MATTIS SECRETARY: Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to today’s event, a conversation between former Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and our current Secretary of State Tony Blinken. At a time when America is shaping its role in a changing world, today’s conversation in the best tradition of the great university where we meet offers a unique opportunity to investigate important issues.
I’m Jim Mattis, a Fellow here at Hoover, where we seek to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity while protecting peace. Thanks to their history of dedicated service to our nation, these two patriots need little introduction. America is one big, big, promising, exciting, inspiring, and exhausting experiment with all the political instability inherent in a free and open society.
Admirable leadership in our republic calls for certain characteristics: first, a humble awareness of the responsibility of each generation to improve on this experiment to form a more perfect union; and secondly, competence. The two citizens at this stage are examples of both characteristics. Dr.’s contribution cannot be summed up. Rice over many years of leadership in a few words. Sure enough, due to merit, conviction, and a keen insight into the world we must live in, he rose to the top of our government, ultimately splitting eight years of leadership between service as our National Security Advisor and as our 66th Secretary of State. We are proud to call her head and coach in the Hoover team.
Secretary Blinken has also accumulated a long portfolio of foreign affairs experience before becoming our Secretary of State. Shortly after graduating from Harvard and Columbia he entered government service, eventually serving as the Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Secretary of State following his time on Capitol Hill, where he served as staff director The Senate Foreign Relations Committee. .
In a recent conversation with graduates, he suggested that if they are going to spend much of their lives at work, then they should work on something they love. Our nation is fortunate that these two leaders are devoting their best efforts to something they love, America. In doing so, their leadership by example reminds all of us that government service in a democracy is both a privilege and a responsibility. As problem solvers during these turbulent years, their leadership built trust in tackling extremely complex issues. Holding our values above all else, they have dealt pragmatically with a rapidly changing world filled with the good, the bad and the ugly.
They have done so by listening and maintaining respect for those who disagreed with them, strengthening a necessary attribute for leadership in a democracy. Today’s discussion will focus on the evolution and importance of technology, diplomacy, and national security – familiar topics here in Silicon Valley and highly relevant across our nation and around the world.
The Hoover Institution was founded to promote the principles of freedom. We ask bold questions and offer answers to help guide American policy at home and abroad. In that spirit and consistent with Stanford’s role of promoting the free competition of ideas, let’s get started. Talk first, then question and answer. Once again, a warm welcome to Secretaries Blinken and Rice. (Applause.)
SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you very much. But before we begin, I have to say that that gentleman, Secretary Mattis, served as our Secretary of Defense but also many years of service as a Marine, something that was also carried by the great patron of this place, George Shultz. And so I would like you to give Secretary Mattis a hand, please. (Applause.)
Welcome. Welcome to Stanford. Welcome to Hoover. Welcome to Silicon Valley.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: It’s great to be back. Thank you
SECRETARY RICE: And it’s probably nice to be here, right?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: There’s something about getting out of Washington once in a while that’s not a bad thing. (Laughs.)
SECRETARY RICE: Yes, it’s a good thing. Good thing, right. (Laughs.)
Well, we’re going to have a chat and then we’ll open up for some questions and answers. I’m still a teacher; I’ll call someone if no one raises their hand – (laughter) – so get ready with your questions.
You’ve just had a pretty critical week, and I don’t just mean what’s going on in the world, but I mean the release of the National Security Strategy. And for those who don’t follow these things fully, I believe the National Security Strategy is an opportunity for the President to really ask his team: What should we be doing now to prepare for a better future? And the National Security Strategy has a number of elements that I’d like you to talk to, and I’m going to start with one that is near and dear to the heart of every secretary of state probably going back to our long-. Thomas Jefferson’s long-time predecessor. In case you didn’t know, he was the first secretary of state.
But you start with talking about American values but also the competition between autocracy and democracy. Can you elaborate a bit on how you think about this moment? The United States has had many rivals throughout its history, but at this particular moment, how do you think about this big issue?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, first let me say how wonderful it is to be back at Stanford, to be with my friend Dr. Rice. Jim, I have been an admirer of yours and your leadership for many years, and today you reaffirmed again why you have such a strong, powerful, eloquent voice. It’s great to be with you. Thank you
And first of all, I’m wondering: Do you have classes? (Laughter.) What – do you get credit? (Laughs.)
One of the things that I think is almost visible to us right now is that we are at an inflection point. And to put it in broad perspective, the post-Cold War era is over and intense competition is underway to shape what comes next. That’s the moment we think we’re living in.
Part of this is the renewed but also new great power rivalry, and that is very central to the strategy. Part of this is trying to find ways, and in ways we haven’t done before, how to solve some really big challenges that actually have a direct impact on the lives of our people, whether it’s global health – and we’ have been living through COVID – whether it’s the impact of climate change, whether it’s the role of all the emerging technologies, so many of them coming from here, that are shaping our lives. All of that is reflected in the strategy.
Now, here – Dr. Rice and I worked on some of these in our time. Seldom have so many labored so long –
SECRETARY RICE: And you can drop Dr. Rice if you – okay, okay.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thank you. But rarely – I think we would both say that rarely have so many in government worked for so long on something that was read by so few. (Laughs.) But having said that, it is an important document because it tries to give coherence to what we do. And it’s important across government so that all the different agencies and departments work from the same blueprint, and internationally so that friend and foe alike have a good idea of what we’re all about. do it, why we do what we do, why we say what we say.
