radio at. -- radio ap. >> next, a panel discussion on global affairs and the u.s. economy. >> welcome. -- was the chief correspondent of the wall street journal. before we get started, please note the council is an independent, nonprofit organization takes no institutional positions. views expressed are their own kelley o'hara -- their own. we will have a 30 minute discussion and then we will be taking questions. simply enter at your browser. you will be able to submit a vote for a question there. i would like to welcome our panelists. ian bremmer is the president and founder of the eurasia group. each year, eurasia group offers an evaluation. zanny minton beddoes, and ivo daalder, welcome all and to what. i wanted to start by asking zan ny to assess each other's top risk or projection for 2021, then ask ivo. zanny, you first. eurasia group put 46 with an asterisk -- following a trump presidency many democrats believe russian agents one for him, such a political reality has never occurred in another g7 country, but it is the reality of the world's most powerful democracy today. so, facing an agreed deposition loyal to the trump brand, biden will find more difficult to govern at home and more difficult to leave -- lead abroad. "the economist" assessment is more upbeat, but i would be interested in hearing your read. what are the implications of the deep divisions in american politics for u.s. allies and beyond, especially after last week's events? zanny: i guess when ian and his colleagues were writing the prediction even they could not have imagined the events of the last week. to some degree, the asterix presidency has taken off in a way that legitimizes the concerns ian laid out. i would argue almost because it was as bad as it was and is as bad as it is now, it is in some sense making it more likely that a more optimistic take comes to pass to think there is a chance for catharsis in the republican party that 10 days ago i thought was less likely. i think president biden will start -- remember, there was good news last week from the perspective of the biden administration, the two victories in georgia. the biden presidency starts with the democrats have been control of the house and senate. it starts with revulsion at what happened last week. it starts with president trump in a very, very different position from where he was a week ago, and who knows what will happen in the next few days. i think there is actually a chance for progress. it is an extraordinarily divided country. 75 point americans voted for donald trump. there is huge support for his brand of republicanism, if you want to call it that, and he commands widespread loyalty, but i would submit that has probably taken a dent. i think what has happened is there is much greater potential now for the center -- the center being the sensible ring of the democratic party and republicans that would like to deal with democrats. i do see a silver lining in these awful, awful events. i think you go in one direction. i am more of beat, i was -- upbeat. i was more of the then -- upbeat than ian when he wrote that, and more upbeat now. >> you wrote and the chat, no pe.. the economist has fights over vaccines as number one on their list of trends to watch. how are you assessing vaccine distribution here globally, and beyond questions of equity, can we beat back the pandemic anytime soon and have a global economic recovery if developed countries have to wait for a year or even two to start vaccinating their own people? ian: it is a problem. it would be number one on our list if we did not have vaccines. we do think that we are rolling them out. we do not have a vaccine for political division in the united states or dysfunction pet i don't think biden's election is that vaccine, that is why it is number one. we also have a very significant new strain of coronavirus, and i looked at the numbers in ireland the last five weeks -- o, my god. it went from 9% to 43% in four weeks. that will happen in the u.s.. having said that, this virus affects 10% of the population really badly, and the rest not so much, so we don't need to vaccinate everyone before we really change our view on the impact of coronavirus. israel has already done it. uae is close. u.s. is almost at 3% and within two months we will get there. the first quarter will be hell, then it will pick up a lot. for me, when i look at the whole year, and zanny have to look at the whole year, coronavirus is it, but to respond to zanny's point, i don't think we have hidden the netgear -- the nadir. we have the fbi korea -- providing credible information on all 50 u.s. capitals and washington, d.c., not puerto rico, with armed demonstrators plans on showing up. we see platforms -- i'm sure we're going to talk about this -- by far the most meaningful thing that has been done to him -- impeachment will largely be a party line vote. this is, i think, going to reduce the support for trump, but not by much, and will make the hard support for trump angrier and more violent. i am somewhat more optimistic because we now have a 50/50 with in the senate. that does mean trillions of dollars of support for both red and blue states that are facing bankruptcy for working-class people -- $2000 checks for each person -- a family of four, that is a significant mandate. that does make me feel a little bit better, both on the covid said, the economic aggradation that comes with that and on the u.s. division. what we are seeing in our lifetime in the u.s. is truly unprecedented, and i see nothing that reflects an actual six. by the way, one thing we did not write about that i am concerned about