at the moment, we still live in a world dominated by nationstates. they are our form of legitimate governments, whether we like certain aspects of it or not. not a shareddom is concept. it is not something that is practice in the same way in different countries. i think we need -- once we have or greaterreement global consensus on freedom of access to information, then the internet is going to take care of itself. internet behavior is really a reflection in many ways of non-internet behavior. the fact we have divisions among countries and societies is reflected both in the behavior of people off the internet and on the internet. so i am concerned when countries try to shut off internet access or monitor the internet in a major way. that is not my concept of internet freedom, although the current method of governance, they have the right to do it. you mentioned your work or experience in russia. is the internet governed heavily in that country? >> from what i know, the leaky inis much more russia than in other countries, in the sense that it is not to

we wanted uniformity and global compatibility but unfortunately in a world of nationstates it is still divided into territorial sovereign. if they decide to do all kinds of bad things to the population, there's not much the rest of the world can do about it. >> even with wi-fi and wireless? >> even with wi-fi and wireless wi-fi transmitters have to be set up on chinese soil and it is a very short range form of communication and i'm sure that china licenses are somehow controlled.consider wi-fi and that designates the internet and they set up functions that somehow controls. but they do have little holes in the system. for circumventing. and that is one of the interesting foreign policy issues of internet governance in the us and they were promoting circumvention. through the state department's. and of course chinese didn't like that. so that was a point of tension. we don't like it when the chinese do espionage and cyber espionage. they break into our systems is still data. so it's a lot of interesting, these are internet governance. >> is there press on -- pressure on the editorial si

that they define nationstates, countries.and that there was a deal out there that we won't try to change your borders by force if you don't change ours and we won't mess around in your territory if you don't interfere in hours. it was a live and let live society. this wasn't self and when there was peace in the world it was largely because there is a balance of power. when there wasn't peace it was because the balance of power had broken down and one or another country saw advantage in trying to change the map. for me, distinctly to answer your question the continuity with great power, competition, being the being the principal driver or shaper of history and the centrality of sovereignty as the organizing ball. >> what were the lessons learned ? in section of the book you provide analysis, description, contrasting one. another and tell us the lessons learned particularly from as you put it close the unprecedented order of the century, in in other words looking at the two world wars. >> the fundamental lesson is that it's nec

the ensuing war ironically forged a powerful nationstate alliance that produced a northern state army powerful enough to defeat the confederates. scholars seeking to uncover union's formula for victory have expanded investigations to include the character of governors, northern and southerners, as contributors to the factors of this victory. northerners witnessed the surge of governmental activist at the state level and national level that sustained mobilization throughout the war. the union's defense of 1861 revealed intense nationalist feelings but marshaling the , resources required extraordinary coordination between nation and state. yet before delivering sorted -- soldiers organized in march to work, the mena material necessary to fight the war rested on the partnership between abraham lincoln and his loyal state governors. it was this alliance that established and shaped the waste the union applied its military power against the confederacy and pursuit of union. only by examining this crucial partnership can we begin to understand how it contributed to the new nation lincoln ref

iraq and syria no longer exist as coherent nationstates.crosswalks of africa there are ungoverned areas, some of constantly being reclaimed by more legitimate forces, others not. these places we should mention nigeria, in afghanistan a genuine tele-been resurgence and introduction of isis, afghan expression. if you are living in those zones you are not looking at the data and thinking my life is pretty good. i think the danger from jihadi him in its various forms isn't that they could obtain a weapon of mass destruction and really be an existential threat to western nationstates although that is not something we should rule out and security agencies everywhere are alert to it but the danger is the danger comes from the fact that making people feel insecure if you are in large urban areas in europe you are constantly worried about the next ak-47 that will go off, that itself is a danger and it drives people to embrace harsher and harsher politics and turn to illiberalism. not the scale that quantifying the threat, what would it be, it is the

once again, we become a sovereign nationstate in command of our own destiny and i am absolutely delightedut that. >> so these are difficult times. most of the northern mps have constituencies who voted in thousands to leave the e.u. >> i can no more hope for this, but i can vote against my conscience. it's against my values. i can know more about process than my own dna. >> jeremy corbin, the labour leader had imposed a way imposed a wicked labour mps have to back the government and vote for the bill. that meant a handful of resignations. they meant a dubious absence from the commons voting lobbies. the following week, the bill went through all its stages with no alterations. one conservative remain saw her party colleagues in a less than favorable way. >> i would like chi hotties in their support for a hard brexit. we never want you -- [inaudible] last week making a point. the pro-e.u. at cynthia claimed it had all been done in a rash. >> to accept a single amendment means there will be a program motion means there's no debate. i'm informed by the library at the last thing that combinati