SECRETARY RICE: You talked about the great power rivalry, and this is something that I don’t think we ever thought we’d see again after the fall of the Soviet Union. But indeed it has come back and it has come back with force, and I would like you to address the two great opponents.
The National Security Strategy talks about stopping Russia and defeating China, and those are two very different ways of thinking about the great powers. So – and maybe you want to weave a bit of Ukraine into the Russia story, but can you start to stop Russia – some would say a declining power in the great power competition, but one that’s on the front pages now every day ?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: I think the decline of power is probably a fair assessment, but one that has enormous potential if it chooses to use it to do damage, to be a disruptor. And of course, we see that front and center on our front pages every day in Ukraine.
When we started – and again, we’ve both been dealing with this for a long time, and Condi knows more – in a way forgot more about Russia than I will know in many years of working on the issues this. I think a lot of administrations have come in with the hope that we could have a more stable, predictable relationship with Russia precisely because we have so many big things that we want to be working on that are going to improve the lives of our people and our people. Around the world.
However, Russia – especially under President Putin – is a major disruptor and one that can make huge trouble. We see that in Ukraine. But we see it in his fundamental opposition and Putin’s fundamental opposition to the order that emerged after two World Wars and then after the Cold War with a basic set of rules and principles that we thought were necessary to seek to preserve international peace and security.
This is in direct opposition to what President Putin is trying to do in reconstitution – choose a Russian empire or a Soviet one. And it manifests itself in the steps he has taken. We’ve seen this happen over almost the last decade. But for us – and I say this very briefly – the reason there is so much focus on Ukraine is twofold. One is Ukraine itself. I think it is very disturbing for all of us when one country tries to dominate another country, when it tries to assert a world that could make amends, where it changes borders by force, where it tries subjugate another country to their will. . That’s what happens.
But what is happening in this too: It is not only aggression against Ukraine. It is aggressive behavior against the basic principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a whole series of norms and rules that many generations have labored to build. And are they perfect? Far from it. Have we made many mistakes in their design and application? Yes. But fundamentally they helped make sure that we didn’t have another global conflict after two world wars. And what Russia is doing, what Putin is doing, is in direct opposition to those.
SECRETARY RICE: It’s not just your job, but there are Americans who say: Why Ukraine? How about Peoria or Des Moines? And you just talked about the rule-based order. Can you enlighten Americans on why this conflict is so important? Because this may go on for a while, and we may have to maintain American support and therefore democratic support for a long time.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: At least from my point of view, if we and others do not stand for these basic understandings, these basic rules, the idea that the independence of countries should be respected, that its territorial integrity should be respected, not changed by force; if we don’t stand up for that – and we can do that in a variety of ways, which we can come to – if we don’t stand up to that where it’s challenged, then the risk you have is opening Pandora’s. a box, where attackers – not only in Europe, not only Russia – will take a lesson and say: I can act with impunity; I can do this. And that is going to cause conflict in many parts of the world.
And the one thing we know from history is that it is inevitable, one way or another, that this pulls us in. And if we can do whatever we can to prevent rather than having to react and make sure that some of these rules are maintained – even as we try to modernize them even as we try to make sure that they reflect the world we live in, not just the world they were written in, which was in many cases 70 years ago – I think it’s clearly in our interest to do that. And that’s what we’re trying to show in Ukraine.
SECRETARY RICE: Okay. Let’s talk about the other superpower. I’ll come to regional power in a moment, but let’s talk about the great power, China. A big party congress is going on. Much at stake. Xi Jinping is likely to be crowned for his third term. And he has been quite a different Chinese leader. It used to be said of Chinese leaders, when I was there – Hu Jintao, Jiang Zemin before him – “hide and bide.” Keep developing China – the Chinese would always say, “Oh, we’re just a developing country; we don’t really do foreign policy.”
Well, Xi Jinping has a very different view on China’s role. And the 30-plus year integrationist narrative about China seems to be coming apart. You have called it an “extreme” China, which I think is an interesting concept. So talk about China and the US in this regard.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, you’re absolutely right. We have seen a very different China emerge in recent years under the leadership of Xi Jinping. It is more oppressive at home, it is more aggressive abroad, and in many cases that poses a challenge to our own interests, as well as to our own values. But I also think it’s important not to reduce this to a bumper sticker. This relationship is among the most consequential we have. It is among the most challenging we have. It is among the most complex we have. And what we have seen over the last few years is the appearance – or aspects that are clearly opposed to the relationship; certainly – and I will come back to it quickly – competitive aspects; but cooperative aspects also remain. And we can’t lose sight of those, because some of the very big problems that we have to find ways to solve are much harder to solve if the United States and China are not really trying to solve them: climate, global health, etc.
But the competitive aspect is front and center, because this, as I suggested, at least from our perspective, is a competition to shape what comes next after this post-Cold War period . What does it look like? Whose values are going to be reflected in what we do? And from our point of view at least, we have a fundamental choice, because we are discovering – and I think this has been obvious over the – especially over the period since the Second World War – that it is not the world organizes itself. And for the United States, the choice is this: If we don’t play a part in the organizing, if we don’t take a leadership role in that, then one of two things – either somebody else is, and it’s quite possible . being in China, and there, again, probably not in a way that fully reflects our interests and values; or perhaps just as bad, nobody does it, and then you tend to have a vacuum that fills with bad things before they are filled with good things.
So we’re interested in engaging, we’re interested in leading, and we’re interested in making sure that, to the extent that we’re competing against this new thing, that we bring everything to the table. In my own opinion, China also wants order, but it is a completely disorderly order. The order we seek – again, imperfectly – is a more liberal one, and that is the essence of that competition.
