Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Conversation on the Evolution and Importance of Technology, Diplomacy, and National Security with 66th Secretary of…

');});jQuery('.entry-content p.watermarked > div.watermarked_image > img').each( function() {if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('alignnone') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'alignnone' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('alignleft') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'alignleft' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('alignright') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'alignright' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('size-medium') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'has-size-medium' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('aligncenter') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'aligncenter' );jQuery(this).parent().children().wrapAll('');}});}});});

SECRETARY MATTIS: Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to todays 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 navigating its role in a changing world, todays talk in the finest tradition of the great university where we meet offers a unique opportunity to delve into important issues.

Im Jim Mattis, a Fellow here at Hoover, where we seek to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity while safeguarding peace. Thanks to their record of devoted service to our nation, little introduction is needed for these two patriots. America is one great, big, promising, exasperating, inspiring, and vexing experiment with all the political volatility inherent to a free and open society.

Admired leadership in our republic calls for certain characteristics: first, a humble awareness of each generations responsibility to improve on this experiment in forming a more perfect union; and second, competence. The two citizens on this stage are exemplars of both characteristics. Dr. Rices contribution over many years of leadership cannot be summed up in a few words. Suffice that through merit, conviction, and a keen perceptiveness of the world we must live in, she rose to the apex of our government, ultimately splitting eight years of leadership between service as our National Security Advisor and as our 66th Secretary of State. Were proud to call her boss and coach of the Hoover team.

Secretary Blinken has also accumulated a lengthy portfolio of foreign affairs experience before becoming our Secretary of State. It wasnt long after graduation from Harvard and Columbia that he entered government service, ultimately serving as the Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Secretary of State following his time on Capitol Hill, where he served as the staff director for the Senates Foreign Relations Committee.

In a recent talk with graduates, he suggested that if theyre going to spend a lot of their lives at work, then they should work at something they love. Our nation is fortunate that both these leaders devote their best efforts to something they love, and that is America. In so doing, their leadership by example reminds each of us that government service in a democracy is both privilege and responsibility. As problem solvers during these tumultuous years, their leadership forged trust while navigating maddeningly complex issues. Holding our values foremost, they have dealt pragmatically with a swiftly changing world filled by the good, the bad, and the ugly.

They have done so while listening and maintaining respect for those who disagreed with them, strengthening a necessary attribute for leadership in a democracy. Todays 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 round the world.

Hoover Institution was established to advance the principles of freedom. We ask bold questions and propose solutions to help guide American policy at home and abroad. In that spirit and consistent with Stanfords role of promoting the free competition of ideas, lets get started. First a conversation, then Q&A. Again, please give a hearty welcome to Secretaries Blinken and Rice. (Applause.)

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you very much. But before we get started, I just have to say that that gentleman, Secretary Mattis, served as our Secretary of Defense but also many years of service as a Marine, something also carried by a great patron of this place, George Shultz. And so Id like you to give Secretary Mattis a hand, please. (Applause.)

Welcome. Welcome to Stanford. Welcome to Hoover. Welcome to the Silicon Valley.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Its wonderful to be back. Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: And its probably nice to be here, right?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Theres something about occasionally getting out of Washington that isnt a bad thing. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, its a good thing. A good thing, right. (Laughter.)

Well, were going to have a conversation and then we will open for a few questions and answers. Im still a professor; I will call on somebody if nobody raises their hand (laughter) so get ready with your questions.

Youve just had a pretty momentous week, and I dont just mean whats going on in the world, but I mean the release of the National Security Strategy. And for those who dont fully follow these things, I think 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 Id like you to speak to, and Im going to start with one thats kind of near and dear to the heart of every secretary of state probably going back to our long-long-time predecessor Thomas Jefferson. In case you didnt know it, 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 expand a little bit on how you think about this moment? The United States has had many competitors across its history, but this particular moment, how do you think about this big issue?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, first let me just say how wonderful it is to be back at Stanford, to be with my friend Dr. Rice. Jim, Ive been an admirer of yours and your leadership for many, many years, and today you again reaffirmed why you have such a strong, powerful, eloquent voice. Its great to be with you. Thank you.

