five traditions for american foreign policy, and focusing on north america, looking at alliances, transnational technology and trade arrangements, routing foreign-policy into where voters are and politics, and his notion of america as the unique place in the world that can make a very different thing. i would love it this moment, because when i think about those

-- and you talk about china and the united states being in freefall, a lot of people look at the united states as being in freefall. as you look at those traditions, i would like to get your view forward and talk to was a bit about those five traditions, and how they are relevant today. >> let's start with north america. it was important for the united states in the 19th century. i argue in the 20th century it was a cornerstone as well. we almost went to war with the cuban missile crisis, and that a nuclear disaster, you big nafta. -- you had nafta. we almost went to war with mexico. the most telling guidance come from ronald reagan's beach in 1979 launching his campaign. it is almost unbelievable today a candidate would say this. it is time we start to recognize we would be better off if mexico

and canada were stronger and it is time we stopped seeing our nearest neighbors as foreigners, which is different from what you heard from the trump administration with their focus on the wall. for many americans, they are interested in issues like immigration, narcotics and organized crime, economic prospects, environmental issues. equally important, the stronger we have north america, 500 million people, three democracies, energy self-sufficiency, better demographics, that will make us more powerful in dealing with china and other parties. that is step one. the other is trade, trans-nationalism, and technology. from the very founding of the united states, you can see the founding fathers were looking at the rate more of a matter of economic efficiency.

it was a question of partnerships with the rest of the world. they were trying to break free from mercantilism and imperial colonialism so they wanted transnational actors, and technology as been very important in america's success as a growing economy and then in the cold war. it fits nicely with the agenda i talked about with some scientific and biologic issues. the third is alliances, which as you know, after washington and jefferson's warnings the united states stayed away from alliances for about 150 years. then from 1947 to 1979 we created a new type of alliance system based on politics and diplomacy and economics is what -- as much as it was pure military power and that were very successful during the cold war. it was adapted after the cold war and for the past four years

trump really as denigrated alliances. the question is how do you change alliances for the new types of agenda we just talked about. before there was the need to get congressional and public support. a lot of traditional foreign policy specialists ignore working with congress. in my book i talked about the work that senator denenberg played with truman. if you think about people like john mccain or richard hoover or sam nunn, and these are important figures in terms of trying to help executive branches with foreign policy. the question will be who steps up to that today. i think there are possibilities, which i have talked about, written about in various pieces. the last point is america's purpose. i do not mean to suggest the notion of the united states

exceptionalism, because a lot of countries think they are exceptional, but if you go back to the founding of the u.s. the [indiscernible] of the united states, it is on the back of your dollar bill, the unfinished pyramid with the i have providence above it and the phrase new order of ages. it is my proposition that the purpose of the united states [inaudible] it was simply to keep a republic alive in a world of empires. then it was fighting for the union. by the time of woodrow wilson is make the world safe for democracy, not necessarily make it democracy. for roosevelt it is the four freedoms in the cold war it is the [indiscernible] for bill clinton, it was enlargement. what will with the united states have today other than being a powerful country? trump did not fill that larger

role in the united states. i am not saying we have to be visionaries around the world but we have to have some sense about the world we would like to see. steve: let me just burst you a little further on that. those five traditions require and orientation, even north america, would you believe i am a big proponent of north america. they require an orientation we it citizens look at being engaged in the world as a net positive. i am related to a lot of military families from the midwest, not on the educated over generations but they fought for the country and they felt like they fought for the country and fought the cold war but china no one -- china won. they feel left behind, and bandage, and the net positives they get from globalization are

-- when you look at that international orientation that is fed a lot of donald trump druggist popularity, does that give you some pause that america may be shifting back toward more isolation, a strategic contraction if you will from a lot of these challenges in the world? >> after decades of long wars, the global financial crisis, the pandemic setback, it is natural that people focus first to know. let me give you a historical analogy. in october, 1945, the month after japan surrendered, gallup did a poll and asked people are our international relations vital to our interests? the number that said yes was 7%. can't 1946, the next year at the

devastation in europe became more clearly known, the soviet union is on the rise, the number jumped to 14%. it has always been a challenge for american presidents to explain the linkages, but here, and i know it is popular about some leaders to talk about isolationism, the account on global affairs does an annual survey as the results are striking. a bipartisan 68% of americans favor an active role in the world, a little higher than it was in the cold war. 68% bipartisan like the idea of a shared leadership role, where only 24% sought u.s. dominance. two thirds think globalization benefits the united states. nearly 75% think [indiscernible] support for nato is at 73%. as you know, these are