is that biden has lost more than a step in the last four years and we have not had to deal with it because he was able to campaign largely from his basement. he will not be able to do that as he becomes president. god for bid something significant happens to biden in the coming months, because the level of this information that comes out against him -- disinformation that comes out against him in this environment is really real and that is nowhere in our projection, but just among us girls, we can do that. zanny: can i jump in to make one thing clear -- we had a list of 10 things, we have some holistic views of the year, the world in 2021, so you did ask what is the single most important thing, vaccines is one, but i think the biggest question is after the crisis year that is 2020, and it will be right up there with 1945, 1989 as a pivotal year in global history. the pandemic coupled with the election that kicked out donald trump -- the question for 2021 is do we grab the opportunity for the crisis and do we grab the chance to reshape the world in fundamental ways. there are four big areas that echo very much what ian has on his list and one is the area of geopolitics when we saw a big shift. one is the tech acceleration -- we have transformed the way we work, live, communicate, and the third is whether we view the challenge of climate change, the single biggest challenge facing our country and our planet and if we address in the quality, which the pandemic has exacerbated. maxine is an important -- vaccines are an important part, and he gets back to the question of whether biden 46 asterix can do it, but the broader question is can the u.s. grab the opportunity and that is the biggest single? for this year. >> that raises two questions. i was going to an --ask ivo one, no foreign actor has made it into the list, but do you have a candidate and not that i want to influence your answer are you surprised that neither the russians or chinese plan -- seem to be taken advantage of the cason washington, d.c.? i have continuity of government questions there, but to muddy the waters, do you think biden will be able to address the reordering that will be needed, or will he be so focused domestically that they really don't have the bandwidth to do it? we know the players in this group. ivo: that is a lot of questions and they are all good. let me tell you what i am most worried about, gets in part two the answer that you asked. what i am most worried about is the challenge that zanny puts forward, we will fail, and we're entering in 2021 the post liberal era, and in many ways we have lived in an liberal era depending how far back you want to go, the 17th century, but certainly the 19th century onwards, the big powers are the liberal powers, and i worry about the acceleration of this trend, both because of the pandemic and its mismanagement, not only by the united states, but frankly by virtually every western, european-oriented democracy. there are some exceptions -- australia, new zealand, and the asian democracies have dealt with it much better, but for the rest it has been a pretty horrific set of events. then i think the liberalism we see in our own domestic politics, which, in this case, came forward on january 6 in ways that are difficult to imagine, but there is a logical outgrowth of the liberalism that we have seen for a very long time, and democracy is on the defensive, and autocracy is on the offensive. no one had a better year than xi jinping and china. no one did. and, by the way, in order to culminate the end of the year, they were able to convince the europeans to sign on to an investment agreement even after the biden people had said maybe not necessarily the right thing to do right now. so, i worry about -- and that is where china comes in -- much more than russia, where it is just a different kind of power, that china will effectively lead and anti-liberal, illiberal effort and we, because of the domestic politics that are not working very well at home here in the u.s., and frankly in europe as well, and because of the massive problems we have in terms of inequality, in terms of economic recovery, and, i think, the vaccines are going to take a little longer. it will take more time -- there's we will not be out of it in 2021, of which time the chinese will have accelerated their games -- gains. it is a larger piece. it is not just china versus the net states or china versus the west, which is how pompeo and the trump administration, a very start, cold war, silly way of looking at it. it is about a toxicity and liberalism losing because liberal powers are on the defensive. >> certainly biden speaks in those terms and there has been a talk about a summit of democracy and he seems to understand in those terms, missing a step or not. you know the players. we have seen them before -- obama administration people, which i personally find quite reassuring because they seem to be competent and prepared to play, do you think this is a bandwidth issue in part -- what you see of their ideas to go take this fight to autocracy? ivo: i think ideologically they are committed, but the problem is the u.s. has lost its fight. that requires a significant change in how we think about how we think about a democracy that a minority has prevented the majority from governing, at least in the way that we want to, and that kind of change is necessary. it is the adoption of hr one, which is the big change in how we conduct congressional elections, and reasserting our liberal credentials because they have been damaged pretty significantly. never before have we had a president who decided that when he lost he was going to take a -- the country in a major part of the country into a confrontation with institutions because he did not like the result, and that is a pretty big problem, and unless we find a way to solve it here at home, our credibility to make the liberal case abroad will be weakened, if not undermined. carla: so, you are with china. your number four is rotting u.s.