Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Well, this is interesting. First meeting we’ve been able to hold, I’ll say in person, ‘cause we don’t have our full room here of members and guests, but we are absolutely thrilled to have so many of you with us, and if I may say, so many joining us as well online, as you have been doing over the last 16 to 18 months. It is my very, very great pleasure to welcome Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 52nd Speaker of the House, to Chatham House. As I was trying to work it out yesterday, second in the Presidential line of succession, I think that’s the right terminology to use, which adds to the pleasure of welcoming you here. I was trying to work out who the last speaker was we hosted here, I meant speaker rather than Speaker of a legislature. I think it was the Iraqi Prime Minister, but I think to have you at this historical moment, yet again, the second big crisis you’ve been leading Congress through, as we discussed a few minutes ago, really makes it very special. Speaker Pelosi is here also with her husband, Paul Pelosi. Mr Pelosi, welcome as well to Chatham House, wonderful to have you with us.
We were noting a minute ago that Georgetown School of Foreign Service celebrated its centenary in 2019, Chatham House in 2020, the Council on Foreign Relations in 2021. My colleague Leslie Vinjamuri, who’s very connected to all of those, and I, were involved in a project to pull the three institutions together for a centenary event, so there’s all sorts of connections here, Speaker Pelosi, that make it very special to have you with us. You’re here for the G7 Speakers of Legislatures Conference meeting, I think the term, we’re hosting as the UK, Boris Johnson is chairing the G7 this year. So, I’m sure you’re going to have a good discussion. I understand you met with Boris Johnson yesterday. So we’re, I’m sure, going to touch on some of the topics that you discussed with him as well.
Can I just say a couple of things beforehand before we get into our conversation? This is going to be a conversation initially between you and me, and then obviously, I want to bring as many of you in as possible, who are with us here today, both in the room and joining us online, our members who are joining us online, and I’ll explain the Q&A format in a minute. I’ll simply say for everyone that’s in the room, thank you for all being masked. Please keep your masks on through the event. If you’re asking a question, you’ll be able to take off your mask at that point. This is on the record, Speaker, Madam Speaker, it’s not under the Chatham House Rule, although you’re in Chatham House. So, we are on the record, which will let everyone draw full benefit from this. So, those of you who enjoy your tweeting, #CHEvents and, as I said, I’ll explain the Q&A function later on.
Speaker Pelosi, as I think many of you know, has – well, she was the first woman to be elected to the position of Speaker of the House in 2007, having become Leader of the Democratic Party in the House in 2003. She served 33 years representing San Francisco, 12th District of California, the state of California, and the first person, as I understand it, in 60 years, to retake the position of Speaker of the House, after Republicans took over in 2011, and you came back in in 2019. And I was saying a minute ago, what a period to have been Speaker in.
The global financial crisis, and a lot of your work has been trying to make sure that the right stimulus packages and protection packages are in place for American citizens ,working with President Obama and now President Biden. Two stimulus packages in two different periods, in that sense. A lot of work, obviously, an absolutely anchor person on the Affordable Care Act. A lot of emphasis, I understand, Speaker Pelosi, on healthcare, and one of your big issues. Climate change, you’ve been a long supporter of environmental protection in the United States and also, obviously now, with the UK hosting COP26, a great moment to have you here. We’ll come to that in our Q&A in a minute. And you, as all members of Congress do, get rather involved in foreign policy, as I think everyone here remembers, as Chatham House will know, the US Congress plays a critical area in many areas of foreign policy, but a lot of work trying to hold in place the JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran, but obviously playing a very important role on the sanction side as well.
So, look, I could spend too long of our time doing introductions. This is simply a way of saying welcome, we’re thrilled to have you here, a super record. Let me, if I may, Madam Speaker, just jump in on the question, I think, that is on the mind of so many of our members at Chatham House, there’s so many people in the United Kingdom and around the world, America, cradle of democracy in many ways, and certainly a great beacon for other parts of the world, we’ve just gone through one of the most difficult presidential transitions, I think, well, in recent memory. People always point to American politics being pretty rough and tumble a long time ago, but I think certainly in the memory of most people. And I’m just wondering if you could share with us, just your first reflections on the state of democracy in America. People seem to have different ways of measuring it and assessing it, and over to you.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Oh, well, thank you so much for the invitation to be here, for the participation of so many of your supporters here. I look forward to your questions. But it is an honour to be here at Chatham House. The reputation you enjoy, Director, and that Chatham House enjoys as an intellectual resource, as a magnet for so much leadership, current and past, but all with wisdom as to how we go forward. Congratulations on your centennial that we are in. So this has been a long record of commanding respect for the work that you do.
I’m honoured to be here. I’m excited to be here, actually, and I’m happy to be with my husband, and our Ambassador from the United States, Ambassador Reeker, who is here with us. And I understand that Ambassador – well, Sir Ambassador Westmacott is here as well, and thank you for your, shall we say, the mutual respect that we have between our two countries. This is a very special relationship. That is absolutely the case, and there’s to be no doubt about that, but if you want to know how special it is, you should know the long list of countries that want to share in that, and we say, “No, this is a special relationship between the UK and us.”
So it is an interesting time. We always like to – I always like to have a template, a time in the course of our conversation. It’s a historic thing for our country and our Declaration of Independence, no offence. When, in the course of human events, Lincoln talked of it at Gettysburg, what fourscore and seven years ago. So we have this tradition of putting ourselves in time, and at the time of our Revolution, Thomas Paine said, “The times have found us.” The time has found them to declare independence against the greatest naval force in the world at the time, that to risk their lives, liberty, and sacred honour, signing a Declaration of Independence, winning a war, establishing our founding documents, thank God, they’re based on the dignity and worth of every person. Thank God they made it amendable, so that we could continue that.
So, having placed us in that place and then the times found Lincoln to save the Union, and now the times, in our view, have found us in the country, in our Congress, and the White House, to again, preserve what we are, and that is a democracy with respect for the dignity and worth of every person. It’s really a different place. Director, thank you so much for referencing our relationship. And then you mentioned that, well, there have been in the past the rough and tumble of politics, yes, but nothing like what we are suffering now.
I mean, of course, there was a Civil War, but in terms of politics. At the time of the Civil War, President Lincoln was building the dome of the Capitol, this symbol of democracy to the world, a beacon of hope to the world. And they said to him, “You shouldn’t be building that. It’s steel and materials that should be used for the war.” And he said, “No, we’re going to show that our country endures. We’re building the dome as we fight and win the Civil War.” So the fact that that dome, with all of its symbolism and all that went into constructing it at a time of disunity in our country, would be assaulted the way it was, was not just an assault on a physical structure, it was on an institution, the Congress of the United States, on a day that was called for in the Constitution for us to formally confirm the Presidency, and the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States.
