Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. And
Speaker 1: here to help us understand what is going on in
Speaker 1: the world before we get to the investment perspective is
Speaker 1: Professor Jeffrey Sachs. He is a professor at Columbia University.
Speaker 1: He is also the author of the Global Index on
Speaker 1: Sustainable Development Goals for the United Nations, and Professor Sachs
Speaker 1: has written about international trade as well as US politics,
Speaker 1: and he joins us here in our eleven three oh studios. So,
Speaker 1: Professor Sacks, thanks very much for being here. Let's maybe
Speaker 1: just describe for people what exactly is the Global Index
Speaker 1: on Sustainable Development Goals. The idea of sustainable development is
Speaker 1: that we should watch not only g NP and the
Speaker 1: economic indicators, but also the social indicators of inequality, health, violence,
Speaker 1: and the environmental indicators on climate change and pollution. So
Speaker 1: this index looks at the economic, the social, and the
Speaker 1: environmental conditions of countries all over the world, and we
Speaker 1: take a look at whether they're making progress towards the
Speaker 1: goals that we've set. For example, when we agreed in
Speaker 1: Paris two take limit the global warming, our our country
Speaker 1: is really doing that. So where does the United States
Speaker 1: rank in this global index? Not very well. Of course,
Speaker 1: it does well on the economics side, broadly speaking, were
Speaker 1: a rich country, but on the social side we have
Speaker 1: about the highest inequality of all of the high income
Speaker 1: countries of the world. We have the biggest gaps between
Speaker 1: rich and poor of the high income world. And on
Speaker 1: the environment, we're massive polluters. Unfortunately, we omit almost seventeen
Speaker 1: tons of carbon dioxide per American every year, one of
Speaker 1: the highest rates in the world and therefore one of
Speaker 1: the biggest contributors to global warming. So among the high
Speaker 1: income countries, were near the bottom. The countries that are
Speaker 1: at the top, not surprisingly for some of us who
Speaker 1: watch these things and have the chance to visit them,
Speaker 1: are the Scandinavian countries. This year, Sweden is number one,
Speaker 1: Denmark number two, Finland number three. Uh those countries have
Speaker 1: a remarkable combination of prosperity and social fairness and environmental sustainability.
Speaker 1: I believe You've also written that the countries that are
Speaker 1: the happiest are the countries where they tax themselves the most.
Speaker 1: It's exactly the opposite of the American assumption, which is
Speaker 1: cut taxes and people will be happy. But the countries
Speaker 1: that I've just named, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, they rank the
Speaker 1: highest in happiness. How do you know about happiness? Because
Speaker 1: Gallup International asked people all over the world how satisfied
Speaker 1: are you with your life? This year? The country that
Speaker 1: ranked the highest in that was Finland, followed by Norway
Speaker 1: and Denmark. And then look at their taxes. They're taxing
Speaker 1: half of the national income in those countries, and you'd say,
Speaker 1: my god, everybody must feel miserable. But what they use
Speaker 1: those taxes for is free universal access to quality health,
Speaker 1: free universal access to quality education, no student debt for university,
Speaker 1: child care for all, six weeks, vacation for all. In
Speaker 1: other words, they're living the good life. They paid the taxes,
Speaker 1: but then the government services that they get give them
Speaker 1: the life that we all think is the kind of
Speaker 1: life we would like, which is the access to quality
Speaker 1: services and leisure time and ability to raise our kids
Speaker 1: in safety. Well, then what do you say, to those
Speaker 1: critics that may describe the United States as a place
Speaker 1: where innovation and the motivation to succeed that drive is
Speaker 1: particularly because there is not the state support for the
Speaker 1: very things that you described, that the individual has to
Speaker 1: work themselves in an outsized way in order to make
Speaker 1: those things a reality. Well, I think there's some truth
Speaker 1: to that. The US is an innovative society, but so
Speaker 1: to our those countries in Northern Europe. They're doing it
Speaker 1: a bit different differently, but they are competing on world
Speaker 1: markets and cutting edge industries. Sweden, we know from Spotify
Speaker 1: and so many others, are very dynamic and exciting uh
Speaker 1: startup places in the world. But what we have in
Speaker 1: the United States is a kind of excess because we
Speaker 1: now have an epidemic of suicides, we have an epidemic
Speaker 1: of drug addictions, opiate addictions. We have falling life expectancy
Speaker 1: in this country. We have more people behind bars than
Speaker 1: any other high income country in the world by far
Speaker 1: in per population to arms. We've got rising depression rates
Speaker 1: in this country. Um, we've got some serious, serious social
Speaker 1: problems that we're not attending to, and we're also doing
Speaker 1: damage for the future in not even paying attention, not
Speaker 1: even caring, just denying all of the environmental issues which
Speaker 1: are staring us in the face. When you're hit by
Speaker 1: three mega hurricanes, massive forest fires and say, duh, we
Speaker 1: don't believe in that, it shows a pretty high degree
Speaker 1: of political corruption or neglect, or a combination of the two.