SECRETARY RICE: I’m going to come back to how we do this, because you talk a lot about investing in our own strengths —
SECRETARY RICE: — but I want to stay for a moment on the relationship with China. You gave a very good speech a few months ago where you talked about – I would call it a fairly nuanced approach to China. As you said, there are some areas of conflict, some areas of competition, and some areas of cooperation. Quite quickly, the Chinese came out and said: not going to happen – let me put it that way – because we cannot disconnect these things. Do you have some hope that there might still be room? Maybe after the party congress is over, maybe after our own version of the party congress, the mid-term, is over – then would there be room, and where would you see those potential areas of collaboration with China?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: The world basically expects this from us, so whether or not China wants to find ways to work together on particular climate, global health, maybe antinarcotics, even if they don’t want, there is a huge demand signal from the world. They expect us to try to find ways to move these issues forward, and if we can, together, because it affects them as well as us.
We know that we will not be able to deal with climate as we should if China is not part of the picture. It will have to be decided; we can’t decide about it. He has to decide if it is in his best interests, but he is also under pressure from others around the world to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
The same for global health. And it’s not about pointing fingers for the pandemic – it’s about figuring out how we build a safer global health system so this doesn’t happen again. China needs to be part of that solution. But he will have to judge for himself whether, in his relationship with us, he finds ways to pursue cooperation, whether he must be responsive to signs of demand that he is coming from countries all over the world to be a positive actor, not a negative actor, on issues that concern them – not just China, not just the United States.
SECRETARY RICE: We had reasonable cooperation at one time on another troublesome part of the world, North Korea. Obviously, it has been in the news again recently. Any thoughts on whether or not that scenario – it actually prevents proliferation. Do you really want nuclear weapons in the hands of, shall we say, troublesome regimes like North Korea?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: This has been a challenge going back every administration that I think we were all involved in, in one way or another, and one that has not obviously improved over the years. I think from the perspective of the leadership in North Korea, part of what we’re seeing is that it doesn’t like to be ignored.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: And so when the world is focused elsewhere, this reminds us: We are still here. We are still a problem. You have to deal with it.
But something else is also happening. Over the last few months, going back about a year, we have significantly increased our own work with our allies and partners in the region – South Korea, Japan – both on a bilateral basis where we, for example, have renewed exercises that we do. d stopped a few years ago – we brought them back, military exercises, to make sure we could defend and hopefully deter any kind of North Korean aggression – as well as work being done now in ways that it had not been in recent years among the United States, Japan, Korea together, which has many advantages, including bringing Korea and Japan closer together. I think Kim Jong-un saw that and didn’t like it, and he’s reacting to that.
We have taken a variety of steps, including at the United Nations, including strengthening our defense and deterrence even more, but it is an ongoing problem. And it goes, Condi, to exactly what you’re talking about, which is concerns about wider spread. Ultimately, one of the most important and powerful things about trying to continue to promote non-proliferation, non-proliferation, as well as our own arms control and being responsible actors under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is to make sure that we do not have a world where a wide variety of countries come to the conclusion that they are going to be better off if they acquire nuclear weapons that they do not have. And we know that’s a world that’s going to be even scarier. So we have to find ways to reinforce these norms, these rules, these standards that we are committed to and that require our engagement.
SECRETARY RICE: I’m going to get to technology in just a second, I promise you, but I’m going to get a lot of messages that say you didn’t ask him about Iran. Do you want to say just a word about that situation? It’s amazing times these days.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: What we’re seeing is – it’s really amazing. And it starts with the incredible courage of very young people, especially women and girls, who stand up for their most basic rights, their most basic freedoms, at extraordinary personal risk. And of course, we saw the obvious deaths of young women that led to this.
But what’s powerful about it is that this – on the ground, this is from the ground up. This is a reflection of huge frustration and huge anger that so many in Iranian society have towards the direction of their country and towards their leadership, and they demand change. This is not done in the U.S.A.; it has not been done anywhere else. To the extent that leaders in Iran are trying to point fingers and somehow blame us, they are grossly misreading and misunderstanding their own people and their own country, and that is going to be on their loss.
What can we do? First, we can stand and speak in solidarity with those who are trying to stand up for their own rights. Second, we can look at the various actors in Iran who deny those rights and do what we can to punish them for their actions. So, for example, we had sanctions that we introduced on the so-called morality police. And then perhaps most importantly, and this goes directly in many ways to this community, we want to make sure that we don’t do anything that gets in the way of making sure that Iranians have the ability to communicate with each other to’ the greatest extent possible. and connect with the outside world, and that comes with technology. So we’ve issued some licenses to make sure that we don’t do that, that people don’t feel that our sanctions prohibit them from having the technology that Iranians need to communicate with each other and with the world to the people of Iran.
SECRETARY RICE: A little more activist this time than in 2012?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Every period is a little different.
SECRETARY RICE: A little different, yes. Right?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: And I think – I think our voice has been very clear – not just our voice, our actions. And not just ours, countries all over the world. But fundamentally, this is about the people of Iran. It’s about their country. It’s about their future. They will decide on it. But we want to show in practical ways as well as rhetoric our solidarity with them in this moment.
RICE SECRETARY: So you’re sitting at Stanford University in the middle of Silicon Valley. A long, long history between this place and the valley. And you see and talk to the people who are really leading the technology revolutions. It goes way back here.