-china -- broadening u.s.-china tensions, and you have it playing out on three fronts, tension with the u.s. and its allies, a competition to heal the world, and a competition to green and, -- it. the way biden talks about china, it is not that they are less concerned with china -- maybe in a less silly way, but they talk about dealing with the allies. you seem to suggest that has a dangerous potential to it. can you talk more about that? ian: this ties nicely with what ivo said. we know china is expected to surpass the u.s. by 2028 instead of five years later because of what happened with coronavirus. using pain, who was feeling a little dicier -- asian ping, feeling a little dicier, seeing what is happening now with the transfer, he is looking more solid internally. where they are with the coronavirus, vaccines, and the economy -- and this dual situation -- it is all about building -- it is a problem. they like the g0 formulation, sadly because their view is the net states is no longer exceptional, defensible, no longer the global leader, and by the way, no one can do it -- i think the g0 is bad. i want us to get out of it. they think it is good and they think it plays well with them. i fed conversations with chinese leaders over the last couple of weeks -- i think it is a problem because it means a lower common denominator for governance, human rights, standards -- it means western let architecture continues to erode. it becomes harder for the nets to effectively coordinate with allies, and ivo mentioned that already. my concern is very close, that the united states is not going to be able to effectively provide the kind of leadership on standards and values and governance that we have historically that allowed us to win the cold war. we won the cold war because our ideas were better. our government was something other countries looked up to. my j curve -- germany, japan, canada, the net states, we are on the upper right of the j curve. japan, germany, canada, are still largely there. we are not. our institutions have eroded significantly. we are not an authoritarian regime. we are not hungry. but we are no longer in the same position in terms of how rigged our institutions look, how do legitimize they have come when we think about the role of impeachment in the united states , the think about the legislature, the legislature, the media, social media companies -- this is significant and it is the work of a generation to you wrote it, and it will be the work of regeneration, if we can, to rebuild it, to repair it, and it does not mean going back to where we were before. that is not possible. that is my general view. if there is a split here, it is probably that ivo and i are more on the negative side. i would be surprised if richard haass -- he has said on the 100th anniversary of the council of foreign relations, it is the end of u.s. exceptionalism -- we are done. i don't think we are quite there. anyway, that is a little bit for me. zanny: so that this does not turn into a depression fast -- as the non-american here, first of all, i am not as pessimistic as either of you, particularly as ivo, and i would have shared your analysis 100% had donald trump won the election. arrow of liberalism, probably over, but he did not win the election. he will not be president after january 20. yes, we're all completely shocked by what has happened. yesterday may be more violence to come. yes, it is unbelievable, the scenes we are seen around the world and the u.s. capitol -- absolutely, god's mckinley -- god-smackingly depressing, but there will be a different president, different congress, a long period of rebuilding but it is in -- and immeasurably better situation than had he won the election. that alone gives me more optimism in the two of you are showing. second, this is a perspective -- i might have shared your perspective more had i been living in the u.s. -- when you are outside of the u.s. it is easier to see how much the rest of the world is just craving for the u.s. to start playing that role again -- is desperate to go back to the view that the u.s. is the shining city on the hill. we are not naive. we can see the things that are not working well, but the u.s. can assume that position without hr one. we can debate the merits of different institutional reforms in the u.s., but that is not what is driving the rest of the western world. the world of democracy desire for u.s. leadership. the u.s. coming to the table and playing a positive role in contrast to what it has been doing the last four years will change things dramatically. i am not naive global -- naive enough to think we are going to go to a code by ya world. -- come by ya world. i think the potential is there. i also think the biden team, as you said, there are people who have played before, who are serious, grown-up. that alone puts the world in a better place. i am not rose-tented -- it is a huge challenge. given the position, china is an extraordinarily strong position. even there, it will be the year of chinese growing, showing off the merits of their system, but they are feared around the world, not loved. they are not a power of example. people do not want to have that form of government. i think they will take their