it is an open question whether the state, whether the nationstate, a democratic nationstate i will add, will be the institution to govern and regulate capital in the 21st century. democraticy, our institutions and values, up to the task? i will leave those open questions. you start to think about it, how might democracy be engaged with capital? here we have questions of value, the second topic. here we have a little bit of discontinuity. since the great recession, since 2008, in terms of political values that we associate with democracy, inequality, economic inequality has become an issue of some political concern. we have, this is the top 1%, we have the data and we know what it looks like. there is no big secret. the question is, why is this the case? let me point to two reasons. that i think are important. one, income increasingly flowing, not from wages, but from asset appreciation. that is built into the political economy of asset prices. and flowing not so much from earning wages, but owning financial assets. second, even more fundamental, is this -- this is a worrisome chart. si

where it is our enemies in uniforms between nationstates would meet on the battlefield and fight. this is much different and more complex. and in syria it is as complex as it has ever been ever. it isn't the regime versus a coherent opposition. the opposition itself is fragmented into hundreds of thousands of different groups, which all different have -- which all have different interests, which raise the questions about the regime change. i have no doubt that if the u.s. set our mind to it, we could overthrow the president assad regime. we could do it. we didquestion is, if that, what would happen? who would take over in damascus? the answer is probably not a unified, coherent, democratic position that we could work with. between thestruggle different groups and the people returned to the united states and say ok, how are you going to stabilize things now? so this is at the core of the problem. host: to the question, why can't we just depart from the whole region -- why do we have to have solutions as the united states? guest: simply because the alternatives of not having the uni

postcolonial nationstates that share internationally recognized borders. u.s. strategy was to maintain the same map of southwest asia in the 1980's that existed in the 1970's. circumstances, which then inserted the potential to upset regional and global interests. as one cia analysis pointed out, the ethnic charter fee of southwest asia was such that crisis and confrontation are particularly prone to separatist activity. the more that third world thatics fracture, the more some governments will support separatist activities in other countries. the soviet invasion of afghanistan made apparent the potential for the soviet union to disrupt established political geographies of the region. the revolution in iran to a certain extent as well. discuss thetrations potential breakdown of state lines two to soviet pressure. the director of the cia predicted soviet leadership based by resistance is likely to increase further of time he omyputes -- further auton disputes. that the state as the unit needed to be the key actor in preserving peace. reagan pursued this project.

that was 1400 years ago, before the formation of european nationstates. it has only been under european hegemony that they decided to divide mankind into races, and artificial concepts. century,re in the 21st still arguing over an artificial concept. america is not racist. america is a society of nationalities and tribes. we have to remove that concept of race to define human beings, and the concept of black and white to define americans. these are divisive terms. s job into the 21st century. europeans, stop masquerading as white people. prof. jordan: i am sorry, what is your question? not a know that you are race. prof. jordan: i know that i am a race. >> with makes you a race? prof. jordan: when i was growing up in virginia, my parents sat down and gave me the talk about being a negro in white society. >> did god make you a race or part of a family that became a tribe? race is an artificial concept designed by intellectuals back in europe, and divided mankind into race. prof. jordan: race is not official -- not an artificial concept when you have the ku

the ensuing war ironically forced a powerful nationstate alliance that produced a northern state army powerful enough to defeat the confederates. scholars have expanded investigations to include the character of governors, northern and southerners, as contributors to the factors of this victory. the union's defense of 1861 revealed intense nationalist dealings, but marshaling the resources required extraordinary coordination between nation and state. organized, itey rested on the partnership between abraham lincoln and his loyal state governors. thehaped to the ways that should federal power in pursuit of union. it was a new nation that lincoln referred to at gettysburg. thehe 150 years since conflict, only "lincoln and the war governors" has been preserved as a seminal work on this important relationship. lincoln as a master manipulator of public opinion and political opinion and conflicts with governors over mobilization. he argued that the president was , doing what was needed despite the governors. the victory of nationalism over over states rights was, in the last analysis, the v

before the formation of european nationstates. it has only been under european hegemony that they decided to divide mankind into braces -- races and artificial constructs. here we are in the 21st century still arguing over and artificial concept. america is not racist. america is a society of nationalities and tribes. we have to remove the concept of race to define human beings and remove that concept of black-and-white to define americans. these are divisive terms. it's the 21st century and racism did its job up until the 21st century. but we have to move forward and , stoph american europeans masquerading as white people -- i'm serious. what is your question? i moneys historians that will say i don't know when i don't know. >> you know you are not a race. >> i know i am a race. >> what makes you a race? >> when i was a little boy when i grew up in segregated virginia, my parents gave me the talk about being negro and white society. >> did god make you a race or a part of a family that became a tribe? intellectually, and artifici