So in 2007 when I was secretary, I invited the then Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer here, and we have a little tour. And I got to – I got to drive an experimental car called a Tesla. (Laughs.) Alexander wouldn’t go into it. He wasn’t sure he wanted – well, I think it was probably the Australian secret service that didn’t want him in an experimental car. But in any case, that is now a familiar name, perhaps giving us answers on how to think about electric vehicles and climate change and so on.
But it says something very important about another part of the National Security Strategy, namely – which says investing in our strengths. Very often, we get into what I call authoritarian envy. They build great airports. Democracy is so messed up. But we forget that innovation has been from a place, the United States of America, which is the freest and most open. And so talk about investing in those strengths, protecting those strengths, and how that plays into the diplomacy that we have to do but also the national security that we have to achieve.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: It’s very simple, basic, and let me say a couple of things about this. First, we go back to this proposition that we are in a moment of intense competition to shape what comes next. Technology, innovation, entrepreneurship – they are at the heart of it. This is how we are going to reorganize economies for the future. This is how we are going to modernize the military as needed. This is, through technology, how we are literally reshaping people’s lives.
And so it goes fundamentally to our national strength, but it also goes to a positive vision for the future that can be extremely attractive to the United States around the world. Because as the technologies that are being developed here – and I was at the SLAC this morning, which is remarkable, even for someone who probably understood about 1 percent of what I was hears it – this really goes to America’s most positive role in the world.
As we invent; as you invent new technologies that are going to make sure that we can overcome disease and that we can actually strengthen global health and make sure that we don’t get COVID-19 again; as you find ways to make sure we have healthy and sustainable food supplies for people around the world who desperately need it and we live in a moment of intense food insecurity; as you look at ways to make sure we really develop the technology to ensure an energy future that is not dependent on fossil fuels; as you look at ways to ensure we have secure supply chains for future technology and good jobs for the future; if we continue to get that right, if we continue to lead on that, if we continue to be seen as an example to the world, that goes directly to our position around the world, our strength around the world in ways I can’t even begin to adequately describe.
So for us it starts with investing in ourselves. If you look at the so-called American Century, the second part of the 20th century, we were making these investments in ourselves in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s in education, in research and development, in science fundamental, in our infrastructure. And we moved away from that. And it is not to say at all that the government should be the one making all these investments. We are never going to compete with, for example, the Chinese model which dedicates all the resources of the state to a certain part of the economy, to a certain part of the world. But what we can do and do more effectively is make sure we make these basic investments and then help catalyze, help facilitate, and ultimately help get out of’ the way for the private sector to get on with things.
We’ve had two tremendous successes, at least from where I’m sitting, in the last few months, starting with the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, the fruit of remarkable work over many years by Republicans and Democrats alike to make sure we renew. these investments in ourselves. Much of the focus on chips, quite rightly, has gone to renewing our chip, semiconductor manufacturing capacity here in the United States, after subcontracting that out many years ago. But there are huge investments in basic science, basic research and development contained in the CHIPS and Science Act and the so-called Deflation Act, which have the biggest commitment to effectively dealing with climate change in the history of our country, more than $350 billion. Yet much of that goes to investments in our own innovative capacity.
So I think, Condi, that’s at the heart of our strength, and it shows why the connection between what’s happening here and what’s happening around the world is stronger than it’s ever been . Since we did CHIPS and since we did the IRA, I found that the conversations I have with peers around the world have changed. Now there is this view, wait a minute, maybe America is getting its act together and this is something we want to be a part of.
SECRETARY RICE: That’s the positive side of it, of course, that we’re investing in ourselves. But there is also a question that is constantly on the table about how much we have let out of the barn, so to speak, compared to the Chinese. They started down this path of indigenous development – in some ways it hasn’t gone that well. We keep reading about problems in their own high-end chip development and so on.
So how do you see the balance between investing in what we’re doing here and making sure it doesn’t escape there? And it’s actually particularly difficult for a secretary of state, because one of the things you don’t want to do is make people declare allegiance. That’s the fastest way to lose friends, to say you either choose China or us. That doesn’t work very well diplomatically.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: We both know that very well.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: And what we’ve been saying is this: We’re not asking people to choose; we want to give you a choice. And that means we have to have something to put on the table. A large part of what we are trying to do apart from the investment in ourselves, the other – the other side of that is trying to get more alignment with allies, with partners, with a wide variety of countries that may not even fits neatly in. the ally or partner category but who is interested in making sure that there is a basic understanding of the rules and that everyone plays by them. So we spent a lot of time trying to re-invigorate and revive – re-engage with our alliances, our partnerships.
We have also been inventing or enlivening new ones – new collections of countries that might be fit for purpose on specific issues; for example, ensuring that we have resilient supply chains, making sure that on semiconductors we invest together because so much of this work has to be collaborative as well, but also protective. And in the case of the top-end semiconductors – as you well know, only a small number of countries either manufacture the top-end semiconductors or make the equipment to produce the top-end semiconductors . We want to make sure we keep those where they need to be. So this alignment with other countries is trying to move in the same direction, trying to work together on formulating some of the norms, standards, rules for using technology, that is also an integral part of our national interest and our strength around the world.
SECRETARY RICE: This is a question that might require a rather boring answer, but this is a university, so it’s okay. We are used to boring answers. (Laughter.) So you talked about standards. And perhaps what is not fully understood is that there are international efforts, international organizations where the standards are actually written –
SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s right.