And first of all, Im wondering: Do you have classes? (Laughter.) What are you getting credit? (Laughter.)

One of the things that I think is almost visceral to us right now is that were at an inflection point. And to put it in broad perspective, the post Cold War era is over and there is now an intense competition underway to shape what comes next. Thats the moment we think that were living in.

Part of this is the renewed but also new great power competition, and thats very much at the heart of the strategy. Part of this is trying to figure out ways, and in ways that we haven t before, how to solve some really big challenges that are actually having a direct impact on the lives of our people, whether it is global health and weve been living through COVID whether its the impact of climate change, whether its just the role of all of the emerging technologies, so many of them coming from here, that are shaping our lives. All of that is reflected in the strategy.

Now, this is Dr. Rice and I both worked on a few of these in our time. Rarely have so many labored for so long

SECRETARY RICE: And you can drop the Dr. Rice if you right, right.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thank you. But rarely I think we would both say rarely have so many in government worked for so long on something read by so few. (Laughter.) But having said that, it is an important document because it does try to give coherence to what were doing. And its important across the government so that all of the different agencies and departments are kind of working off of the same blueprint, and internationally so that both friend and foe alike have a good idea about what were all about, why were doing what were doing, why were saying what were saying.

SECRETARY RICE: You talked about the great power rivalry, and this is something that I dont think we really ever thought we would see again after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But indeed it has come back and its come back with force, and Id like you to address the two big rivals.

The National Security Strategy talks about restraining Russia and outcompeting China, and thats two very different ways to think about the great powers. So and perhaps you want to weave a little bit of Ukraine into the Russia story, but can you start with restraining Russia some would say a declining power in the great power competition, but one that is on the front pages now every day?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: I think declining power is probably a fair assessment, but one that has an enormous capacity if it chooses to use it to do damage, to be a disrupter. And of course, we see that front and center on our front pages every day in Ukraine.

When we started out and again, weve both been dealing with this for a long time, and Condi knows more has in a sense forgotten more about Russia than Ill know for many years of working these issues. I think many administrations have come in with the hope that we might have a more stable, predictable relationship with Russia precisely because we have so many big things that we want to be working on that go to the betterment of the lives of our people and people around the world.

However, Russia especially under President Putin is a major disrupter and one that can make tremendous trouble. We see that in Ukraine. But we see it in its basic opposition and Putins basic 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 try to help keep international peace and security.

This is in direct opposition to what President Putin is trying to do in reconstituting take your pick a Russian empire or a Soviet one. And its manifesting itself in the actions hes taken. Weve seen this play out over the last almost decade now. But for us and Ill just say this very briefly the reason theres so much focus on Ukraine is twofold. One is Ukraine itself. I think it bothers all of us profoundly when one country tries to lord it over another, when it tries to assert a world in which might makes right, in which it changes borders by force, in which it tries to subjugate another country to its will. Thats whats going on.

But whats also going in this: Its not only an aggression against Ukraine. It is an aggression against the basic principles that are embodied in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a whole series of norms and rules that many generations labored to build. And are they perfect? Far from it. Have we made many mistakes both in designing them and in their application? Yes. But fundamentally they have helped make sure that we didnt 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: Its not your job exclusively, but there are Americans who say: Why Ukraine? Why not Peoria or Des Moines? And you just talked about the rules-based order. Can you sharpen it for Americans as to why this conflict is so important? Because this may go on a while, and we may have to sustain American support and therefore democratic support for a long time.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: At least from my perspective, if we and others are not standing up for these basic understandings, these basic rules, the idea that countries independence should be respected, its territorial integrity should be respected, not changed by force; if we dont stand up for that and we can do that in a variety of ways, which we can come to if we dont stand up to that where its being challenged, then the risk you have is opening a Pandoras box, where aggressors not just in Europe, not just Russia will take a lesson and say: I can act with impunity; I can do this. And thats going to stir up conflicts in many parts of the world.