Speaker 1: So no, I don't think that the United States is
Speaker 1: balancing these various factors very well. Right now, let me
Speaker 1: just push you a little bit more. The very things
Speaker 1: that you described, they could not all be the result
Speaker 1: of activity over the last eighteen months. Do you believe
Speaker 1: that these are the very issues that President Donald Trump
Speaker 1: ran against or at least offered solutions for, and as
Speaker 1: a result, what President Trump is doing now makes sense
Speaker 1: in light of what you've just described. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: the things that I've been describing our trends over the
Speaker 1: last forty years. So this is absolutely not about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This is about America, and this has been going on
Speaker 1: for a long time. I wish I could say that
Speaker 1: the kinds of directions that we're taking right now would
Speaker 1: be addressing these issues, but I just don't see it.
Speaker 1: Tax cuts for the rich, larger budget deficits, whereas the
Speaker 1: rebuilding of infrastructure. I don't see it. We're cutting social services,
Speaker 1: were squeezing help for the poor. We have an epidemic
Speaker 1: of school shootings, we have anxiety in this country. Division.
Speaker 1: So these are not, uh the immediate results of this president.
Speaker 1: But I don't see that we're moving in the direction
Speaker 1: to address these problems. I think you're absolutely right by
Speaker 1: the way that a lot of the support that he
Speaker 1: got was a reflection of this sense that we're moving
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction. But I don't see us getting
Speaker 1: on the right direction in the specific kinds of approaches
Speaker 1: that are underway right now. I want to get your
Speaker 1: views on something specific that, of course happened in London
Speaker 1: over the last couple of forty eight hours, the resignation
Speaker 1: of Boris Johnson of Foreign Secretary David Davis, Brexit UH
Speaker 1: Cabinet minister. What do you believe will happen with Brexit?
Speaker 1: And maybe you have different scenarios. I don't think that
Speaker 1: there is a good scenario for the UK. That's what
Speaker 1: they're realizing. That's why they can't get behind a single approach,
Speaker 1: because the Brexiteers sold a kind of utopian view that
Speaker 1: they'd saved so much money, they'd have so much benefit
Speaker 1: by leaving Europe. Now they're realizing that they're basically going
Speaker 1: to give up their markets, their economy, and so they're
Speaker 1: scrambling to try to keep the link with Europe. And
Speaker 1: what emerged from this realization was what's called the soft Brexit,
Speaker 1: which is well, will leave the European Union, but will
Speaker 1: basically stay in the terms of Europe. That's what caused
Speaker 1: these two cabinet members to leave this soft option. But
Speaker 1: the hard option is even uglier. So they've really been
Speaker 1: backed to a corner. Basically, the this slim majority to
Speaker 1: leave was sold a bill of goods. Uh, they can't deliver,
Speaker 1: and that's why there's no consent within the Conservative government.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for being with us. Much appreciated,
Speaker 1: Professor Jeffrey Sachs. You can follow a Professor Sacks on
Speaker 1: Twitter at jeff D Sacks and he is also the
Speaker 1: author of the third annual Global Index on Sustainable Development Goals. Tom,
Speaker 1: you know you were speaking about the Brett the Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump's the President Donald Trump's selection to the
Speaker 1: seat being vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And really we've
Speaker 1: got someone who is the best I would say to
Speaker 1: tell us about this selection is Mr ken Starr. He
Speaker 1: is a former Whitewater Independent Council, former US solicitor generally
Speaker 1: is a former judge, and he is now the author
Speaker 1: of a book entitled Contempt, a memoir the Clinton Investigation
Speaker 1: that comes out in September. Ken Star joins us from
Speaker 1: our One Studios in Washington, d C. Ken Star, thank
Speaker 1: you very much for being with us. Oh my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you give us your first impressions about learning that
Speaker 1: that Mr Kavana, the Judge Kavanaugh has been tapped to
Speaker 1: join the Supreme Court. Joy, Brett's a great man. He's
Speaker 1: a great human being. Uh, extremely able, buddy, is a
Speaker 1: personal great humility and kindness, generosity of spirit. I think
Speaker 1: that character started to be seen by the American people
Speaker 1: last evening. Uh. He worked for you, he did? What
Speaker 1: did he do for you? Well? We worked together both
Speaker 1: in my former law firm of Kirkland Analys here in
Speaker 1: Washingt d C. I recruited Brett off of the clerkship
Speaker 1: with Justice Kennedy, so I won the Brett Kavanaugh Derby.