fortunes and i depart as another determined to restore to this country the status of a sovereign nationstateembarrassing the rest of the world. the prime minister, godspeed for resounding victory on 8 june. may all the shots just make one final feeling in these public times, her majesty's armed forces are properly funded, equipped and house to defend and protect the people of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. >> once again, can i pay tribute to the work my honorable friend has done representing 34 years to different constituencies but one of the themes have been his passionate championing of armed forces and consideration for our armed forces and on 8 june people have a clear choice between the right honorable gentlemen who refuses to defend our country and the conservative government that will continue to support our armed forces. >> william morris. >> why is she running scared. may i suggest -- and welfare, she can see the consequences of 7 years of policies with policeing, and if that is possible she has any investment in reelection. >> i have been in televised deb

whatever you want to call it, if they can't predict how you will because thead relationships between nationstatesds on predictability to a degree. it is good because they can't make assumptions about how you will act and what you will do and that keeps them alert. that is right. we have a perfect example of this in terms of north korea. north korea has tested a couple of missiles since president trump took office to test him as well, and he now sent a carrier group towards north korea, so what does this mean? lastshould we take from week syria strike in terms of his approach to north korea? it is hard to figure out. we looked at the willingness to use force in syria as a precursor to something else, or does he want to use that unpredictability as leverage to convince pyongyang they don't want to test him. charlie: this is not nixon madman theory, but something in between? peter: next was conscious of what he was doing. tellld henry kissinger, them you work for a crazy president and they should operate with you. whether that is the case here, president trump deliberately trying to keep people off

once again we have become a sovereign nationstate in command of our own destiny and i'm absolutely delighted about that. >> for labor, these were difficult times. mps had voters who voted in the thousands to leave the eu. >> here is my answer. i can no more vote for this than i can vote against my conscious. i can no more vote for this than i can vote against my own dna. >> jeremy corbyn had imposed a three line whit. other mps had to back the government and vote for the bill. that meant a handful of resignations. for the shadow home secretary diane abbott had meant absence from the common voting. the following week, the brexit bill went through all of its stages with no alterations. one conservative or main supporter saw her fervent brexit party colleagues in a less than favorable way. >> i feel sometimes i'm sitting among colleagues who were like jihadis in their support. no brexit is hard enough to be gone, you evil europeans. i'm afraid i heard the speeches last week. they were exactly making that point. >> as the bill passed through the comments, the pro-eu claimed it had all but been d

whatever you want to nation cannot predict how you will act, it is bad because relationships between nationstatesend on predictability to a degree. but in one way it is good because they can't make , assumptions about how you will act and what you will do and that keeps them alert. peter: that is right. we have a perfect example of this right now in terms of north korea. north korea has tested a couple of missiles since president trump took office, tried to test him to some extent as well. and he has sent the carrier group towards north korea, so what does this mean? what should we take from last week's syria strike in terms of his approach to north korea? it is hard to figure out. should we look at the willingness to use force in syria as a precursor to something else in asia or does , he want to use that unpredictability as leverage to convince pyongyang they don't want to test him? that it would in fact be dangerous for them? charlie: this is not nixon madman theory, but something in between? peter: nixon was conscious of what he was doing. he talked to two henry kissinger and said tell them y

it is not compatible with the stability and legitimacy a of the nationstates themselves. the brits have been the first to realize that you make. >> okay the year is the canary in the coal mine and is close to death. [applause] [applause] >> i am so glad that neil is mingling with the people in palo alto. [laughter] my home would probably value a garage. but, i think it's important to remember the history here when we talk about the european union. for the for 500 years before world war ii europe was wrecked by wars, the kind of which no one had seen before, the religious wars for example one third of all germany was killed, france and germany went to were three times between 1850 and 1950 and drag the world and onto those locations. when you look at the european union today, the principal achievement is that it is unthinkable that these countries that routinely went to war for hundreds of years will ever go to war again. yes they have problems about border control and they have debates about monetary policy and it's difficult to have monetary policy in one direction and f