And the one thing we know from history is that inevitably, one way or another, this pulls us in. And if we can do whatever we can to prevent rather than having to respond and to make sure that some of these rules are upheld even as we try to modernize them even as we try to make sure that they reflect the world that were living in, not just the world that they were written in, which in many cases was 70 years ago I think its clearly in our interest to do that. And thats what were trying to show in Ukraine.

SECRETARY RICE: Right. Lets talk about the other great power. Ill come to a regional power in a moment, but lets talk about the great power, China. Big party congress going on. Lots at stake. Xi Jinping is likely to be coronated for his third term. And hes been a little bit of 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. Just keep developing China the Chinese would always say, Oh, were just a developing country; we dont really do foreign policy.

Well, Xi Jinping has a quite different view of Chinas role. And 30-plus years of kind of a integrationist narrative about China seems to be coming apart. Youve called it outcompeting China, which I think is an interesting concept. So talk about China and the United States in this regard.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, youre exactly right. Weve seen a very different China emerge in recent years under Xi Jinpings leadership. It is more repressive at home, its more aggressive abroad, and in many instances that poses a challenge to our own interests, as well as to our own values. But I also think its important not to reduce this to a bumper sticker. This relationship is among the most consequential that we have. Its among the most challenging we have. Its among the most complicated that we have. And what weve seen in recent years is the emergence of or clearly adversarial aspects to the relationship; for sure and Ill come back to it quickly competitive aspects; but there also remain cooperative aspects. And we cant lose sight of those, because some of the really big problems that we have to find ways to solve are a lot harder to solve if the United States and China are not actually engaged in trying to solve them: climate, global health, et cetera.

But the competitive aspect is front and center, because this is, as I suggested, at least from our perspective, 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 perspective at least, we have a basic choice, because we find and I think this has been evident over the especially over the period since the Second World War the world doesnt organize itself. And for the United States, the choice is this: If were not playing a part in the organizing, if were not taking a leadership role in that, then one of two things either someone else is, and it may well be China, and there, again, probably not in a way that fully reflects our interests and values; or maybe just as bad, no ones doing it, and then you tend to have vaccums that get filled with bad things before they get filled with good things.

So we have an interest in engaging, we have an interest in leading, and we have an interest in making sure that, to the extent were in competition over what this new thing looks like, we are bringing everything to the table. In my own judgment, China also wants an order, but its a profoundly illiberal order. The order that we seek again, imperfectly is a more liberal one, and thats what that competition is about.

SECRETARY RICE: Im going to come back to how we do this, because you talk a lot about investing in our own strengths

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Yeah.

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 in which you talked about Id call it a rather nuanced approach to China. As youve said, that theres some areas of conflict, some areas of competition, and some areas of cooperation. Pretty quickly, the Chinese came out and said: not gonna happen let me put it that way because we cant delink 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 midterms, are over then would there be room, and where would you see those potential areas of cooperation with China?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: The world fundamentally expects this of us, so whether China wants to find ways to cooperate or not on particularly climate, global health, maybe counternarcotics, even if they dont want to, theres a huge demand signal from the world. They expect us to try to find ways to advance these issues, and if we can, together, because its affecting them as well as us.

We know were not going to be able to deal with climate as we should if China is not part of the picture. Its going to have to decide; we cant decide for it. It has to decide whether its in its interests, but its also getting pressure from others around the world to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Same thing on global health. And this is not about pointing fingers for the pandemic its about figuring out how do we build a more secure global health system so that this doesnt happen again. China needs to be part of that answer. But its going to have to judge for itself whether, in its relationship with us, it finds ways to pursue cooperation, whether it just has to be responsive to demand signals that its getting from countries around 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, its been in the news again recently. Any thoughts on whether or not that scenario its really nonproliferation. Do you really want nuclear weapons in the hands of, shall we say, troublesome regimes like the North Koreans?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: This has been a challenge going back every administration I think we were each involved in, in one way or another, and one that has manifestly not gotten better over the years. I think from the leaderships perspective in North Korea, part of what were seeing is it doesnt like to be ignored.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: And so when the world is focused elsewhere, this is a reminder that: Were still here. Were still a problem. You have to deal with it.