SECRETARY RICE: — for things like the internet, for questions about shipping and supply chains. And the United States has always had a reputation of being completely disinterested – completely disinterested in sending people to these conferences at the assistant secretary level to spend two years, three years writing standards.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s right.
SECRETARY RICE: Are you interested in this?
SECRETARY RICE: I have to admit: I wasn’t. OK. So now. (Laughs.)
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Condi, I have walked out on standards in the biggest way, and we are flooding the zone for that very reason. Somewhere in the world on almost any piece of technology that can be invented here, a group of people are sitting around a table in a windowless conference room writing the rules about how these will be used. And whoever writes the rules is going to have a powerful impact on the use of technology going forward.
To state the obvious, technology is neither inherently good nor bad; it could be the rules for using it. And we want to make sure, for example, in terms of protecting privacy, in terms of maintaining human rights, in terms of promoting our own security, but also improving our competitiveness, that the rules reflect that. And as the saying goes, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. We want to make sure we are at the table doing that. So, yes, this – sometimes it seems numb.
We spent a lot of time making sure – for example, there is competition for jobs in the international system, the people who actually come to these meetings. Their elections, or their appointments, including in the whole UN system – we spend a lot of time making sure that people who reflect our views and values compete and win those jobs. It really makes a difference. It seems callous, but it’s amazing how at the end of the day that’s going to shape the world too.
SECRETARY RICE: I guess I should go back and apologize to my undersecretary for economics who used to try to get me to pay attention. OK. So you have convinced me, because after all, this is really – when we talk about the competition and go back to autocracy versus democracy, if these are used in a certain way, they will be used in different ways from autocracies. So you take something like facial recognition, which might make it possible for you to go through an airport faster if you’re in the US, and China has a very different way. So I applaud your interest in this numbing part of it.
How does it come with others? You mentioned that we are now in the game, but when you think about special relations with the Europeans, we haven’t always had the greatest alignment with what you think should be our closest allies on things like privacy etc. So can you talk a little bit about the relationship with the Europeans? Has the amazing cooperation we are having around Ukraine at the moment affected him? Someone said that within a few months Vladimir Putin ended German pacifism and Swedish neutrality, which I think is probably true. But does it – does it have an effect?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: It’s amazing the extent to which Putin has deposited almost everything he says he wants to stop, especially in terms of the so-called Western world sticking together and actually getting stronger his cooperation across a wide variety of issues. I think we are making progress on this, because you are right, we have to find ways to make sure that we are more in line with other countries in terms of technology , starting in many cases with close partners in Europe as well as in Asia and then expanding outwards.
We have all these different constellations, groups, partnerships; one of them is something called the Technology and Trade Council with the European Union. And to put it in the simplest terms, this is a way of trying to ensure that we are all actually rowing in the same direction in terms of these norms, these rules, these standards, but also a wide variety of other things. If we have export controls on the top end technology that we believe should not end up in the hands of some of our competitors, including China, if we are the only ones doing it and others are not adhering to them, then it doesn’t go. to work. So we have to try to align there, and we are.
If we want to make sure, when we have concerns about some of the investment coming into our own countries that could be going to essential industries, essential companies, some that – that affect our security, we want to make sure that countries have. the tools to look at those investments and decide if this is something they want to move forward with or not. We are working on those together with the European Union. We think about critical supply chains and especially for semiconductors. We have seen what happened when these were disrupted. We are designing an early warning system together so that a flashing red light goes off and we can act on that if we see a disruption anywhere in the supply chain for a critical component – first in going to semiconductors but expanding to other technologies. each other. All these things bring us into closer alignment.
Now, having said that, we have differences of opinion, differences of perspective – just as we have within our own country, because obviously we don’t have a unified technology policy in our own country – which is always going to be there We also have a competition with some of our closest friends. We have – we compete with Europeans, but basically we both have the same interest in a system where there are people who abide by the basic rules; where privacy is respected, even if we have different views on how best to do so; where our security is maintained, where human rights are respected, and where we can improve our competitiveness. So the question is can we find ways to design those together, come to an agreement. And then finally this: Competition when it’s fair, when it’s fair play, when it’s a race to the top, is good. That is what our own system is all about.
So for us it doesn’t say, oh, we have to avoid competition with friends and partners and allies; on the contrary, it is about making sure together that competition is fair, that it is transparent, that it has workers’ rights in mind, that it has the environment in mind, that it has intellectual property protection in mind. And if we do that, then countries that don’t adhere to the same way of doing things will have to decide if they are going to enter the race to the top with us and raise their own standards, raise their own game – that’s good. for the world – or not.
SECRETARY RICE: So let’s go now from there to Foggy Bottom, to where you work, the State Department, and talk a little bit about how all of this affects the State Department. Let me say that when I left the State Department, there was virtually no smartphone, and I believe we still had — when I got there — Wang computers, believe it or not.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: I remember that.
SECRETARY RICE: You’re all too young to know what Wang’s computer was, so it makes sense to you. How in the world instead of some 20 years ago still having Wang computers going to play in this world of technology? What does it mean for diplomacy and what does it mean for the State Department?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: We must be, and we are doing everything in our power to be, to be truly fit for the purpose of this moment and the moments to come. And we both worked on this and looked at this – anybody comes into these jobs and they look at their own department or agency and try to figure out what I need to change, what makes sense. And we spent some time doing that. And I think we’ve come to a couple of conclusions that are reflected in what we’re doing.