Speaker 1: So we worked together as private practitioners, but we also
Speaker 1: worked together in the UH the Whitewater investigation, and he
Speaker 1: performed brilliantly every task. So one of the great things
Speaker 1: about Brett is he has just tremendous judgment and that
Speaker 1: came through in the most shall I say, controversial parts
Speaker 1: of the investigation involving Monica Lewinsky. But he was with
Speaker 1: me off and on through that very long period of time,
Speaker 1: taking on different responsibilities and doing a great job. I
Speaker 1: wonder if you could comment on the idea that a
Speaker 1: great judgment is now being exercised in a world of
Speaker 1: great political partisanship. Yes, the job of a judge is
Speaker 1: to set all that aside, to leave his or her
Speaker 1: politics at the door, and to say, I've got to
Speaker 1: concentrate on the facts and on the law, and I
Speaker 1: need to respect both. I'm not to manipulate either one
Speaker 1: to achieve a desired result. And that's especially hard for
Speaker 1: judges in the federal system um interpreting our constitution, where
Speaker 1: there is a running room, there's elasticity. What is the
Speaker 1: meaning of freedom of speech or free exercise of religion?
Speaker 1: So these do call for for judgments. And one of
Speaker 1: the things about Bratt about Judge Kavanaugh uh is he
Speaker 1: will approach the task with a really admirable humility and say,
Speaker 1: I really need to listen and learn and evaluate an assess. Now.
Speaker 1: He doesn't come to it without principles, and we've heard
Speaker 1: some of those principles last night. He believes the Constitution
Speaker 1: is the law of the land, and while there is
Speaker 1: room for interpretation, what it does mean, just very briefly,
Speaker 1: is the judge or justice is not to impose his
Speaker 1: or her own policy preferences on we the people. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the beginning of the conversation, and I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be a great conversation. There will be
Speaker 1: a lot of yelling, unfortunately, but that's just welcome to democracy.
Speaker 1: Can start within our democracy. There was a time which
Speaker 1: I remember, and I'm going to think of Jacob Javits
Speaker 1: and others, where you you, you checked on the guy's
Speaker 1: credentials and then even if you didn't agree with their politics,
Speaker 1: you voted him in. And we seemed to have removed
Speaker 1: ourselves from that. Do you have a nostalgia that we
Speaker 1: can get back pre Robert Borke, pre Abe Ford us
Speaker 1: to some form of Supreme Court process where we just
Speaker 1: say somebody's qualified, Okay, it can happen. I don't see
Speaker 1: the path forward to making it happen. But but even
Speaker 1: after the Judge Bork situation, Ruth Ginsberg ran the gauntlet
Speaker 1: and her nomination was approved almost unanimously. Now, Ruth, who's
Speaker 1: a great human being and obviously very distinguished judge, had
Speaker 1: a record that all conservative Republicans in the current environment,
Speaker 1: we said, no, of course she's capable, and she's honest
Speaker 1: and the like, but we don't agree with her, and
Speaker 1: therefore we'll go against her again. The vote was almost unanimously,
Speaker 1: almost unanimous. Ditto with Stephen Bryant. Are these um this
Speaker 1: wasn't so terribly long ago. It was the last interest
Speaker 1: it's for one thing, I think the emergence of the
Speaker 1: special interest groups, and that's who we were hearing from
Speaker 1: last evening, and the special interest groups, not that they
Speaker 1: didn't exist before, but I think there's just great power,
Speaker 1: and they have platforms, they raise enormous amounts of money,
Speaker 1: and so they're inflaming I think on both sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle, they're inflaming passions. One thing you did within
Speaker 1: all of your public service in the controversy over Kent Star,
Speaker 1: which Pim and I remember so well, is then you
Speaker 1: went onto a bigger headache, which was a college president,
Speaker 1: which has got to be the worst job in America,
Speaker 1: I mean the yard by any What did you learn
Speaker 1: going from the Ken Star craziness of Washington and all
Speaker 1: the controversy For those of you younger folks, Ken Starr
Speaker 1: was mentioned in every third news story for about two years.