vaccines, kowtow to china if they don't think they can rely on the united states, but there is plenty of potential for asian democracy, traditional allies to work together more into want to be in the, kind of, western camp, if you will. i think it is more of for grabs than the two of you thinks. if the u.s. is unable to exercise leadership, unable to think about the buy america debate -- i think it can be lost. i think they can be pushed in a better direction and it is clearly the administration and the country that is better positioned to do that. carla: as an ambassador, zanny has brought you an opportunity here to say that our allies and more people than that in the world are still yearning for american leadership. what do you tell biden about that, where do you tell them to start, and how do you tell them how to calibrate it? i think you are still muted. ivo: i don't disagree that this outcome of the election is far preferable than the alternative, and indeed the alternative would have put a period and an end to an era in a way that biden's election and the team he is bringing along offers an opportunity to an alternative course. it is one to be very hard, in part because yes, the allies, and again, the western democracies are your earning for an america that is normal again -- that they can interact with, a washington that ambassadors can go and talk to people in the state department, the white house, and what they hear is actually consistent with each other, and a degree of normality, all of which is extraordinarily in portland for the relationship to -- important for the relationship to work, but i worry about every ally, everyone who comes to washington and interacts with biden thinks about how long will this one last, what will come after four years, and how do i hedge in case something is deeply broken in the american political fabric, because something is completely broken in the american political fabric. it wasn't torn, which is what trump's election would have done, but there are some big rips in it. i think it is very important as an indicator. here is the eu, that as its first act in the post-election period publishes a major document about how we can work with united states to deal with the major problems in the world, including on china, and secondly signs an agreement with the chinese because -- yes, because of exports and merkel wanted it, and all of that, but why? because they don't want to be dragged into a cold war situation and they worry the united states is going to have that policy, even under biden -- that you need to have some degree of strategic autonomy, some degree of independence, some degree of determination, so the challenge -- to your question, carla -- the challenge in the part of the united states is how you reassure our friends, partners, and allies around the world that we are not only saying we're back, but we are back? and with that, i think there are two things you need to do. one, you need to be far more deferential to the views and perspectives other countries bring -- a much more shared form of leadership, and, frankly, putting the responsibility for leading not only on the united states but your friends and allies around the world, including our asian friends, but certainly you have to fix what is broken in the country, and i think it is very important that there be a mastech agenda renewal. -- domestic agenda renewal. i agree with zanny in what you laid out on geopolitics, covid, but i would argue on liberalism, democracy, elections, bringing back truth in terms of our politics, those are big things we have to fix in the united states to make it possible. i don't want to leave the impression that we can't do it, but it is a big job, and i am not, you know, convinced that we will necessarily succeed. ian: i want to jump in on this because it was a really important point it by both of you. number one, the ability of biden to have a honeymoon is clear. he will rejoin all of the multilateral architecture, and a lot of other countries, allies, are desperate to see anyone but trump, and i agree that will make form -- four good headlines. having said that, the leaders i have spoken to around the world since the events of january 6 have said two things to me, basically. the first is shock. the first is -- and a feeling of disappointment, which in a sense has a silver lining because disappointment implies these are people that think we can do better, that still want to believe in us. i agree with you, zanny on that, but they have also asked me what is going to happen? something is obviously going to be done as a consequence of this, right? and my answer is google, facebook, and you saw how merkel and the crown respond -- macron responded to that -- they should not have de-platform to him. this is a job for your country, congress. i think we need to ask a much broader question, and zanny, your magazine will be a piece of this, to what degree liberalism is sixable in this environment -- fixable them this environment, and i think we are saying we are not sure. certainly the role of media, social media, and tech companies this not seem aligned with a healthy, civil society. it is not compatible in my view as it is set up today. it does not mean it cannot change. we are not presently on a path. today's capitalism does not seem compatible in the united states as it exists with a liberal society. it could change. a lot of people talking about it. i don't think biden is the one that will make a change, but that is an interesting discussion. i think it is clear that at least for right now, china's model, as dystopian as it is, seems vastly