First is that it’s just – you’re in these jobs for a certain period of time. You’re not going to – you’re not going to change everything and you probably shouldn’t, so you have to pick a handful of things that maybe you can make a difference on, get started, hopefully the it will continue when you are no longer there. That’s one.
Secondly, one of the biggest challenges we face is that the things that have a real impact on the lives of everyone in this room and all our fellow citizens are not necessarily the issues that the State Department has be front and center for them or have been considered. the expertise on. And yet, whether it’s climate, whether it’s health, whether it’s food insecurity, whether it’s energy, whether it’s economics, and whether it’s cyberspace and digital policy, this is not our bread and butter. And our bread and butter remains the issues of war and peace, preventing conflict, doing — helping end conflict where we can, making sure the American people are safe through diplomacy. But all of these issues are directly related to that.
So what we have done is that we are involved in modernizing the department to make sure that we are organized and attract the talent in a way that enables us to play a leading role on these issues. So, for example – and you will – Condi, you will appreciate this – in my opinion, record speed, we established a new center for cyber and digital policy in about six months. And actually, the ambassador who runs that, Nate Fick, who is actually a (inaudible) technologist, is with us today. This is how we make sure that we have a place where the expertise can come to in the department and, ultimately, that we can grow the expertise so that we can engage effectively on these issues.
We are in the process of doing something similar on global health. One of the most remarkable successes in American foreign policy over the past 25 years is something called PEPFAR, something that President Bush and Condi initiated to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis as well as the malaria and tuberculosis crisis. I don’t think there has been a program in the recent history of the United States Government that has saved more lives than PEPFAR. Now we have an opportunity to make sure that, coming out of COVID and inspired by what was done with PEPFAR, we build an even better platform for dealing with global health questions, and we want to sure the department is organized to do that. we attract the talent.
John Kerry is leading extraordinary efforts on climate, but we want to make sure that those are institutionalized so that we are, once again, a leader. Because here’s the thing – and again, you all know this very well – just like if we don’t lead and we don’t engage, we’re going to have a problem because someone else will does it or no one will do it; if we do not find new ways to cooperate, to collaborate, to work with other countries on these issues, we cannot achieve them. Climate – we account for around 15 per cent of global emissions. By definition, even if we were doing everything right at home, we have to find a way to deal with the other 85 percent. That means, among other things, diplomacy to bring others forward.
When we’re dealing with global health, when we’re dealing with COVID-19, we know we’re only as strong as the weakest link in the chain and even then, if we were doing everything right at home, if there is still an environment where a new variant is going to pop up somewhere around the world and we are not able to deal with that, we are not going to be protect our people. We have to find ways to work together and cooperate on that. And the technologies themselves, we are – we have to be the ones who help shape the way they are used.
That is all a function of diplomacy, and that is why I want to make sure that the department has the tools, that it has the organization, and that it has the talent to do it. So I’m here to proselytize a little too. (Laughter.) We want you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: We need you in the department. This is an opportunity to pursue so many of the things you’ve been studying, working on, and passionate about, but to do them – for those of you who are Americans – for your country . And for me, at least, I discovered – and I – Condi, I suspect you feel the same way – there are so many amazing things you can do with your passions and your activities, and you can do them in a variety of different ways. And there are different rewards in the different ways you do it. But at least for me, going to work every day literally and figuratively with the flag –
SECRETARY BLINKEN: – behind my back, I can’t even put a value on that. So for those of you who are interested in actually doing public service, even for a short period of time – and it seems like the State Department, what does that have to do with what I have interest in it – she has everything to do with it because almost everything that so many of you are working on here is directly relevant to what we are trying to do around the world. And we hope that a few of you will join us.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I was going to give you an opportunity for a recruiting pitch. I think we just got it. (Laughter.) But I want to join in I think there is nothing like public service. There is nothing like getting up in the morning and knowing that you are going to work and try to do your very best for this extraordinary country that we inherited, which we continue to try to perfect. And I don’t know about you, but whenever I got off a plane that said “United States of America,” I thought it was a pretty special moment. And so for all of you, especially those out there who might have some technical skills that might be needed, please consider that. There is nothing like public service.
SECRETARY RICE: With that, we’re going to open up for some Q&A, and I know we’re going to get plenty, so I’m going to take this first question up front.
QUESTION: Hello. Thank you very much for your inspiring comments, Secretary Blinken. I’m curious about what you see as the merits of diplomacy through multilateral organizations like the United Nations when their effectiveness in enforcing agreements and maintaining the international order has been somewhat uncertain.
SECRETARY RICE: And are you a student? Just to –
QUESTION: Yes. My name is Mac. I am a senior in political science.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: So thank you for the question, and it’s one that we work on every day. Look, starting with the United Nations, these organizations are only as good or as bad as the countries that make up their membership. And so, yes, there are some things that are inherent to the organizations themselves, and their leadership is really important. But fundamentally, the members have to help make them work or not, and you are absolutely right that we have seen dysfunctions of one kind or another in many of them. The UN Security Council because of this new great power competition is often at the forefront and as a result is often paralyzed.
But at the same time, incredibly powerful things are still happening. Just to give you one recent example, when Russia went ahead with its alleged annexation of territory in Ukraine, we went to the United Nations and we tried in the Security Council to get a resolution reflecting that. Of course, it was vetoed by Russia, although we had a strong vote among permanent and non-permanent members of the council. But then we went to the General Assembly, to the whole body of the United Nations, and an amazing thing happened: 143 countries of the world stood up against the annexation, to the fake referendums that Russia had used as justification for the annexation. attachments. And that in itself is a powerful indicator of where the world really is now on Russian aggression, something the Russians have to factor into their thinking. So there are – there are things you can still do and do effectively.