Speaker 1: What was it like when you realized you had a
Speaker 1: bigger challenge at Baylor University and talking about humbling and
Speaker 1: the and the need for a humility. But I felt
Speaker 1: very privileged to be at at Baylor University with its
Speaker 1: great history of the oldest continuingly operating university in the
Speaker 1: state of Texas. Before the state of Texas was uh,
Speaker 1: there was Baylor University. So it had a great tradition.
Speaker 1: I'm a six generation Texas. It was a great call home.
Speaker 1: We won't hold that against you, no, I I put
Speaker 1: that to my credit. But you're you're very kind, Thank you.
Speaker 1: And so the long attort of it is the university
Speaker 1: is extremely complex with many constituencies, and I think it
Speaker 1: many respects. Being a college president is tougher than being
Speaker 1: a United States Senate. There. I never was one, but
Speaker 1: I've been on Capitol Hill a lot because trying to
Speaker 1: manage those constituencies, but also in this day and time,
Speaker 1: showing courage, showing courage and to say no, this is
Speaker 1: what we stand for. For example, I'm a free speech guy.
Speaker 1: And so the idea that, uh I use this just
Speaker 1: as an example that speakers on college campuses can be
Speaker 1: heck old and so forth and and and almost physically assaulted,
Speaker 1: is utterly inimical to what a university stands for. And
Speaker 1: I think college presidents, university presidents have to take the
Speaker 1: lead and stand up and say no, that's wrong, we
Speaker 1: don't do that, um and that, and that takes courage.
Speaker 1: Uh So I learned you need to be courageous virtually
Speaker 1: every day and trying to manage the constituenties, but constituencies,
Speaker 1: but also say, hey, what is it that we're here
Speaker 1: to do? And as I was fond of saying, it's
Speaker 1: all about the students. If what we're doing isn't about
Speaker 1: student welfare and well being, then we need to really
Speaker 1: reassess kind of star. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us today to comment on at your former clerk, Mr Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: who starts a path towards the Supreme Court kind Star,
Speaker 1: the former Whitewater Independent Council US Solicitor General and of
Speaker 1: course a former judge is well him. I thought that
Speaker 1: was great. We should you know. It's great to talk
Speaker 1: to people that either worked for whoever we're talking about,
Speaker 1: or they worked for them. You get a whole different perspective,
Speaker 1: don't you. Yes. And just to remind everyone that Ken
Speaker 1: Star has a book that is come out in September.
Speaker 1: It is entitled Contempt, a Memoir of the Clinton Investigation
Speaker 1: that will be out in September by Kent Star. This
Speaker 1: is the interview of the day because within all the
Speaker 1: uproars speaking to the elites of Washington, the elites of
Speaker 1: New York, the people in six zip codes are certainly
Speaker 1: pim fox the elites of this London, England. There is
Speaker 1: another United Kingdom. Daniel Kazinski is the Minister of Parliament
Speaker 1: for the Wisconsin of the United Kingdom. It is to
Speaker 1: the northwest. It is buttressed up against the border with Wales.
Speaker 1: Um minister, wonderful to have you with us today. Are
Speaker 1: there more cows than people in your district? Well, good afternoon.