[indiscernible] polling numbers. the question is will a president be able to organize them as truman did? my own view and this is what history shows, presidents do this most effectively both by explaining things and taking actions. some of the ones we talked about, biologic security, climate, as well as traditional nuclear security items, and i hope the new administration will do this. steve: the funny thing about your bio is that you are on the board of directors at twitter. i had no idea. i do not know if you are looking on twitter somewhere. are you a practitioner of twitter, or are you just someone on board to make sure twitter behaves itself, and what do you think about twitter and social media in this age of politics?

how is twitter helping or hurting our political scene? quite i could not reach your level of appealing to a larger audience. the reason i joined the board was because i wanted to learn more about it in the technology. i might also be able to help on the international side and governance issues and also on familiar with the financial and economic sector. what you are seeing for all of the companies in the social media space is they are trying to adapt, and to public testimony made this point is they started out with what i will call extreme [inaudible] participation. the values of the silicon valley, and that they had the problems with the 26 -- 2016 election so they have experimented, and i think that

is an ongoing exercise. the senior team from dorsey on down takes a cap very much of what they consider to be the health of the conversation. i am pleased from what we have learned so far that their work in the work of facebook and others seemed to have limit the ability for intrusion in the election process, but i think this will be a topic of ongoing debate, and you can see people taking in different directions. some people say we do not want platforms to interfere with any speaker, but on the other hand some will say there could be information there that is provocative or leads to violence or conflict. if people want to go back to traditional controls, limits or responsibilities with this section 230, you would open up to a series of legal actions so you might need to be more restrictive.

my own sense is the technology companies are now fully aware of this. they want to engage the public in the dialogue and get it will be part of our society. it is an irony trump criticizes these networks when he obviously learned how to use them quite effectively. steve: i had dinner with jack dorsey, the ceo of twitter, and we discussed it. while that discussion was off the record, i can say with i was impressed about how concerned he was with censoring anyone, the decisions had to be careful not to go down a slippery soap. that there were principles, but to see his anguish. last question, ambassador, if joe biden were to call you up and say we could use your services, would you join? you were a john hancock of the never drunk crowd.

i'm wondering if you would accept a bite and roll? >> i know a lot of the biden team and informally i have tried to help them. they have got a lot of quality players with a lot of slots to fill with their own people. i will leave it at that and i am looking forward to the new team. i think the challenges they face are very important for the united states in getting back on track, and it is a different world context. i have some experience in some international institutions beyond the traditional security space. i think those will be increasingly important. however i can help them or republicans or democrats in the congress. steve: ambassador, trade negotiator and now chronicler of american foreign policy in the world. i enjoy it and look forward to seeing how this lays out. what is the bottom line?

say what you will about the presidency of donald j. trump. he has for his real changes in the terms of engagement in the world. america under a joe biden presidency is going to be more selfish than in the past, less willing to provide security or trade deals or secure technological process -- progress without the for its citizens. america will get back into deals like the paris climate accord or the world health organization or wto but those are low hanging fruit. america will be deeply distracted at home by tensions over the pandemic, race, economic inequality, and the fact that the country is divided nearly down the middle on trumpism. american's diplomacy will be more troubled going forward not hesitate gesture of humility, but rather it will not get away with arrogance at this time, and that is the bottom line. ♪

it

- hey, i'm darius rucker. coming up onreel south. - we're kinda rolling into our 50th year right here at the broken spoke. - [darius] for the country western faithful, heaven is austin's broken spoke. - we've had people like bob wills right here, willie nelson, george strait, dolly parton, ernest tubb, jack feder, the list goes on and on and on. ♪ oh the key's in the mailox come on in ♪ - [darius] but for this honky tonk, every texas two-step forward pushes the bastian to the brink. - [male] this street has changed so much in the last few years. we're losin' a lot of the old feel of austin. - [darius] shuffle into "honky tonk heaven,"