ap, pursue and have this travel for continent if you not compatible with the legitimacy of the nationstate. the brits have been the first realize that. >> europe is the canary in the gold trim called mine. [applause] >> i'm so glad that neil is making with people in palo alto. my home i probably buy your crotch.garage but it's important to remember the history here, for the foror 500 years before world war ii, europe was wrecked by wars of which no continent had ever seen before. religious wars, one third of all germany was killed, france and germany which were three times between 1850 and 1950 drag the world and on two of thosed seenb occasions. when you look at the european union today, the principal achievement is that it is unthinkable that these countries who routinely went to war for hundreds of years will ever go to work in. yes, they have problems with order control and yes when they need to have debates about monetary policy and it's very difficult to have monetary policy it's a very different world from germany invading france, belgium, the horrors of world war i into another wor

finally, we should understand that this is a practice and a beyond thet extends nationstate of the united states. in fact, there is a long history of this outside the bounds of the united states, stretching back at least to the testimony of historians in the adolf eichmann trial in 1961. in france, the famous frankfurt which az trials in distinguished french historian declined to participate in the proceedings because he thought it compromised his role as historian. you might know professor russo more recently as the person who thestopped for 10 hours at houston airport by immigration authorities a couple of months ago. so there is a long and contentious history of this practice. we have for quite distinguished historians who will explain it for us today. it's of them will do a short presentation, talk a little bit about their work in this area and some of the issues raised by it, and then we will do a little bit of a roundtable discussion. after that, we will open and broaden the discussion to the audience. do not really need much introduction, so i am going to quite briefly go through t

iraq and syria no longer exist as coherent nationstates.across swaths of africa that are ungoverned areas, some of them constantly being reclaimed by more legitimate forces, others not. these places, also we should mention nigeria, which has this local rom insurgency, mention afghanistan which has a genuine, both the taliban resurgence and an introduction of isis. afghanistan and its afghan expression. so i think if you're living in those zones, your knowledge affidavit and thinking my life is pretty good. no, they're enough there but i think the danger from jihad-ism in its various form isn't that they could obtain made a weapon of mass destructio distraction y be an existential threat to a western nation state, although that's not something we should rule out and the help secret agencies everywhere are about to it. but the danger is that, the danger comes from the fact that by making people feel insecure, if you are in large urban areas in europe, you are constantly worried about the next ak-47 that's going to go off of the next -- that i

partners and allies at the same time, the central region is increasingly crowded with external nationstates such as russia and china, who are pursuing their own interests in attempting to shift alliances within the region. is,point i would emphasize while there may be other more strategic or consequential threats to regions in our world, today the central region of come to represent a nexus for security challenges our nation faces. threats inantly, the this region continue to pose the most direct threat to the u.s. homeland and global economy. thus, and must remain a priority and be resourced appropriately. we appreciate this committee's continued strong support and particularly as it pertains to our budget request and the funding provided. but across centcom, the department of defense. we could not do what we do on a daily basis without that support. meanwhile, the team at u.s. central command is focus on doing what is necessary to protect our natural interests and those of our partners. our strategic approach is straightforward, prepare, pursue, prevail. we prepare the environment to ensu

i think we are heading back to the strength of the nationstate and that being the supranational dreamtion is whether you can have that move back to national sovereignty within the european union, or whether it is contradictory. the -- had the fx call of quarter when he talked about a stronger strewing right at the bottom. up it went. bob has reaffirmed our reversal and put parity into the future. what is your call? ?ill it stretch will it be a euro parity? a weaker euro? the eurozone is getting better. everyone said and has been saying that the eurozone will fall apart. the ecb is dovish by the prime minister's delay to keep the french press in check. but the ecb does have to turn a corner. they will, at some point, see tapering towards the end of the year and you have the german elections, which will finally unleash some the spending. so we do think that europe is turning the corner and banks are stronger. i see it stronger. and in the dollar space, i do see risk over the implementation of trump policies. even in the sterling, no one is focusing on the fact that the u.k. has not said

everyone benefited from this enterprise of slavery, from the crewmembers to the planter elite to the nationstates. the other thing to think about is, why would someone serve on a slave ship? was it to gain passage to the new world? to feed their family? or was it because they thought this was morally ok and want to make money? when you open that book, you find that many crewmembers committed suicide and many ran away. host: you can join in on facebook.com/cspan. all of our programming is available online at any time at www.c-span.org. our next caller is charlie from caller: thank you, miss elliott, for entertaining my phone call. my question is, why are we not having more open discussions about the democratic party's role in creating racism and segregation as a result to maintain the institution of slavery and to prevent african-americans from matriculating into mainstream america? creating racism to prevent african-americans from mature chelating into mainstream america. mary: what i love about this museum -- and that's a great question -- is we look at this almost in a 360 way. look at all the