So this is – there’s nothing quite like this. The actual – the first crisis, you’ve mentioned the financial crisis, actually that happened under President Bush, and then, some of the solutions happened just shortly thereafter under President Obama, which we can talk about if you prioritise that. But this is a very challenging time for us. But there is a recognition of the challenge, and there is a, shall we say, concern about what really caused this. It was an insurrection incited by the President of the United States. No-one could have ever expected that or been prepared for something like that. But it had its roots in some kinds of white supremacy, antisemitism, Islamophobia, that’s how the FBI Director described some of what is out there when he has said, “The US is more at risk from domestic terrorism than from global terrorism.” Imagine that.
So this is different from a political disagreement, which is like nothing compared to the challenge to our democracy manifested that day. It might be manifested this weekend again in some way, but also manifested across the country in state legislatures passing laws to undermine the sanctity of the vote, to suppress the vote in a way that shuts out, shall we say, people of colour, people of a lower income, but however you want to describe that, in our elections. So we have a big fight on our hands, whether it’s in the states, whether it’s nationally, but it’s also the hearts and minds, a fight that we have.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
How do you explain for this audience, and actually, Daniel Silva, I can see, I’m going to bring you in now, because you ask a question here about this rise of populism, whether there’s any possibility for a return to cross-party politics, and reaching out across the aisle, when there seem to be such fundamentally different perspectives of what’s happened? I mean, what is driving this polarisation? What can America do to overcome it? What can Democrats do to overcome it and not be part of it, if you see what I’m saying?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Well, I would say to my Republican friends, and I do have some, take back your party. The Republican Party, the grand old party, is – made tremendous contributions to our country, founded by Lincoln, but over the years, a tremendous contribution to our country. Don’t let your party be hijacked by a cult, essentially, that is what is happening, and it isn’t good for the country. We, of course, want the Democrats to be pre-eminent, but that’s secondary to the fact that we need to have strong representation across the board in our country. And if what we’re doing with our laws in the Congress to overturn what they’re doing in the states, if we can pass them in the Senate, we pass them in House, if we can do that, it may not benefit Democrats. It may benefit more moderate Republicans, and that would be a good thing for our country.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
But it seems that there’s a lot of support for the position there, amongst registered Republicans. All of the polling shows 75 plus % support for where they are. So, in a way, you could say these Republican legislators are reflecting their voters. So very hard to take back, isn’t it?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
No, I – with all due respect, I disagree. Across the country on issues, if you talk about gun violence protection by passing legislation for background checks, overwhelmingly, in the 80s, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, gun owners, hunters, support the background check legislation. So they do not reflect the people. In issues that relate to – I talked about gun violence, but if you talk about climate change and the rest, very popular across the country. Not amongst some of the people in the hard core of their party, who are averse to science, they are anti, they don’t agree with science, and they don’t – it’s anti-science and anti-governance. If you – if science says, “You should wear a mask,” and government says, “You can’t come in the room without a mask,” you know, “You can’t go to school without a mask,” that’s a double whammy, anti-science, anti-governance, that’s a – and those two nos do not make a yes. And so, that’s a problem.
Similarly, and really on the ongoing, anti-science about the climate crisis. They have their agenda, they are close to the fossil fuel industry, but nonetheless, in denial over the science of the climate crisis. So they reject any initiatives, in terms of governance on the climate crisis. And that is a major problem, because climate crisis is a health issue, clean air, clean water for our children, for all of us, but for our children. It’s a jobs issue.
New green technology is providing so much opportunity for new people into a workforce for new industries. Third, it is a security issue. If you, in fact, listen to our security – national security experts, they tell us, “This is a real challenge, because we have competition for resources and habitat that is necessitated by migration and the rest, rising sea levels, encroachment of deserts, drying of rivers, the thermal management of the planet.” You know all of the issues that are weighing in on the climate crisis. But if you’re in denial about that, you don’t believe the science or the data, and therefore, you don’t want to respond to any regulations to make the difference, then that creates a problem.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Just, you know, going on the Congressional side very quickly, and staying with this issue of climate that you’ve raised with us, obviously COP26…
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Yeah.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
…I know it’s very frustrating, but we’re doing what we have to do. COP26 obviously is such a big priority to get this particular agreement right. There have been a number of American Presidents that have tried to push treaties, agreements on climate change. Congress has always stood in opposition. I seem to remember on the Kyoto Protocol, it might have been 98 to zero in the Senate, so maybe I shouldn’t say Congress, you know, as a whole. How optimistic or worried should we be about the role of Congress, House and Senate, in America being able to join with other countries in taking steps forward on the climate issue?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Well, let me just give you a slightly different perspective than you presented. With all due respect, the 99 was the vote that the Republic – that they put up was. If it’s going to lose massive amounts of American jobs, do you support following this line? It was posed in a way that there was no way anybody was going to. Now that was a long time ago. But for a long time, on the other side of the aisle, whether it was Montreal, Kyoto, to some of the agreements over time, Paris Accords and the rest, had rejected. With any research, any study, anything, we could never get the Republicans to vote with us on that.
Actually, President Obama was the first President – I mean, I love the Bushes and George Bush for many reasons, but he was not a climate acceptor, he just wasn’t, I mean, and his party was not. But we did work together with him to pass the biggest energy bill in the history of the United States. We worked in a bipartisan way. He wanted nuclear, I wanted renewables, and we had a big celebration as we signed – as he signed that legislation. So he did do that, but that was the energy piece, not the climate piece, and it’s a dual piece. So, he did that, but when he came to global meetings and the rest, G7, well, then it was G8, he never was a supporter of any climate initiative. President Obama was, went to Paris, the Paris Accords, etc., but we still had that fight after. But even when we had the majority, you have to have 60 votes in the Senate, so it was a challenge.
Now, we have a President, President Biden, he says, “You don’t have to talk to me about climate. I was the first member of Congress to introduce legislation on climate, decades ago,” and it is true. He was, and he has a right to keep saying it, and that’s a good thing, because it’s a priority for him, because it’s about health and jobs and security. And on top of it all, a moral responsibility we have to future generations to hand off this planet in the best possible way, and that’s what he’s determined to do. So I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in making the COP26 a success. It’s a source of pride to the host country, how it all turns out, and I know everyone is working very hard to make that a success.