Speaker 1: We in Shrups are very proud of our cattle farming
Speaker 1: and we have a lot of some of the best
Speaker 1: cattle ranches in the country, and yes we are very
Speaker 1: agriculturally based community. I am horrifically guilty, unlike Pim who's
Speaker 1: it was a rural kind a guy of only focusing
Speaker 1: on England and the five newspapers. How do the people
Speaker 1: of your district, how does rural United Kingdom? How do
Speaker 1: people outside the seven zip codes of London? How do
Speaker 1: they respond to the uproar of the last forty eight hours? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the British people generally are very sensible, pragmatic people,
Speaker 1: but they want they have experimented whether they have allowed
Speaker 1: this experiment of our being a member of the first
Speaker 1: the European Economic Community, then the European Community and then
Speaker 1: the European Union because it is morphed into something completely
Speaker 1: different from what we joined in nine two. They have
Speaker 1: allowed this experiment to continue for forty six years. Uh
Speaker 1: and they have come to the conclusion that it does
Speaker 1: not suit our country. We have tried very hard, we
Speaker 1: have been very patient, They have been very tolerant. They
Speaker 1: have acquiesced to us handing over nearly seven hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollars to the European Union. Since we joined,
Speaker 1: they have seen a huge amount of our powers being
Speaker 1: diminished as a result of legislation coming from the European Parliament.
Speaker 1: They have gone along with all of that, but finally
Speaker 1: they had come to the conclusion that they want to
Speaker 1: get back to being a sovereign nation state and they
Speaker 1: don't want to continue on the path of moving ever
Speaker 1: closer into a super nationalist state, which is exactly what's
Speaker 1: happening on the continent of euroau Daniel Krazinski, I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if you could just speak a little bit about the
Speaker 1: Conservative Party and do you believe that they will eventually
Speaker 1: speak with one voice as regards a Brexit conclusion. No
Speaker 1: country in my lifetime has ever successfully negotiated pulling out
Speaker 1: of the European Union. This one size fits all straight
Speaker 1: jacket which the elites of Brussels, who are by the way,
Speaker 1: unelected and unaccountable to the people. But this straight jacket
Speaker 1: which they want to impose on the whole of the
Speaker 1: continent is something that, as I've said, is not for us.
Speaker 1: And being the first to do something is always fraught
Speaker 1: with difficulties. I say to some of my constituents, Brexit
Speaker 1: fields sometimes as if we are walking through a mind field.
Speaker 1: But what we're doing is we are laying out a
Speaker 1: path with bread crumbs for others to follow. And when
Speaker 1: other country is particularly my country where I was born, Poland,
Speaker 1: and others, when they see the United Kingdom thriving outside
Speaker 1: of the European Union, navigating as a global country with
Speaker 1: all the other countries around the world, because of course
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of the world's growth is coming from
Speaker 1: outside of the European Union, they will want to follow
Speaker 1: us into becoming sovereign nation states. So of course it's difficult,
Speaker 1: but we are absolutely resolved as a party and determined
Speaker 1: to put the spot forward in our negotiating stance. In
Speaker 1: the interviews that I've done, Sir, with the people that
Speaker 1: are remain or like you, the people that are leave,
Speaker 1: all are focused on Michael Gove. Tell our American in
Speaker 1: our global audience who Michael Gove is and why you're
Speaker 1: watching him in the next two days, the next two weeks,
Speaker 1: the next two months. Well, Michael Gove had you know,
Speaker 1: when we had the Prime Minister Cameron, he tried to,
Speaker 1: i think, make sure that all of us went along
Speaker 1: with his dream of campaigning to remain in the European Union.
Speaker 1: He brought back a negotiation which many of us considered
Speaker 1: to be a fig leaf, something which wasn't worth the
Speaker 1: paper was written on. And that's why people like Michael
Speaker 1: Gove decided a senior member of the cabinet decided to
Speaker 1: rebel and to actually say to him though, I am
Speaker 1: going to campaign for Brexit. He showed great vision, a
Speaker 1: great courage at that time, and many of us supported
Speaker 1: his stance. That's one of the reasons I voted him
Speaker 1: for him to be the leader of my party. He
Speaker 1: is still in the cabinet and he has decided in
Speaker 1: his wisdom, along with his other cock Brexit colleagues in
Speaker 1: the cabinet, that this Checkers settlement with the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: has presented to the cabinet is the most pragmatic way forward,
Speaker 1: and as long as he continues to support the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister that many of us moderates in the Conservative Party
Speaker 1: will also give her that space to try to negotiate
Speaker 1: something tangible and mutually beneficial with the European Union. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Daniel Kazinski. Where this from Shampshire in
Speaker 1: the northwest of the United Kingdom and of course a
Speaker 1: member of Parliament. The president will leave for Europe. We
Speaker 1: are saying Trump in Europe and we need perspective. We're
Speaker 1: gonna do a lot in this in the next number
Speaker 1: of days. Is Francie like and I travel to Helsinki?