But theres something else going on as well. Over the last 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 weve, for example, renewed exercises that wed had for years that were put in abeyance a few years ago we brought them back, military exercises, to make sure that we could defend and hopefully deter any kind of North Korean aggression as well as work thats being done now in ways that it hadnt been in recent years among the United States, Japan, Korea together, which has lots of benefits, including bringing Korea and Japan closer together. I think that Kim Jong-un saw that and didnt like it, and its a response to that.

Weve taken a variety of actions, including at the United Nations, including strengthening even more our defense and deterrence, but it is an ongoing problem. And it does go, Condi, to exactly what youre talking about, which are concerns about broader proliferation. At the end of the day, one of the most important and powerful things about trying to continue to advance nonproliferation, preventing the spread of weapons, as well as arms control ourselves and being responsible actors under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is making sure that we dont have a world where a whole variety of countries conclude that theyre going to be better off if they acquire nuclear weapons that they dont have. And we know that thats a world thats going to be even more fraught. So we have to find ways to reinforce these norms, these rules, these standards that weve signed on to and that need our engagement.

SECRETARY RICE: Im going to come to technology in just a moment, I promise you, but I will get lots of messages that say you didnt ask him about Iran. Do you want to say just a word about that situation? Its extraordinary moments these days.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: What were seeing is really is remarkable. And it starts with the incredible courage of very young people, especially women and girls, who are standing up for their most basic rights, their most fundamental freedoms, at extraordinary personal risk. And of course, we saw the prominent deaths of young women that led to this.

But whats powerful about it is that this is this is grassroots, this is bottom up. This is a reflection of huge frustration and huge anger that so many in Iranian society have toward the direction of their country and toward their leadership, and theyre demanding change. This is not made in the U.S.A.; its not made anywhere else. To the extent that leaders in Iran try to point the fingers and somehow blame us, they are profoundly misreading and misunderstanding their own people and their own country, and thats going to be to their detriment.

What can we do? First, we can stand and speak in solidarity with those who are simply trying to stand up for their own rights. Second, we can look at the different actors in Iran who are denying those rights and do what we can to penalize them for their actions. So we, for example, had sanctions that we put forward on the so-called morality police. And then maybe most important, and this goes directly in many ways to this community, we want to make sure that we are doing nothing that gets in the way of making sure that Iranians have the ability to the greatest extent possible of communicating with each other and connecting to the outside world, and that comes with technology. So weve issued some licenses to make sure that were not doing that, that people dont feel that our sanctions prohibit them from getting the technology that Iranians need to communicate with each other and with the world to the Iranian people.

SECRETARY RICE: A little bit more activist this time than in 2012?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Each periods a little bit different.

SECRETARY RICE: A little different, yeah. 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 around the world. But fundamentally, this is about the Iranian people. Its about their country. Its about their future. They will decide it. But we want to demonstrate in both practical as well as rhetorical ways our solidarity with them in this moment.

SECRETARY RICE: So youre sitting at Stanford University in the middle of Silicon Valley. A long, long history between this place and the valley. And you are seeing and talking to the people who are really leading the technology revolutions. It goes back a long way here.

So in 2007 when I was secretary, I invited the then-Foreign Minister of Australia Alexander Downer here, and we have a little trip. And I got to got to drive an experimental car called a Tesla. (Laughter.) Alexander wouldnt get in it. He wasnt sure that he wanted well, I think it was probably the Australian secret service that didnt want him in an experimental car. But in any case, thats now a household name, maybe giving us answers to how to think about electric vehicles and climate change and the like.