But the – as long as you require 60 votes in the Senate, it will be hard to get the fullest participation that is a reflection really of the American people. And by the way, young people know this very well. Children almost in kindergarten, certainly in grade school, could teach our colleagues a great deal about the challenge that we face with the climate crisis. They are knowledgeable, it’s their future, it’s their planet. We owe them that responsibility. But I was so impressed when I was Speaker the first time, climate was my flagship issue, climate issue, that was when President Bush was President, before President Obama, and we had a select committee, as we do now, on the climate crisis, and we travelled here to see what other countries were doing, and it was so impressive to come to the UK to see not only none difference between the parties, but intellectual resources of enthusiasm on both sides, as you call it, of the aisle here, where work was largely with the House of Commons. So, it hasn’t really been an issue of division in Europe or in the EU, beyond the UK, for all these years, but it has been in the US.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I think it could – it is becoming and may become more of an issue of division as the costs start to work their way through into people’s energy bills, in Europe, I’m saying, in particular. We’ve – I’m keeping an eye on time, ‘cause we – it would be so nice to keep talking and keeping you here all morning, and I’m sure people would be very happy to. Actually, I’m going to just keep flowing in. I wanted to – there was a question I was going to ask, but I can see somebody’s asked it here, one of our members, so I think I’m going to call on him, if we can, John Prideaux. Hopefully, folks, we can reach out to John and get John to ask the question about working in the Democratic Party? If not, I’m going to ask the question for him, if I don’t see his name – oh, John, are you there?
John Prideaux
Hi everyone, thank you so much.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
You cheekily put down two questions. Could you ask your second one, please, about the Democratic Party?
John Prideaux
Sure, thank you so much. Thank you for this event. Speaker Pelosi, it’s great to have you in London. I’m John Prideaux, I’m the US Editor at The Economist. I wanted to ask about how managing the Democratic Caucus in the House has changed compared with when you were Speaker during Barack Obama’s Presidency? Which, I guess, is a different way of asking how the Democratic Party itself has changed over that time.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Well, John, our party is a party, and again, I’m not here to talk politics, but nonetheless, you asked that question. It just is a matter of civics and history. The – our party has never been a lockstep rubberstamp party, and that is the beauty of it, the beauty is in the mix. We are almost 70% women, people of colour, LGBTQ. We are diverse, geographically, of course, by the nature of the office we hold. Geographically, generationally, gender identity, ideas across the spectrum, ethnically, it is a beautiful, beautiful mix, and we have always come together by building consensus. It’s not a top-down kind of thing, it’s a bubble up from our members, and that’s why we’re always successful when we set out to pass legislation, because it springs from the beautiful diversity of our caucus, which is in contrast to the other side of the aisle. If you’re the Speaker and you’re sitting on one side of the aisle, and the other side – one looks very much like America, and one looks very much like the, I don’t know, Congress used to look. But there, you know, hopefully that will get better.
But it is, when I say challenging, it’s exciting, because you are hearing different views from different parts of the country. We all go in, whether you’re Democrats or Republicans, as a matter of fact, very confident about what we believe in. We know our why. We know why we’re there. We know what drives our engine, that is to say, if it’s climate, know your subject, if it’s education, if it’s rights, and whatever the subject happens to be, know your subject. Nobody knows it all, of course, but be confident enough about why you’re there, what you care about, how you hope to get something done, and how you hope to get something done is by being humble enough to listen to other people as to their perspective. Because they represent their district, and you represent yours. The job title and the job description are one and the same, Representative. And sometimes we have to, shall we say, lead, and it takes courage, because it may not be immediately obvious to our constituents how this is in that district’s interest when it is a global or national decision that we have to make. So, we see the value of the Democrats as opposed to the other side of the aisle, that we aren’t lockstep.
And how has it changed? Well, pretty much, I mean, it’s pretty much always, shall we say – I’m looking here, because John’s name is here, or was, pretty much the same. We have our diversity of opinion, and we have our exuberances. But one thing that unifies us, despite where we are on timing or intensity on a certain issue, what unifies us then and now as Democrats are the concerns of America’s working families. That our leverage in the Congress is to give leverage to America’s working families. So when we’re having a debate on legislation, it’s – like as we are now with reconciliation. It’s the first time children have had major leverage in a bill. That people with disabilities had, had major leverage in a bill. Because we have a President who has a bold vision, not incremental, but transformative. And again, that’s what will bring us together, although we could, shall we say, oh, it’s not doing enough on this, and it’s not doing enough – yeah, that’s – welcome to our world.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m going to go to the audience in a second, so please get ready with a question or two, and then I’ll be bringing some online. Just one, kind of, follow-up question. I think before President Biden took office, there was an expectation that the Democratic side of Congress was going to be a little bit at its, you know, let’s say exuberant in its differences, and I’ll use your terminology. At least looking at it from the outside, from my perspective, it seems to be rather disciplined. But at the same time, sitting over here in Europe, one of the things we’ve noticed is, kind of, America’s position on trade policy has been extremely cautious, therefore perhaps avoiding some of those exuberant differences in the Democratic Party. Where do you think the Democratic Party stands today on trade? We’ve got a lot going on in Asia, which America is not part of. We still have steel and aluminium tariffs on European countries, including the UK. Is this just the price of keeping parties together these days, in this new world?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Well, let just point with great pride to what we did on the US-Canada – US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. There have always been divisions in our own caucus, some of it springing from geography or just philosophy about trade. It was pretty divided in that regard, and when we were doing – the former President, he said, you know, he was going to reform NAFTA and the rest, and he sent us a bill that was useless. I mean, there was no way we would ever pass it. It wasn’t – it didn’t rise to the occasion of an international trade agreement. And what we did was, worked very hard to make sure that everyone’s views were heard on the subject, and resulting in an historic vote. Almost every Democrat voted for that, if not all, who never voted for a trade agreement before. But we did respect the concerns of the environment, which you cannot ignore in a trade agreement, workers’ rights, issues like that, some specific, shall we say, well, one was the pharmaceutical industry, that they would not be dominated – more on that if you wish me to go into that – but everybody voted together. Not because we went all the way left or all the way right, but because we brought it together.
It was quite a masterpiece. The President, then President, had a big ceremony signing it. It had absolutely no resemblance, except maybe the title, to what he had sent to Congress, which we would never have passed, because it did not address many of the concerns I just mentioned. But it was, in my view, and not everybody shares this view, a template for how we would go forward. Some say, “Well, you know, you’re overstating it,” but I think it was a template for listening, learning, reflecting, and really, I mean, and the issue of workers’ rights is very important, but none of us succeeds if we – succeed at the expense of workers in another country. We have to be elevating everybody so that the, shall we say, everyone shares in the benefits of what we are trying to do. So I think we’re on a good path. I think we’re on a very good path.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Right, I definitely can see lots of hands going up and so on, and I’m going to be a little bit…
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Women, where are the women?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, I know. There’s a lot of women in the room, so we definitely, we’re going to make sure we get a full mix.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
I want – I see one.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m like, I take – there’s one just there, in the second row back. Yeah, keep going. Stop, yes, please, madam, yeah, we’ll start with you, as you’re there.