Speaker 1: Pim Fox in New York. I'm Tom Keene in London
Speaker 1: and joining us now. Someone you need to listen to
Speaker 1: Charles Coupstion uh counts on formulations are senior fellow and
Speaker 1: an exceptionally interesting and varied experience with NATO. Dr coups
Speaker 1: in good morning, what is the thing that we most
Speaker 1: get wrong about NATO? We go NATO and I know
Speaker 1: it's from another time in place and we talked to
Speaker 1: Stavita's or, we talked to kap Lennen, we talked to has.
Speaker 1: What's the thing that drives you nuts about what the
Speaker 1: media covers of NATO? You know? I think the key
Speaker 1: point here is that the President is right that allies
Speaker 1: have not spent enough on defense and need to do more.
Speaker 1: We we spend about twice as a percent of GDP
Speaker 1: what they do on defense. But the constant haranguing of
Speaker 1: our traditional European allies, the dissing of NATO. That's that's
Speaker 1: where I think the President is off the mark, because
Speaker 1: if you think historically, if you think about the onset
Speaker 1: of racism, of anti semitism of World War One, of
Speaker 1: World War Two, and the unique revolutionary success that the
Speaker 1: Atlantic democracies have had in carving out a piece for world,
Speaker 1: you don't want to mess with that. You don't want
Speaker 1: to tinker with that. We don't want to go back
Speaker 1: to the nineteenth century. And that's where I think Trump
Speaker 1: is taking threatening actions and shaking the foundations of the
Speaker 1: world that Americans worked so hard to build. After well
Speaker 1: within that and from the Atlantic Charter on was the
Speaker 1: new way. And then some would say, including Mersheimer in Chicago,
Speaker 1: that we ever reached that we took some adjacence, ease,
Speaker 1: and then we really drissed up against Mr Putin by
Speaker 1: jaw owning about Georgia, jaw owning about this and that,
Speaker 1: and the result was Crimea maybe even Ukraine. Did we overreach?
Speaker 1: I think we did overreach, you know. I think in
Speaker 1: the in the triumphalism that came after the end of
Speaker 1: the Cold War, we thought we could we could take
Speaker 1: at NATO and our principles and our charters and simply
Speaker 1: extend them eastward. And the result was that we crawled
Speaker 1: right up close to Russia, and Russia felt uncomfortable, you know,
Speaker 1: to use a kind of analogy or counter factual, if
Speaker 1: Russia form an alliance with Mexico and Canada and to
Speaker 1: put Russian troops on our border, we would go crazy,
Speaker 1: right uh, And so we we sort of did that
Speaker 1: with with the Russians. That having been said, I don't
Speaker 1: think that there's any reason that that kind of decision
Speaker 1: to expand and NATO justified what the Russians have did
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, or what they've done in Georgia, or what
Speaker 1: they've done in terms of interfering in Western elections. So uh,
Speaker 1: I do think that we need to kind of separate
Speaker 1: the week from the taff and make sure that our
Speaker 1: core relationships with the UK, with France, with Germany are
Speaker 1: in good working order. If they're not, we are in
Speaker 1: deep trouble. Charles cup Chain does the United States is
Speaker 1: outsized contribution to NATO bring US outsized benefits such as
Speaker 1: the dollar as a reserve currency and also the United
Speaker 1: States having a bigger voice in NATO and European affairs
Speaker 1: as a result, you know, there's no question that the
Speaker 1: what we call the liberal international order is also the
Speaker 1: American order. The world that was built by Americans and Europeans,
Speaker 1: in Japanese and South Koreans after World War Two was
Speaker 1: a world that benefited the American people, American corporations, the
Speaker 1: American way of life. That's one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: the Chinese and the Reussians don't like it, because it
Speaker 1: represents our values, that organizes societies in the way that
Speaker 1: we like to organize them. So, yes, we do reap
Speaker 1: inordinate benefits. But I do think that the that the
Speaker 1: kind of key issue here is we have carved out
Speaker 1: a unique, historically unprecedented zone of peace across the Atlantic,
Speaker 1: right from our west coast right through Poland and the
Speaker 1: eastern frontier of NATO. There's a group of nations among
Speaker 1: which war is unthinkable. Could could brinker with that, to
Speaker 1: threaten that, to insult Germans as unworthy allies because they
Speaker 1: sell more BMW's here than we sell boards in Germany.