The other thing I would say is this: Day after day, one of the things that gets lost in the UN system is that there are different agencies that have their challenges but are doing things which we would have to do in their absence. directly ourselves or no one would do it. International peacekeeping has been very troubled, but there are places in the world where the so-called Blue Helmets are. I think there are about 100,000 police – who are part of UN peacekeeping. The US may have a small handful. These are people from other countries who take this on. If they didn’t, we might have to, or we would have to let these crises go in ways that would make them even worse. And on things like health, on the environment, on education, these agencies are doing really important things.
Our job is to try to make them do things better, more efficiently, more effectively, cut through the bureaucracy, cut through the corruption that is sometimes there, and work to try to make them a little better. But it’s a bit like our own situation, which is that we need to try to create a more perfect union, and it’s something we work on every day. But here, again, if we’re not actually there in the room, it probably won’t happen, and that’s why showing up, being – participating in this, even with all the frustrations and even age with all the criticism, I think that does. difference
SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Going to go to the students here – right here.
QUESTION: Hello, Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us today. My name is Divya Ganesan, and I am an undergraduate student here studying computer science and political science. My question to you is that many students in the room hope to be CEOs, software engineers, etc. How has diplomacy changed in a world where tech companies like Google and Facebook have networked diplomacy and real country soft power? And how should that affect the way we care about diplomacy?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: I think the single biggest change that I’ve seen in the 30 or so years that I’ve been doing exactly this is in the technology and information space, because one of the things – to to state the obvious – what has happened is that a whole series of new actors have been empowered with technology and the ability in one way or another to control information in ways that were not the case before.
And for those of us in government, this has profound, profound effects. Among other things, it means that if we can’t find a way to align with these different actors who have so much power, then we know that it will be easy to disrupt the plans that have been set best. So we have a big part to play in trying to make sure, to the best of our ability, that we are all rowing in the same direction. One of the reasons not only that I’ve been here for a couple of days but we stood up this new center is to make sure that we have connectivity day in and day out with this whole ecosystem.
And we are going to disagree, and there are disagreements between the public and the private. That’s not going to go away. But where we can find ways to work through the disagreements and come out in a place where we’re trying to move things in the same direction, that’s going to make our life easier; it’s going to make it easier for the policies we pursue to take root and be implemented. We – it’s in our interest, but it’s also the right thing to do to make sure that all the different stakeholders are in on any given problem and not just trying to bring them in on the landing because the plane. get into an accident But it is challenging work, and sometimes there are different interests at stake, and we have to find ways to reconcile those. It’s going to be very imperfect, but what I can tell you is that it’s more important than it’s ever been. Otherwise, we are not going to make progress.
So – but this is the other thing I’ve heard, and I’ve been coming out here for a long time. My strong sense is that because of the many motivations people have for the work they do, so many people want to be in one way or another of something bigger than themselves. They want to be positive actors in solving problems that affect all our citizens. And this place, perhaps more than any on Earth, has been such an incredibly positive actor in doing that.
Now, there are other things that are less positive from some points of view. But I can’t think how we answer this challenge now of renewed competition for how the world is going to look over the next 25, 50, or 100 years if we don’t do it together with what is at the heart of our national. strength. And that is what comes out of this part of our country.
SECRETARY RICE: In the blue shirt over here. We’ll take a couple quick – keep it short because I’m going to try to take one more question.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My name is José Raíz, and I am an undergraduate student studying political science and economics, and I am originally from Mexico. I would like to draw our attention to an area of the world that has not been discussed in this conversation, Latin America, my own home region, where a lot is happening – the increasing influence of China in investment in countries such as Ecuador and Argentina , not to mention drug violence in my own home country, Mexico. Given how close Latin America is geographically to the United States, I wanted to know what US policy should be in this region in the coming years.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Few countries have a greater impact on each other’s daily lives than the United States and Mexico. We know it. We feel it. We see it every day. As it happens, just last week we had our senior Mexican counterparts in Washington where the Attorney General, Homeland Security Secretary Ali Mayorkas, myself, were working with them on something that we reestablished, which is a security dialog. How do we work together to get a better handle on challenges to security in our two countries that have plagued us for many years – drugs coming this way, guns going that way, money fueling the whole thing . And if we don’t work on these things together, we’re not going to succeed.
And I think the collaboration now with Mexico has been quite extraordinary. Migration – we live through a period that is – we throw out the word “historical.” This is a historic period in terms of migration. More people are moving around the planet, forcibly displaced in one way or another from their homes, than at any time in recorded history since we have been keeping statistics on this – 100 million people. We feel that deeply in our own hemisphere. In the Americas, we have Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Haitians, Cubans all traveling for one reason or another. We have been working very hard to create a sense of shared responsibility for dealing with migration in a safe, orderly, humane way. No single country can deal with this effectively on its own. So that is a very big part of our dialogue.
But there is also something that is very powerful, namely that there is great potential in our own hemisphere to be an economic engine for growth for all our countries; to have, for example, more integrated supply chains that ensure we don’t have the disruption we’ve experienced on things like computer chips. The lithium that’s going to go into electric vehicle batteries – well, for example, Mexico has a lot of that lithium. Finding ways to work on it together and then have a resilient supply chain to get it to the places where the batteries are manufactured, that’s something we’re working on. There is a great deal of opportunity that I think is felt in a more integrated North America – Mexico, the United States, Canada – and a more integrated hemisphere.