Galina Miskovic
I should just…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
You can just stay sitting and fire away, we can hear you.
Galina Miskovic
Okay, a question…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Introduce yourself, if you would.
Galina Miskovic
Yes, Galina Miskovic, I work for SRM, grew up in Boston, so I’m almost American, well, I am. The question a bit about lessons from the past. What do you think either the Democratic Party or American public would/should do to prevent the future election of the type of the last Republican President America had?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
What do you think the Democrats should do to prevent something like uh-uh?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, it seems like Harry Potter for a minute.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
He shall be nameless. He will remain nameless. Well, as I say, I thank you for your question. I do think that it’s important for the Republican Party to get a hold on itself, in terms of what it is. I mean, again, in the founding of our country, the – it was a recognition that there would be a spectrum of ideas, from progressive to conservative, relating to the role of the Federal Government, states rights, all those things, the National Bank, all of that. And that was all the legitimate debate that our founders accommodated in a Congress of the United States, and with the separation of power, which was the genius of the Constitution. So, there’s tremendous respect for other people’s views. That’s what you bring to the table. I bring what I bring to the table, and everything in-between or beyond. But that’s not where we are now. They’re off the spectrum. This is not conservative, which is of course a very – more than legitimate position to hold. This is radical right wing, off the spectrum, anti-governance, and if you’re anti-governance, it’s very hard to govern.
Now, but we still have an obligation to try with – as much by partisanship as we can, with transparency, so that people can see what is happening, and with accountability, so how do we work together to do that? We always want to have the imprimatur of bipartisanship on whatever we do, but not to the point of negating what our purpose is or why we’re there. So I think it’s really more a question of, just between us, what they tell us, what the Republicans tell us is. Not in Congress, forget that. What Republicans tell us, you just have to win the elections. You just have to win the elections and that has an eloquence about it that is unmistakeable.
And then, what they say is, “We can’t beat them in the primary. You have to beat them in the general, then we’ll come back and have our usual debate about the role of government.” So, we need the Republicans to weigh it, and if we can, as I say, pass these – well, John Lewis wrote – one bill he wrote, another bill is named for him. The one that he wrote is the one that has, what I mentioned earlier about redistricting, that would enable there to be more reflection of the population than of a right wing, radical right wing sentiment in the district.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m keeping this up, I’m just going to get one on here, then I’m going here, then I’m going there. So, David Manning, is yest another former Ambassador who you may have known. David, hopefully, we can bring you up, and you can ask your topical question.
Sir David Manning
Thank you very much, Robin. Can you hear me?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Hi.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yes, we can.
Sir David Manning
Speaker Pelosi, hello, how very nice to see you here. Thank you for talking to us, and I have very happy memories of working together. Could I ask you if you would address the issue of Northern Ireland?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Yes.
Sir David Manning
I know that you have spoken about this, but I wonder how worried you are about the impact that the UK-EU-Northern Ireland protocol issue is having on the politics of Northern Ireland. Do you continue to see this as a threat to the Good Friday Agreement that you and many other Americans helped to facilitate? And what do you think the impact of it is having on the wider UK-US bilateral relationship? Were you able to ask the Prime Minister about this yesterday?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Did you hear the question?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Then I won’t repeat it. Thank you, Mr Ambassador, for your very important question, and a very timely one now. One of my most – well, pre-COVID, when I was here a couple of years ago, we had a visit here then, and we went to Ireland, I spoke to the Dáil there, I told them of the commitment that we had to the Good Friday Accords. This is something that was negotiated, George Mitchell, President Clinton, just a remarkable, and actually, with the UK involved in it as well. The Good Friday Accords, which relate to the open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This is very, very, very, very respected in the Congress of the United States, to your question, Mr Ambassador, and in our country. The – I’m not at liberty to talk about what my conversation was with the Prime Minister, I don’t think, but – so I won’t particularly go – it did come up, let’s put it that way. And it will…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
It was in the readout, so we know it was definitely raised.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
And he gave me some reading. Oh, it’s in the readout, okay, so…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
That you discussed it.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Okay, but – and he – we did discuss it, he gave me some reading material. He may be coming to the US, and that’s not up to me to say, but it is possible that he will be coming to the US soon, and I told him that I would be reading what he gave me and asking some questions about it when we meet. We hope to host him at the Capitol at that time, in the House of Representatives. Anyway, just so – the Ambassador’s question is fraught with so many specifics that are really not as well known to everyone as to the protocols and the nature of negotiation with the EU.
When I came two years ago, I met with Labour Party, Conservative Party, Tories, on both sides, people who were on opposite sides of the Brexit issue. What we said, our group, we had a big group, what we said was, “We respect the vote of the people of the UK. If it is their decision to go forward with Brexit, so be it, we respect that. We’re not here to talk about your policy, but we are here to talk about ours. And ours is that we want to see whatever happens in the negotiations with the EU, to understand the importance of the Good Friday Accords, the free and open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.” And that has been a standing thing. Now, I’m so glad that more time has been given for the negotiations and the conversation, because they have to reach an agreement. There has to be an agreement. If it takes a little more time, so be that.
To your further point, Mr Ambassador, this is not said as any threat, it’s a prediction. If there’s destruction of the Good Friday Accords, they are very unlikely to have a UK-US bilateral. We have to have a path that includes that. Now, our distinguished Ambassador has made the UK position very clear to us, about the complexity of the negotiation, so let’s just – and by the way, I have to say that the leadership in Ireland is very sympathetic to, let’s work this out. Nobody’s declaring one thing or another, but you asked, you know. It would be problematic, in terms of a bilateral.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m going to just keep an eye on time. I’m going to take two questions together first, and then I’ll keep moving around. So the lady here and the gentleman there. So, lady here, yeah, and then…
Ambassador Simona Leskovar
Thank you.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Got the microphone? Yeah, there it is, if you can just ask your question.
Ambassador Simona Leskovar
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s really a privilege to be here and it’s a privilege to see human beings around.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Yes.