But it says something very important about another part of the National Security Strategy, which its which says investing in our strengths. Very often, we get into what I call authoritarian envy. They build great airports. Democracy is so messy. But we forget that innovation has been from a place, the United States of America, that 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 must do but also the national security that we must achieve.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Its quite simply foundational, and let me say a couple of things about this. First, we go back to this proposition that were in a moment of intense competition to shape what comes next. Technology, innovation, entrepreneurship they are at the heart of that. This is how we are going to retool economies for the future. This is how were going to modernize militaries as necessary. This is, through technology, how we are quite literally reshaping peoples lives.

And so it goes fundamentally to our national strength, but it also goes to a positive vision for the future that can be incredibly attractive for the United States around the world. Because as the technologies that are developed here and I was just at the SLAC this morning, which is extraordinary, even for someone who probably understood about 1 percent of what I was hearing this really does go to Americas most positive role in the world.

As were inventing; as youre inventing 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 dont have a repeat of COVID-19; as youre finding ways to make sure that we have sustainable, healthy food supplies for people around the world who so desperately need it and were living in a moment of intense food insecurity; as youre looking at ways to make sure that we actually develop the technology to ensure an energy future thats not dependent on fossil fuels; as youre looking at ways to make sure we have secure supply chains for technology going forward 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 a beacon for the world, that goes directly to our standing around the world, our strength around the world in ways that I cant 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, the 60s and 70s in education, in research and development, in basic science, in our infrastructure. And we moved away from that. And it is not to say at all that government should be the one making all of these investments. Were never going to compete with, for example, a Chinese model that dedicates all of its state resources to a particular part of the economy, to a particular part of the world. But what we can do and do more effectively is making sure were making these basic investments and then help catalyze, help facilitate, and ultimately help get out of the way for the private sector to really carry things forward.

Weve had two, at least from where I sit, enormous successes in the last few months, starting with the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, a product of extraordinary work over several years by Republicans and Democrats alike to make sure that we were renewing these investments in ourselves. A lot of the focus on chips has rightly gone to renewing our ability to manufacture chips, semiconductors here in the United States, having subcontracted that out many years ago. But there are huge investments in basic science, basic research and development that are contained in the CHIPS and Science Act and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which has the biggest commitment to dealing effectively with climate change in the history of our country, more than $350 billion. And again, a lot of thats going to investments in our own innovative capacity.

So I think, Condi, that is at the foundation of our strength, and it shows why the connection between what happens here and what happens around the world is stronger than its ever been. Since we did CHIPS and since we did the IRA, I found the conversations that Im having with counterparts around the world have changed. Theres now this view that, wait a minute, maybe America is getting its act together and this is something that we want to be part of.

SECRETARY RICE: Thats the positive side of it, of course, that we invest in ourselves. But theres also a question thats constantly on the table about how much weve let out of the barn, so to speak, vis--vis the Chinese. They started down this road of indigenous development in some ways hasnt gone all that well. We keep reading about problems in their own high-end chip development and the like.

So how do you see the balance between investing in what we do here and making sure that it doesnt escape to there? And its particularly actually hard for a secretary of state, because one of the things that you dont want to do is make people declare loyalties. Thats the quickest way to lose friends, to say you either choose China or us. That doesnt work very well diplomatically.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: We both know that very well.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, right.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: And what weve been saying is this: Were 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 big part of what were trying to do besides the investment in ourselves, the other the flip side of that is trying to get greater alignment with allies, with partners, with a whole variety of countries who might not even neatly fit into the ally or partner category but who have an interest in making sure that theres a basic understanding about the rules and that everyone plays by them. So we spent a lot of time trying to re-energize and revitalize re-engage our alliances, our partnerships.

Weve also been inventing or energizing some new ones new collections of countries that may be fit for purpose on specific issues; for example, making sure we have resilient supply chains, making sure that were on semiconductors investing together because so much of this work has to be collaborative as well, but also protecting. And in the case of the highest end semiconductors as you know very well, theres only a small number of countries that either are manufacturing the highest end semiconductors or making the tools to manufacture the highest end semiconductors. We want to make sure that we keep those where they need to be. So this alignment with other countries trying to all move in the same direction, trying to work together on shaping some of the norms, the standards, the rules by which technology is used, thats also profoundly part of our national interest and our strength around the world.