The last thing I will say is this, and it also goes back to the migration challenge we face. We have to find ways to make smart investments in communities that people are leaving, because what we see is the main driver of migration in our own hemisphere – there are different ones, but the most basic one is basic lack of opportunity. And if you don’t have that, if you can’t put bread on the table for your family, you’re going to try to figure out something else.
And it’s not that people get up in the morning and say, gee, wouldn’t it be fun today to put my life on the line, to put myself in the hands of a trafficker, to leave my family behind, to leave my. friends behind, to leave my culture and my language behind. It takes something very powerful to drive people to that decision. We have the ability to affect that decision over time while actually creating more opportunity in different communities in our hemisphere. So that’s something we’re working on as well.
But the bottom line is this. Unless we do it together, unless we work together on these issues, it’s not going to happen. So it goes back, Condi, to what you were saying about sitting in these – in these rooms with norms and standards. We sit in rooms across our hemisphere every day, engaged, sleeves rolled up, showing up, because that’s ultimately how you build some trust, how you build some confidence , how you build a real partnership, and maybe start getting things done.
The bottom line is this. I think you see governments all over our hemisphere that are all facing the same challenge, which is: Can they deliver the basic things that their people need or aspire to? And if they can’t, they’re going to go. We went through a cycle where there are many governments in the hemisphere that happened to be, for example, from the – from the right politically out. We have new governments that are more left wing. But it’s the same thing. It is less about ideology and more about delivering for people. What the US can offer, and it goes back to saying to people that we don’t demand that you choose, we offer you a choice, is: Can we have the right kind of partnerships that makes sense to them and helps? they present?
China, the last thing I will mention on this. If China has extraordinary resources that it can decide as a government to put into investments in our own hemisphere or around the world, that is a source of strength. But if those investments are made in a way where they pile up debt on the countries that take them that can’t – that can’t be repaid, where workers come in from China in where local workers are used to do the projects, or the rights of the workers themselves on the projects are not respected, where there is no consideration for the environment and the project’s impact on the environment, where pollution is an integral part of the what is being done – that is going to alienate many of the recipients of Chinese largesse. If we offer a different model which, as I said, is more of a race to the top, that is going to be very attractive.
But for us, we have to find ways to stimulate and catalyze the private sector. There are many resources on the periphery. What the government can do is to be a catalyst, a guarantor, someone who says, yes, this is a good place, this is a smart place, this is a reasonable place to make these types of investments. And then it becomes more of a win/win proposition for everyone.
SECRETARY RICE: We have come to the hour.
QUESTION: Can (inaudible) about Taiwan?
SECRETARY RICE: By all rights. All right, sure. Do you want to say something quick about Taiwan?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: What would you like me to say? (Laughs.)
QUESTION: Hello, Secretary. I am the first MBA student from GSB. I’m just wondering – I know you’re very short on time – maybe say something quick about it like what’s the US attitude towards Taiwan?
SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Or not so fast.
QUESTION: I mean, as many officers have –
SECRETARY RICE: Take your time to talk about Taiwan. We don’t want to – yes – have an incident twice. Yes. (Applause.)
SECRETARY BLINKEN: So one of the things we’ve worked on together in a variety of ways for years is our approach to Taiwan and the challenge inherent in dealing with the differences between Beijing and Taiwan. And one of the hallmarks of the policy, which goes back decades through Republican and Democratic administrations, has been insisting that the differences that exist need to be resolved peacefully. And in fact, it has been, until recently, extremely successful. I think it has been well managed, in a way that has avoided conflict, which has also allowed people on Taiwan to really thrive, and benefit not only their own lives, but have Taiwan has so much to contribute to the world that it does every day. .
What has changed is this – it goes back to something that Condi was saying at the beginning – there has been a change in the approach from Beijing towards Taiwan in recent years. And instead of sticking to the status quo that was established in a positive way, a fundamental decision that the status quo was no longer acceptable and that Beijing was determined to pursue reunification on a much faster timeline. And if peaceful methods did not work, then he would use coercive methods – and possibly, if coercive methods do not work, perhaps forceful methods – to achieve his objectives. And that is what severely disrupts the status quo and creates enormous tensions.
And this is of concern not only to the United States because it has been a central element in managing the relationship with China for so long, but it is of great concern to countries around the world. The volume of commercial traffic that passes through the strait every day and has an impact on economies around the world is huge. If that were to be disrupted as a result of a crisis, countries around the world would suffer.
The last group of people I need to say this to is right here in this room. When it comes to semiconductors, if a crisis disrupted Taiwanese production, you would have a worldwide economic crisis. So there is a great benefit not only to us but to countries around the world in terms of maintaining peace and stability in terms of Taiwan and the strait, and to make sure that the differences that exist are resolved peacefully. So that’s why we’ve been so engaged with this.
I hope Beijing comes back to a place where it actually sees the virtues of making sure that differences are resolved peacefully, that it doesn’t try to force things through coercion, and even worse, by force. We are determined to meet our commitments to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act and support their ability to defend themselves. We also – we also remain fundamentally committed to the “one China” policy as well. That hasn’t changed. That will not change. But at the heart of that was a commitment to resolve these differences peacefully, and if that changes, then that, unfortunately, offers prospects for very challenging situations going forward.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. And with that, we have come to the end of the hour. If you join me, thank Secretary Blinken. (Applause.)
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thank you very much.