Ambassador Simona Leskovar
And it’s really – thank you also for the invitation, Robin, it’s so timely. I’m Slovenian Ambassador here, Simona Leskovar is my name. Slovenia is a small country of two million, but right now, holds the EU Presidency, and we are also very much looking forward at the relationship between the UK and the EU is resolved in a manner that would suit not just the both sides, but the whole world. But let me turn more to the foreign policy, if I may, in my question. How do you see working together, the United States, the United Kingdom, EU, to resolve these very challenging issues that are on the plate, Afghanistan, China relations, co-operation with China-Russia? How can we work together, while we are having so many internal challenges at home, as you describe, and we have here, and we have here in Europe, in the EU? So what’s your view, how we can work together?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
That’s a big question. Do you want to answer it or do you want me to…?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
But you want two, you want two.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Is that alright, if I take two? ‘Cause that…
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
No, go ahead, take two.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
They may end up, sort of, interconnecting a bit. Yeah, James, yes, over to you, yeah.
James Landale
Can you hear me?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, we can hear you.
James Landale
Good morning, my name’s James Landale and I work for the BBC. Madam Speaker, there have been disagreements over Afghanistan, the Northern Ireland Protocol, there’s an absence of a free trade deal. Are these bumps in the road, or do they – are they symptoms of a more fundamental shift in the UK-US relationship?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
No, I don’t think so at all. I do think that in our friendship, which is a deep one, candour is an important factor, and it doesn’t mean we won’t have our different approaches. But as I began my comments here, the fact that we have this special relationship is one that we value in the US, and it appears to be valued in the UK as well, I hope, and it is – it is special. It is special. So, we have had – it doesn’t mean that you always agree on everything, and of course, we have democratic systems where there are different people who emerge in the leadership and representation of our country. So, I wouldn’t judge what happened, in the previous four years, as an indication of where we are getting to the further question of the transatlantic relationship. Of course, nobody has a special relationship that the UK and the United States have with each other. Nobody – as I’ve said, so many people would say, “Well, why can’t we have that?” So many countries say that. No, because it’s seen as historic, it’s values, it’s so many things, not that we wouldn’t have that with other countries, but it is special.
The – yeah, there will be differences as we go along and they will be perceived differently on each side of the Atlantic. We are very proud of our President. He served as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee – well, in Senate, they call it Foreign Relations, they have a different name, Foreign Relations Committee. He has travelled the world as Vice President of the United States, decades in the Senate. So he has a global view. He has a global view, in addition to having a respect for governance, domestically, but not to go there. And he understands – the challenges, you named some of them, but not all.
The climate crisis, we have to work together, and we can learn from you. You are in the lead, far ahead of us, in terms of that, as I mentioned earlier. You didn’t even have a difference of opinion on the fact that it existed and that it needed to be addressed. How is the discussion we all have? Climate crisis, COVID, we can learn from you on COVID, you can learn from – we learned from our successes and our lack of success in certain areas. COVID, a pandemic of that magnitude requires a global, and not just response, but planning ahead for what else could ever happen like that. So, whether you talk climate, we talk COVID, if we’re into the Cs, we’ll go to China, we do have to work together on how we deal with that.
Now, on that subject particularly, when, in 2017, we had a new President, and by then the EU had [inaudible – 48:55] you then, had caught up with us, in terms of the trade deficit and the rest. You know, China had always been abusive of the United States, in terms of the trade deficit. But they, shall we say, courted the EU in the beginning, until they then came down with the trade deficit on the EU. So I thought this President had a new opportunity to the biggest market that you could ever imagine, the EU and the United States, or if you want to say now, the EU, the UK, the United States, to use its leverage vis-à-vis China, to say, “Enough of this, you know, we’re not going to have you abuse our workers, our markets, and the rest.”
But what did the President do? As you indicated, Robin, he put tariffs on the EU. I said, “What?” I mean, that – I’m usually not surprised, but that was mysterious. That was mysterious. Wait a minute, we’re supposed to be collaborating and for some reason, he put those. Now we have to address how we transition out of those. But I would – perhaps it’s viewed differently on either side of the Atlantic, but in our country, there has never been diminution of respect, value of the US-UK relationship. The trade thing is, you know, as I mentioned, without going into that again, we probably will end up there, but we have a path that has to come through, the EU recognising the importance of the Good Friday Accords.
And again, in terms of our, shall we say, challenges at home that you mentioned, the – this is – it’s unifying. When you’re talking about a global challenge, it can be unifying within the country, if in fact, people believe in science and governance and the rest. But nonetheless, the word I would use, that is the differentiation within our own Congress about these issues, is ‘courage’. Everybody has their views, everybody has their convictions, their commitment and the rest, speaking literally again, but do they have the courage? And that’s what I’m most proud of, is the courage of my members, because it takes no courage for me representing the magnificent district that I represent, San Francisco, California, to take certain positions, but it does take some courage on the part of other members, and the courage. But in order to have courage, it’s important for people to understand what they - way the equities, understand the differences that a vote can make. So it isn’t some – nothing is easy. Let’s predicate that. Nothing is easy. It’s all a challenge, but it has to succeed.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I will take – thank you. I will take one question online, one question in the room. Rachel Bonfante, I think, has a very interesting targeted question, which I think you will appreciate. Rachel, hopefully, we’re going to get you on audio in a second, otherwise I’m going to go…
Rachel Bonfante
Good morning.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m going to ask your question actually, for you, if Rachel doesn’t pop up. Rachel? Otherwise, okay.
Rachel Bonfante
Hi, can you hear me?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Oh, we got you, we can hear you. Over to you, go Rachel.
Rachel Bonfante
Good morning, thank you, Rachel Bonfante with Chevron. Speaker Pelosi, just to turn back to climate change, which is of course a huge issue. I’m wondering what you think the prospects are for having an economy-wide carbon price in the final reconciliation, and whether you would actually support that? Thank you.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
In the final reconciliation, oh, I don’t see – but there are suggestions to that extent. I think that with that, many of us have been for that for a long time, so this is not a new subject, Rachel. However, in terms of this reconciliation, I – it’s not off the table, but it is probably not one of the primary sources, because it will – it has its, shall we say, challenges geographically, for some of our members. The – but it is something that we’re going to have to arrive at. So when we do legislation, perhaps this is useful, you have to make sure people understand what the choices are, then you have to socialise them, so that people understand this path is more important than that path, because this is how it reaches its goal, which is to lower emissions and carbon, but also produce the funds necessary to compensate those low wealth people who need to be compensated for the increased cost that, Robin, you touched upon earlier. So does it – and some of the socialisation has to be done nationally as well. So while I would say, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has this proposal on the Senate side, I don’t know how it will survive there. But rather than just confining it to reconciliation, because we have a short fuse on that and have to get it done, we will be taxing, a higher tax on corporate profits, we will be having a higher tax on capital gains. We have a number of places to have resources and depending on what our top line ends up being, which is 3.5 trillion, how much money we actually need right now, and how much we would have as part of some other climate agenda.