SECRETARY RICE: This is a question that could solicit a rather boring answer, but this is a university, so its all right. Were accustomed to boring answers. (Laughter.) So you talked about standards. And maybe whats not fully understood is there are international efforts, international organizations where the standards are actually written

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thats right.

SECRETARY RICE: for things like the internet, for questions about ships and supply chains. And the United States has always had a reputation of being fully uninterested completely uninterested in sending people to these conferences at the assistant secretary level to spend two years, three years writing standards.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thats right.

SECRETARY RICE: Are you interested in this?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: We

SECRETARY RICE: I have to admit: I wasnt. All right. So now. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Condi, I have walked out on standards in the biggest way, and we are flooding the zone for exactly that reason. Somewhere in the world on virtually any piece of technology that may be invented here, a group of people is sitting around a table in a windowless conference room writing the rules about how these are going to 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 isnt inherently good or bad; the rules by which its used might be. And we want to make sure that, for example, when it comes to protecting privacy, when it comes to upholding human rights, when it comes to advancing our own security, but also enhancing our competitiveness, the rules reflect that. And as the saying goes, if youre not at the table, youre on the menu. We want to make sure that were at the table doing that. So, yeah, this is sometimes it seems mind-numbing.

We spent a lot of time making sure for example, there are competition for jobs in the international system, the folks who actually turn up at these meetings. Their elections, or their appointments, including in the entire United Nations system were spending a lot of time making sure that people that reflect our views and values are competing and winning those jobs. It really does make a difference. It does seem mind-numbing, but its incredible how at the end of the day thats going to shape the world as well.

SECRETARY RICE: I should probably go back and apologize to my under secretary for economics who used to try to get me to pay attention. All right. So youve convinced me, because after all, this really is when we talk about the competition and going back to autocracy versus democracy, if these are used in a certain way, they will be used in different ways by autocracies. So you take something like facial recognition, which might simply make it possible for you to get through an airport more quickly if youre in the United States, and China has a very different way. So I applaud your interest in this mind-numbing part of it.

Hows it coming with others? You mentioned that we now are in the game, but when you think about particularly relations with the Europeans, weve not always had the greatest alignment with what you think should be our closest allies on things like privacy and the like. So can you talk a little bit about relations with the Europeans? Has it been affected by the extraordinary cooperation that were getting around Ukraine at this point? Someone said that Vladimir Putin had within a matter of months ended German pacifism and Swedish neutrality, which I think is probably true. But is it is it having an effect?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: It is remarkable the extent to which Putin has precipitated virtually everything he says he wants to prevent, particularly in terms of the so-called Western world sticking together and actually strengthening its cooperation across a whole variety of issues. I think we are making progress on this, because youre right, we have to find ways to make sure that on technology we are more aligned with other countries, starting in many cases with close partners in Europe as well as in Asia and then broadening out.

We have all of these different constellations, groupings, 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 make sure were actually all rowing in the same direction when it comes to these norms, these rules, these standards, but also a whole variety of other things. If we have export controls on the highest end technology that we think should not wind up in the hands of some of our competitors, including China, if were the only ones doing it and others are not abiding by them, then its not going to work. So we have to try to get alignment there, and we are.

If we want to make sure that when we have concerns about some of the investment thats coming into our own countries that may be going to critical industries, critical companies, ones that are that affect our security, we want to make sure that countries have the tools to look at those investments and decide whether this is something they want to go forward or not. Were working on those together with the European Union. Were thinking about critical supply chains and particularly for semiconductors. Weve seen what happened when these get disrupted. Were designing together an early warning system so that if we see a disruption anywhere in a supply chain for a critical component first of all going to semiconductors but broadening out to other technologies a flashing red light goes off and we can act on it together. All of these things are bringing us into closer alignment.