Speaker 1: That doesn't strike me as a move. It's in the
Speaker 1: interests of American Yeah, let's press the Germans to spend
Speaker 1: more on defense, but let's treat them with respect. And
Speaker 1: realize that if the U s relationship with Germany or
Speaker 1: the French relationship with Germany goes south, the fundamental anchors
Speaker 1: of global peace are going to disappear. Do you believe
Speaker 1: that the position of the United States will also hurt
Speaker 1: the ability of US defense companies to sell their wares
Speaker 1: to our allies. For example, the Europeans are looking at
Speaker 1: a new Eurofighter rather than taking on the new F
Speaker 1: thirty five Joint Strike fighter. Yeah, some of that, Some
Speaker 1: of that is in play. You know. The Kirks, with
Speaker 1: whom we have a troubled relationship right now, have been
Speaker 1: looking at Russian military equipment. On the other hand, Poland
Speaker 1: has recently made a decision to buy Patriot missiles, so
Speaker 1: they're they're buying American uh many respects. These decisions are
Speaker 1: made on the basis of cost and military efficacy, not
Speaker 1: on when you whether you kilt this way or or
Speaker 1: that way. But I think over time, if our relationship
Speaker 1: with Europe stours, and the economic tariffs that we have
Speaker 1: recently imposed on steel and aluminum, and tariffs that might
Speaker 1: follow on other products, you know that that adds to
Speaker 1: the sense of estrangement. So I do think we need
Speaker 1: to to put the cart before the horse and make
Speaker 1: sure that our fundamental relationships are fine and that we
Speaker 1: don't see a rising tide of anti Americanism spread across Europe.
Speaker 1: And what outcome does Vladimir Putin want from the NATO
Speaker 1: meetings that he will not attend. Well, you know, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I think Mr Trump, whether he knows it or not,
Speaker 1: is doing Putin's bidding, because what Putin wants is a
Speaker 1: weakening of the West. What Putin wants is democracies that
Speaker 1: turn against themselves. What Putin wants is a European Union
Speaker 1: that suffers setback such as the departure of the United
Speaker 1: Kingdom country that you're in right now. And so the
Speaker 1: kind of uh differences and the open acrimony that we
Speaker 1: see right now, and the degree to which the European
Speaker 1: Union is dealing with rising populism, that's all what what
Speaker 1: Putin wants. And so I think the real danger this
Speaker 1: week is that Mr Trump goes to Europe, he ends
Speaker 1: up creating a sense of of distance and a sense
Speaker 1: of alienation within NATO, and then he goes the Helsinki
Speaker 1: and his chummy chummy shoulder to shoulder with the Russian
Speaker 1: president that's that's the last signal that I think the
Speaker 1: United States President should be sending to UH to European allies.
Speaker 1: Dr Cupchen as a senior Fellow at the Council on
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations and also professor at the Wolfsh School of
Speaker 1: Foreign Service at Georgetown University. I know you served on
Speaker 1: the staff of the National Security Council in the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: Do you really believe that this is the end of
Speaker 1: the American era? I think that we don't know yet.
Speaker 1: I think that it's possible that historians will look back
Speaker 1: at nineteen and say that was the day, that was
Speaker 1: the moment that the order that was built during the
Speaker 1: tough years after World War Two came undone. It's also
Speaker 1: possible that we're that we're witnessing a detour, that the
Speaker 1: populism here in the UK, in Germany, in Poland and
Speaker 1: Hungary and Turkey is a response to this location, a globalization,
Speaker 1: to the onset of the digital economy. And we'll figure
Speaker 1: out how to adjust to this shift, just as we
Speaker 1: figured out how to adjust to previous shifts. But I
Speaker 1: don't think that we should be polly anish about the
Speaker 1: scope of the changes that are going on within our society,
Speaker 1: and I do hope that whether it's two years from
Speaker 1: now or six years from now or whatever, that that
Speaker 1: we do see the pendulum swing back in the direction
Speaker 1: of political centrism political moderation. Thank you very much, Charles Cupchin,
Speaker 1: Senior Fellow counsel on Foreign Relations, also Professor of International
Speaker 1: Affairs at Georgetown University. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.