But on the climate thing, just, it’s important to note this, because every place I go you get, you know, this proposal, that proposal. We have everybody at the table. We have a Chair of our Committee, Kathy Castor from Florida, she is determined on this issue. She will be here for COP26, as will I, and you have everybody at the table. You have business and labour, labour and enviros, enviros and business, people of faith and Scientists, farmers, venture capi – we are set to attract capital to some of these tax credits. So you have everybody at the table, so that your solution is one that is consensus building and socialising and is the boldest possible position, consistent with our global responsibilities, because as has been mentioned by others, who shall remain nameless now, there has to be money committed. Money committed to the developing countries, for them to meet their emissions standards and challenges. So it isn’t just in this bill. So, I wouldn’t be – but it has a more of a life than just the next two weeks or three weeks in this legislation.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m going to squeeze in – and I’m keeping a very close eye on time, I’m going to squeeze in a couple of questions, and there’s a couple of issues that haven’t been touched on. I’ll see where these two go and I may doorstep you at the end with those two. First, my colleague Leslie, and then gentleman there. Yeah, microphone here first, front row. You can take your mask off, Leslie.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Oh, thank you. Hi, it’s such an honour to have you here. I just want to say thank you again for joining us. There are two concrete things that I would be very grateful if you could speak to. I’m an American, very long time Londoner. I’ve lived on and off in the UK since 1988, but especially since 2006. And in recent years, there are two concerns that I’ve heard expressed in elite circles across the UK time and time again, factors that many people in Britain seem to be concerned will erode the quality of the US-UK relationship, and I’m hoping that you can speak to them.
One is that America is becoming a majority-minority country, that there is very significant demographic change. We know from the Census that the white American population didn’t grow and sometimes I hear people express concern that this might change the way that Americans feel about the UK. I think it’s not a legitimate concern, but I think it’s an important one to speak to, and I’d love to hear from you about it, not least for what you said about the Democratic Party representing the face of America.
The second one is a concern that emerged during Brexit, which was that the US-UK relationship will become a bipartisan – sorry, a partisan relationship, and that might affect the quality and the durability of the relationship going forward. And again, I think something that is really important to speak to, and you’ve, sort of, alluded to that in earlier questions, but it would be wonderful to hear from you on these two.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
And what if it became a partisan – what party was going – I’m not – I think that it is…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It was partly because of President Obama’s piece that he published in The Telegraph, maybe his views on Brexit and whether that [inaudible – 58:41] subsequently?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Well, I don’t – that is not partisan at all. It’s probably one of the least partisan. When we talk about partisanship, there is an element of emotion that is injected into it. I don’t see that at all. The beautiful diversity of America is inevitable, as is globalisation and the rest. So, we – that’s who we are. There’s nobody spoke more beautifully about it than President Ronald Regan, whose quote I saw when we came in, when I came in, so nicely welcomed by you and by Robin, Leslie. And it’s a – he basically talked about the Statue of Liberty being the beacon of hope to the world. He said, “This is the last speech I will make as President of the United States, and I want to communicate a message to a country I love,” and he talked about the Statue of Liberty and the Beacon of Hope. And he talked about how America is pre-eminent in the world because our doors are open to newcomers coming. And should we close that door, our pre-eminence would be diminished. Don’t take it from me, Google it. It’s – I only – it’s longer than that. It’s a beautiful speech. We don’t build walls, kind of, speech. Ronald Regan, and that is about what our country, it is, has always been, a nation of immigrants, from the very start.
And it is something that we value, and that’s who we are, and of course, representing California, this is something I’ve been used to, that beautiful diversity, and especially in my district. We have everything. We have every nationality, every language taught in the schools, every religion or not, the whole kit and kaboodle, and it’s a source of great pride to us. So we see that as our strength. There are those in our country, and that’s part of what I talked about earlier about January 6th, who are concerned about this, about the fact that America is becoming more diverse. They have fear of globalisation, which is inevitable. They have fear of automation, which is inevitable. They have fear of immigration, which hopefully, we recognise the value to us. Probably globalisation and automation is a source of concern to them, because they don’t see their role in the future for them and their families, but we have to change that attitude, so that they do see, because they’re both inevitable, right, globalisation, automation.
And – but I don’t think any country should fear our diversity, because if anything, it’s a source of respect for another country, because there are many of them from another country, another culture, and the rest, so the respect they have for themselves is something that they respect that others have, and they understand. And part of it, of course, is our national leadership, to show that we have whatever – well, you have a Commonwealth, so you have diversity coming into the UK as well, and that’s a beautiful thing. It has been for a long time. But the leadership of the country is seeing that as a strength and not as a division. It would be very, very important. And I’m not – I don’t know if President Obama made that speech post-Brexit or anything, but that’s the will of the people of the UK. That’s not our concern. Our concern is what that means to our relationship, in terms of the Good Friday Accords, as I mentioned.
But let me just say this, in case we don’t have time at the end. Why I was so excited to come here, for many reasons, to see all of you, Robin and Leslie have their US ties, so that I think they have an appreciation for the, shall we say, exuberances of America. And the thing is though, that one of my favourite books is called Age of Wonder – Holmes, it’s written by Holmes. And in it, he talks about London 100, almost 200 years ago. And he talks about how, when the Endeavour went to see the eclipse, you know, he travelled to the South Seas and went – Darwin went to America, to South America and came back. That this – okay, religion trumped some of what Darwin brought back and the rest. He had to wait a while to publish. We have some of that in the US now, 200 years later. Science or faith, take your pick, and I say science is an answer to our prayers, as a devout practicing Catholic.
But one of the things that happened then was, in terms of science and nature, which was emerging then as a intellectual topic, science – they encouraged the Poets to speak, in terms of nature and science and the Scientists to speak more, in terms of not poetry but values where people were relating to people. And one of my favourite quotes, and I say it’s favourite, because there are many competitions for this honour, but it’s because it’s on the wall of the Science, Space and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives. Science, Space and Technology, the future, science. This is the quote on the wall. Alfred Lord Tennyson, “For I dipped into the future as far as human eye could see, saw the vision of the world and all the wonder that would be.” That’s just one example. Keats, another example of his experiencing stuff, in terms of experiencing nature and the rest. And it is, but I think it’s going to, kind of, save us all, the arts, in terms of how people see things in an enlarged issue, whether it’s globally enlarged or values enlarged, equity, weighing the equities in a way where we find our common ground. In the arts, people laugh together, cry together, are inspired together, they just forget their differences, and that’s, kind of, a place that I see a better place for us to come together. It’s not science and it’s not governance, it’s spirituality, some, kind of, embracing of equities and values.