more sustainable than a lot of western observers had presumed for decades. so, we need to blow up the presumptions of all of those western, you know, sort of, theorists, that said china, as they get wealthier, they will either become liberal like us or they will fail. that was all wrong. meanwhile, there is a sense everyone becomes like the united states because we have the answers for governance. ashley, it turns out everyone has changed and if our solutions do not change with it, it is not clear how sustainable our model is. it is a fundamental questioning of so many of our institutions, so many of our values, and i do not yet feel comfortable at the beginning of 2021 that we are on a path to addressing them. zanny: this risks descending into a political philosophy argument, which is probably not what you want to have -- carla: i'm a political scientist. zanny: i totally agree with you there was far too much hubris in the argument that china will become more liberal as it got richer. that clearly proved not to be the case. i think liberalism, small l liberalism is distinct from what many americans mean by little, but liberalism in the sense you are describing it is the process of constant evolution and the liberalism of the early 19th century is very different than the ones we have today, and it is about adapting by argument, by debate, improving the process -- belief in debate, rule of law, democracy, all of those things. i think it was a testing time after the last few months, brexit and the election of donald trump showed there was anger and frustration with the status quo. the challenge for liberals with a small l is to redefine the terms of a social contract to ensure that the rule of law and western democratic approaches are sustainable in the 21st century, and i think we have a lot to do. you have laid out some of them. rethinking competition, policies, and monopolies in a 21st-century -- in the publication you said, i wrote this initial assay at the beginning, and i think we are in a precarious -- can we re-create the 21st century version of the progressive era? there was a lot of political reform. can we do the 21st century equivalent? i agree that it is hard to do this, but i would not count out liberalism per se. the record of the last 100 years says that is not a wise thing to do. i'm not putting my money on chinese success versus liberal democracy. carla: ok. we promised we would get to some of the questions from some of the people that have followed our instructions and submitted questions, and we have quite a fuel and there is a yearning for optimism among some of these questions. i will tell you that among the hearing for optimism questions -- yearning for optimism questions is if there is a chance the u.s. and china were actually cooperate on climate change and make some real progress. is that, perhaps, a possibility of some institutional building out there, and real progress on climate change? zanny: my quick answer would be yes, i do think there is a potential for that. again, not given, but very clearly a potential. the chinese have committed to 2064 net zero. they have put a step forward. if there is an ambitious approach to the whole system of climate discussion, i think progress can be made there. my one worry has less to do with the biden team than the fact that the process is being run them i own government, whose competence i am not wildly enthusiastic about, so it might be sure incompetence that leads us to do less there than otherwise. ian: i agree. i think the chinese government wants it. they understand there are big fights, but biden just appointed carrie, who certainly thinks he should have been president and much smarter than biden. the chinese think they can make an end run around lots of working level challenges with the americans who -- if they can get in with kerry, who wants the nobel prize for doing something. remember, we want to own whatever space we are in, and that is still the modus operandi for when bureaucrats it themselves in united states. under obama the first time, we worked to become the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels. that biden is working in a different direction, there will be a lot of people looking at what comes after fossil fuel's -- whether it is windy, solar, electric vehicles, and they will recognize the chinese are dominant in all of those fields. this is an area where we can work together, we should, but it is also an area of very great power competition between the two of us. not clear how that plays out. it'll be interesting space. carla: here's is a slightly less optimistic question, which is how is the biden administration likely to deal with the massive russian cyber attack, and certainly they have to deal with the nuclear treaty, extend the new start immediately -- they have 15 days after the inauguration, but after that, they have a really big question here, which is this massive cyber attack. ivo: the question for the biden administration is going to be what was that attack? was it an attempt to spy on our government and private sector, or was it an attempt to attack, either now or in the future, the united states in one form or another, because there is a fundamental difference between espionage, which we all engage in, and warfare, and the question is was it an attack, or was it something else. carla: was it noise -- is that what you are saying? ivo: here's the problem. we play this game, and probably better than they do, or, frankly, than anybody else does, and being in the spy business is dirty business, and it means that things will happen, particularly when it happens