Now, having said that, we have differences of view, differences of perspective just as we have within our own country, because obviously we dont have a unified technology policy in our own country that are always going to be there. We also have competition with some of our closest friends. We have were competing with Europeans, but we both fundamentally have the same interest in a system where people who play by the basic rules; where privacy is respected, even if we have different perspectives on the best way to do that; where our security is upheld, where human rights are respected, and where we can enhance our competitiveness. So the question is can we find ways to design those together, come into agreement. And then finally this: Competition when its fair, when its on a level playing field, when its a race to the top, is good. Thats what our own system is all about.

So for us its not saying, oh, we have to avoid competition with friends and partners and allies; its, on the contrary, making sure that together that competition is fair, its transparent, it has the rights of workers in mind, it has the environment in mind, it has protection of intellectual property in mind. And if we do that, then countries that dont abide by the same way of doing things will have to decide are they going to get into the race to the top with us and raise their own standards, raise their own game thats good for the world or not.

SECRETARY RICE: So lets go now from out there to Foggy Bottom, to the place that you work, the State Department, and talk a little bit about how all of this is affecting the State Department. Let me just say that when I left the State Department, the there wasnt a smartphone for all intents and purposes, and I think we still when I got there still had Wang computers, believe it or not.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: I remember those.

SECRETARY RICE: Youre all too young to even know what a Wang computer was, so it just gives you a sense. How in the world is a place that some 20 years ago still had 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 have to be, and were doing everything we possibly can be, to really be fit for the purpose of this moment and the moments to come. And we both worked on this and looked at this anyone comes into these jobs and theyre looking at their own department or agency and trying to figure out what do I need to change, what makes sense. And we spent some time doing that. And I think we came to a couple of conclusions that are reflected in what were doing.

First is youre only youre in these jobs for a finite period of time. Youre not going to youre not going to change everything and probably you shouldnt, so youve got to pick a handful of things that maybe you can make a difference on, get a start on, hopefully it continues when youre no longer there. Thats one.

Second, one of the biggest challenges we face is that the things that are really having an impact on the lives of everyone in this room and all of our fellow citizens are not necessarily the issues that the State Department has been front and center on or has the expertise on. And again, whether its climate, whether its health, whether its food insecurity, whether its energy, whether its economics, and whether it is cyberspace and digital policy, this has not been our bread and butter. And our bread and butter remains issues of war and peace, preventing conflict, making helping to end conflict where we can, making sure that the American people are secure through diplomacy. But each of these issues is directly tied to that.

So what weve done is were engaged in modernizing the department to make sure that were organized in a way and attract the talent in a way that allows us to play a leadership role on these issues. So, for example and youll Condi, youll appreciate this I think land record speed, we established a new bureau for cyber and digital policy in about six months time. And in fact, the ambassador running that, Nate Fick, who is actually a technologist (inaudible), is with us today. This is how we make sure that we have a place that the expertise can come to in the department and, ultimately, we can grow the expertise so that we can engage effectively on these issues.

Were in the process of doing something similar on global health. One of the most extraordinary achievements in American foreign policy over the last 25 years is something called PEPFAR, something that President Bush and Condi initiated to deal with the HIV/AIDS as well as malaria and tuberculosis crisis. I dont 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 questions of global health, and we want to make sure that the departments organized to do that, 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, again, we are a leader. Because heres the thing and again, you all know this very well just as if were not leading and were not engaged, were going to have a problem because someone else will do it or no one will do it; if were not finding new ways to cooperate, to collaborate, to work with other countries on these issues, we simply cant get them done. Climate were 15 percent or so of global emissions. By definition, even if we did everything right at home, we have to figure out a way to deal with the other 85 percent. That means, among other things, diplomacy to bring others along.

See the article here:

Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Conversation on the Evolution and Importance of Technology, Diplomacy, and National Security with 66th Secretary of...