And London really led the way. I could say the UK, whatever it was called 200 years ago. But London was very much, in the institutions like Chatham House, even though it was before you were born. Chatham House that is, certainly you, Robin, anybody. But London has always led the way, in terms of being an intellectual resource and an artistic, creative. The Poet Shelley once said, “The greatest force for moral good is imagination.” So that creativity, that putting ourselves in other people’s shoes and all the rest, is – I have faith in that being a unifying force for us, and I appreciate the contribution that Chatham House has made in the dialogue globally, domestically, bringing people together to understand each other’s point of view. So I thank you for the opportunity to be here, in the tradition of intellectual pursuit and collaboration that is typical of the UK from its origins.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Thank you very much. We were told we could go ten minutes over, and that – we’ve got about two minutes left. You’ve done such a beautiful coda at the end I hate breaking it. I’m trying to wonder, but I – Speaker, can I break that lovely flow? Because that would have been a lovely moment for everyone to applaud, but I’m going to get them to hold back. Can I do that for a second?
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
No, it’s fine.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
‘Cause I so promised somebody there, and what I’m going to do is take one question here, I’m going to take one question, or I know it’s going to be two from the back, and you know, we’ll do a little grouping, and you can do a quickfire set of answers, which I’m sure…
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
You’re telling me to make your answers shorter.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, I know, exactly, ‘cause we’ve literally got two minutes. So, yeah.
Sean Kurtie
Okay, Sean Kurtie, a member of Chatham House. I’d like to thank you for taking us up to the heights. I’d like to get us more down to earth and ask about the relationship between the US and President Xi Jinping. Since President Xi took office, particularly since he removed the term limits, which constrained previous Chinese Presidents, China has been much more aggressive, particularly in Taiwan. And I wonder what insights you have and the direction forward between the US and China, particularly as you have experience of a President who tried to overstay his term limit? Thank you.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Can I hold each – I’m going to list them.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
You’re in charge, you’re in charge.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, I’m going to be in charge. Right at the back of the room, please fire away, introduce yourself.
Tiffany Austin Banja
Hello, thank you, Tiffany Austin Banja, FRSA, student at Stowe School. As a young person studying history and politics, we can look at the insurrection as a moment of failure possibly in the American democratic system. So my question to you, Madam Speaker, is do you think that American democracy can ever truly and fully recover from the interaction?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Alright, can it recover, right. And I’m sorry, I tell you what, Tim and Nicky, I’m going to ask your questions for you, but they’re right at the top of the list, they got voted up, so I’m going to ask them. And again, they’re really granular, but you’re going to love – this is the danger of going over.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
This is Chatham’s hall, right?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, well it better be, maybe this bit. Speaker Pelosi, from Tim Oliver, “Travel ban on Europeans visiting the USA, but not on Americans visiting most of Europe, is deeply unfair, given bans have not been applied to countries elsewhere with worse COVID situations. Each day the ban continues, you damage those close relationships within the Atlantic alliance.” Actually this – I’m constantly hearing this point, so I think I wanted to make sure that was communicated.
And I think our last and very fair question, and a very important one, from Nicky Jones. “Surely we need to name the nub issue here, the corporate capture of government in the UK as well as the US. People have lost faith in their government pursues policy in the interests of ordinary people. When we talk about democracy, do we need to talk about that?” How about those for – to be done in, like, two minutes? Sorry, Officer, Speaker Pelosi, never give Chatham House extra time, right.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Okay, well, they’re not unrelated, so let me start with the last question, because I really appreciate all the questions, but I did talk about my Select Committee on Climate. One of the other committees that I established in this Congress was a Select Committee on the disparity of income and opportunity in our economic system. And it is – we do believe that the middle classes, the backbone of our democracy, and that we do also believe that the middle class has a union label on it in the United States, because we have so many of the benefits of a weekend, the eight hour day, the rest of it, on just supporting workers, has helped create a middle class. But it is at risk, as was – I am not associating myself with the description in the UK, ‘cause that – but I can say in America, capitalism is our system, it is our economic system, but it has not served our economy as well as it should. And so what we want to do is not depart from that, but to improve it, and to make sure that it serves up.
Adam Smith wrote two books. He wrote Wealth of Nations and then he wrote another book about principles and the rest, about how in an economy, in a society, how to meet the needs of people. Now, he wasn’t doing it really from compassion, but from practicality. So you cannot have a system where the success of some is – springs from the exploitation of the workers and springs from the exploitation of the environment and the rest, and we have to correct that. I do think there’s a growing awareness even in the private sector, that we have to do better. Well, I’m sorry, it’s going to take longer, but if you go back 40 years ago or something, we had in our country what was called stakeholder capitalism, where decisions were made by the management, etc., to benefit – if, when productivity rose, the CEO pay rose, then the worker pay rose, apropos of the rise in productivity. That was about 40 years ago, stakeholder capitalism. Since then, it’s become shareholder capitalism. Productivity rises, CEO pay rises, worker pay stagnates. A right angle going in the wrong direction and that’s just not right.
So how do we recognise, when we address the climate crisis, and that’s a big jobs issue, environmental justice? There’s so much environmental injustice in our country, I’m not speaking for the UK experience, and so this Committee is listening to ideas, new, fresh ideas about how we can make capitalism work better for everyone, because we really do have to improve that. We cannot have an exploitation of our workforce where the wages have stagnated for decades, and CEO pay has soared, and if you make money because you keep wages low, that is – we’re a consumer economy in the United States. And so the fact is that you’re putting money in people’s pockets, they inject – spend it, inject demand into the economy, create jobs, it’s a positive thing. So this – I’m very pleased to have that question, because it is a very central point in democracy, because democracy really has as its backbone a strong middle class, and opportunity for those who aspire to it as well.
The Ambassador can attest to, as my entire staff can, the concern that you’ve heard about this, the travel initiative, and there has to be a resolution of that soon, and the more we can resolve the COVID situation, the easier that will be. But suffice to say, that if, as you said, you hear about it all the time, so do we, right? And it was the subject…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m sure you have, Ambassador.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
…of our country team briefing as a matter.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Obviously, you can take it.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
As a matter, okay.