in the cyber community particularly when it opens up avenues, vulnerabilities for potential attacks, and that was true, by the way, when you had spies in cabinets, leadership positions in the past. you could have done a lot of damage, and people decided they wanted information rather than to do damage. that is the fundamental issue, it seems to me, and although the rhetoric of the biden transition team has been we need to find a way to respond -- it is a war, attack, i think they will find that may be more difficult than they fear. that said, this was a massive intelligent -- intelligence failure to allow this to happen. the reality that it was a private company that not only caused the problem, but also discovered it raises real questions about our investment in the nsa, the people that were there, and the ramifications may well be domestic in the first instance. secondly, when you are caught spying, there are certainly -- there are ways to retaliate and deal with it, like throwing people out, or closing opportunities for more spying in the future. my sense is that is what it will head as opposed to a military or any other economic, kind we have two more minutes. actually, one minute. we are going to go to final jeopardy here. which is a short answer. this yearning for optimism, it is the most up a voted question -- upvoted question, how soon do we get back to normal life, and will we get back to normal life? so, who wants to go first? >> i will get that. we are in a new one normal. is not going to be a return to the new normal -- to the old normal. -- we are in a new normal. there is not going to be a return to the old normal. >> yeah, i am super excited about we have better vaccines than anyone in the epitome a logical field thought possible. -- epidemiological field thought possible. in relatively short order. some weeks, some months. but this year for the united states, what a wonderful thing, we will beat this disease. in that regard, for a lot of people, getting back to normal is, when can we see our loved ones? just knowing, once you have the people over 75 and they have gotten vaccinated, you don't have to worry about them going to the grocery store, think about it. i was on a phone call the other day with family, and 75-year-old's in chicago are just about to get vaccinated. the stress that came out of that call for all of us knowing that they are going to be ok, we are all going to have that in short order, thank god. >> yeah, i think in terms of the interpersonal new normal, you know, people you have not seen for a year, being able to do that in relatively short order, i think that is true. that is huge. it will -- it will be less burden for different reasons. i also agree it is a very different world. and i think we have a challenge. i think the challenge is, how do you adapt liberalism to the new reality? and how do you make a liberal is a triumphant again. i think it is exactly the right thing to do. we will have many obstacles. i'm less optimistic on the longevity of the vaccinations. i think it's more likely down the path, but we are safer than we are today. i think we should all be dedicated. we as an institution, i know the economist long has been and will continue to be the small liberal cost and changing. i know that is true for ian. if we have people like this all dedicated to doing it, we may actually succeed, which would be great for all of us. >> i look forward to panels in person. thanks to everybody who tuned in live via zoom. a recording of this conversation will also be available on the social channels shortly. a special thanks to you for joining us this afternoon for a smart and challenging conversation. let's all hope for a better 2021. thank you all so much. >> thanks, guys. announcer: on tuesday, one day before the inauguration, watch senate confirmation hearings for three incoming biden administration nominees. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, janet yellen previously served as chair of the federal reserve. at the same time, 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, the secretary of homeland security. if confirmed, he would be the first latino and immigrant as homeland security secretary. later in the day at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the confirmation hearing for lloyd austin for defense secretary. if confirmed, he will be the first african-american secretary of defense. watch live coverage of the confirmation hearings on c-span and c-span2, on demand at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. ♪ announcer: wednesday, joe biden will be sworn in as the 46th president of the united states and our nations capital. in light of the attack on the capital and the temporary closing of the national mall, the traditional inauguration ceremony has been modified. follow our live coverage as the day unfolds, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. watch the arrivals at the capitol, the swearing in of joe biden and kamala harris, and the inaugural address. the inauguration of joe biden, beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday. live coverage on c-span and c-span.org. or listen live on the c-span radio app. announcer: kansas governor, laura kelly, talks about the vaccine distributional process in her state of the state address. she also talks about telehealth and investing in small businesses and infrastructure. >> i know it is not just my family that has had to change our rituals and gatherings, we have all had to adjust. we've all had to get creative with problem solving. we have been forced
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