In terms of, let me go to Xi Jinping, and then I’ll end on your question. I’ve been on the China case for many years, since Tiananmen Square, since, and I was just a complete garden variety member of Congress at that time, but I got myself involved in that issue, because I have a large Asian population in my district, but also, because I was a human right advocate even before I came to Congress. And so, over the years, we’ve tried all different things, without going into the history, just going to the current President, very repressive, a genocide going on, in terms of the Uighurs, suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, not keeping the promises of the [inaudible – 75:29] and all the rest, the agreement, threats to Taiwan, and to even using how the name is used and the rest. Very – but not that that matters as much as the – what it indicates, in terms of the threat. The aggression in the South China Sea, all of these things problematic. Xi, I mean, has shown his true nature by saying he wants to be a President for life. That’s indicative of something.
But the – having said that, and again, I have fought China on their proliferation of weapons, of technologies for weapons of technology. A lot of that, what happened in Iran, was indigenous in China, not in – excuse me, in Iran, forgive me, what happened in Iran, a lot of it sprang from technology and Scientist from China early on, early on. The lack of access to our markets, violation of our intellectual property, yours too, yours too. That’s why when I went to the Munich conference, where we saw each other last, we fought against the Huawei, not to go too far into that issue, it’s fraught with meaning, but it was a way for them to invade the privacy of everybody. So we have weapons of mass destruction, trade issues, human rights issues. Having said all of that, it’s a major force in the country when it comes to the climate issue, and we have to stay connected, in terms of how we reach our – honour our responsibilities to the planet.
And this is in Xi’s interest, because – of clean air or whatever it is, the drying up of the rivers of Asia has affected China. The encroachment of the Gobi Desert has affected China. The rising sea levels will affect China. The thermal management of the planet has an impact. So, it is in their interest, we just hope that they would see it that way, as well as in our global interest. So we have to always point out what our disagreement is, object to it, as well as at the same time understand that we have to reckon with China, because of size and impact on everything we talk about.
I was very pleased with the arrangement that President Biden, Prime Minister Morrison and Prime Minster Johnson engaged in. It’s not just about China, but it is an entity that is a resource in that discussion, which I think is very necessary. Not to abandon, but not to diminish the transatlantic importance, because we’re reaching out to the UK as we do that. Well, they’ve reached out to each other, as it was developed.
In terms of your question, we do not see January 6th as a failure of the democratic system in the United States. We see it as the actions of a President who do not respect the oath of office that he took or the office that he served in, and the separation of powers, so he would make an assault on Congress to undermine the election. That day was a day prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to certify the Presidency, to accept the results of the electoral college. So it wasn’t just any day that they showed up with their weaponry and bad intentions. So it was an assault on the Constitution, the Congress and our democracy, as well as the physical structure of the Capitol, for all of that symbolism, which is probably the least important part of it, it’s the other part.
How we deal with it is really the measure of the strength of our democracy, and that is why I appointed the January 6th – I wanted to have a bipartisan commission that would require the 60 votes in the Senate to get it. We could only get up to 57, so they rejected it. Why would they reject finding the truth about what happened on January 6th? Why would they reject that? Do they have some sympathy for the – why would they reject that? But they did, so we have our January 6th, I’m very proud of our bipartisanship. It was Cheney that had championed our Chairman, Bennie Thompson, Chair of the Homeland Security and now that committee. So how we deal with it, but we have to get to some of the root causes that I mentioned earlier, that the FBI Director mentioned: white supremacy, Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-LGBT, you know, all of those things that threatened a certain demographic in our country. But I feel that – I feel pretty strong about where we go from here. But it was a horrible, horrible, horrible day for our democracy, there’s no question about that. The strength of our democracy is how we will deal with it.
But as I close, I just go back to where we were last week, and many of us gathered in New York for the 9/11. Now that was an assault from outside. What happened on January 6th, an assault from within. Horrible, in both cases, and I extend sympathy to the UK folks who lost their lives on 9/11 as we – I always say it’s like three. It’s 3,000 people, just nearly 3,000 people died. 343 members of the Fire Department of New York City. 31 members of the New York Police Department. The list of three keeps going on. And I – Flight 93, which was destined for the Capitol, but the courage of the people onboard took it down earlier, and we feel there, and the number of people in the UK who lost their lives, we don’t want to ever just focus on the Americans who lost their lives. So we extend that sympathy.
But in any case, it all is about the role of government, the trust that people will have in it, and that is probably part of the challenge that we have, because we had four years of complete disdain for governance, for science, for – it was really more, shall we say, personality oriented, and it’s not gone. And let me just say in that regard, this President – that President, he did not create those problems I mentioned, but he galvanised them, and this is what you have to be aware of every place. He galvanised them, and the social media implement enabled that to happen. Social media, 2,000, no, two million QAnon finding likeminded thinking people in that world, in the social media, thank you Facebook for two million members of QAnon. So we have to look at how social media, a blessing, but a double-edged sword in that regard. So it is a – we all have – in other words what we see, you know, it’s all a lesson learned for others as well, in terms of what manifestation that lack of respect for governance, or people, or life, or science, or whatever is.
But I feel very honoured to share some of these views, probably demonstrating some of the exuberance of my magnificent, diverse caucus in all of this. But I respect governance and I respect members on the other side of the aisle for what they bring to the table, and I think it is really important that we have not one party prevailing all the time, but that we have that bipartisanship. I know that Chatham House has had that representation on your presenters, and I feel very honoured to be included among them. Thank you for the beautiful intellectual resource and collaborations that you are part of and thank you for the invitation to be here today.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
My pleasure, Speaker Pelosi. You mentioned here that the quotes we’ve now got round the building here for our centenary, we were looking at the one by Madeline Albright, and when she wrote up there, well, she said, “Democracy is a process,” I can’t remember the rest of the quote. I should be able to remember it, but I remember the first line. As you’ve described today, it is a process that you are obviously absolutely in the thick of, helping guide, helping lead. But it is one that is shared amongst all the community of liberal democracies. So the examples you’ve been giving, the warnings and the hopes, are ones, I think, we share. We take great inspiration from your example and from the things you’ve achieved and then can continue to achieve. We didn’t get to the question about 2022, and we’re definitely not going to take that one right now. So, no, no, no, I’m – your time.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Let me just say though, that Madeline’s quote when I saw, I said, “That’s very much like the parting words that John Lewis left as he left a letter to be opened the day of his funeral,” and in it he said, “Democracy is not a state, it is an act, and it’s just always becoming a – it’s like a horizon, we’re always trying to reach it in its fullest,” and it’s a beautiful thing.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Well, with that, it’d be a much better closing line than mine, can we have a very, very strong hand for Speaker Pelosi, please, over to you.
