Redefining US foreign policy: In conversation with Admiral William McRaven

Dr Patricia Lewis

Welcome, everybody, to this Chatham House members’ event on refine – Redefining US Foreign Policy. My name is Patricia Lewis. I’m the Research Director for Conflict, Science & Transformation, and the Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House. I’m delighted to have with me today Admiral William McRaven, who is a retired US Navy four-star Admiral, and the former Chancellor of the University of Texas System. Now, before introducing Admiral McRaven more fully, and getting into our discussion, I have a few housekeeping announcements. First, this event will be held on the record, and this is being recorded, so do please tweet using the #CHEvents. Second, please submit questions through the event using the ‘Q&A’ function, and let me know, too, if you wish to speak from the floor, or you – or, otherwise, you can ask me to ask your question for you. You can choose which you want to do. There is also, I think, a ‘Chat’ function, but that shouldn’t be used for ‘Q&A’, that should be just used for general comments, saying hello to people, etc.

So, it’s now my great pleasure to introduce Admiral William H. McRaven, or Bill, as he’s known to his friends, I understand, a recognised authority on US foreign policy, who has advised Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, and others in notable positions on defence issues. So, during your time in the military, Admiral, you commanded Special Operation Forces at every level, and took charge of the US Special Operations Command. You have served in combat, during Desert Storm, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and commanded the troops that captured Saddam Hussein, and rescued Captain Phillips. You’re credited with developing the plan and leading the Osama Bin Laden mission in 2011, but I think if you told us, you’d then have to kill us, or something.

You then changed your career dramatically and went into academia, becoming Chancellor of the University of Texas System, overseeing 14 institutions that educated 220,000 students, employed 20,000 faculty, and more than 80,000 healthcare professionals, Researchers and staff. And you’ve also written two bestselling books, and you’re probably most famous for, Make Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life… And Maybe the World. So, it’s with great pleasure, Bill, that I welcome you here to a members’ event at Chatham House. So, what I’m going to do now is, I’m just going to start to get the ball rolling with a question, and then follow-up with a few. And then probably what I’ll do is, I’ll take some questions from the floor as well, as they start to come in on the ‘Q&A’, and we’ll play it a bit by ear.

So, first of all, if we can get started, I think we can say it’s generally accepted that President Biden will take and, indeed, is already taking, a very different foreign policy approach to President Trump. He seems already to be taking up from where he left off as Vice President to President Obama, most notably in immediately re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement, and the World Health Organization. But, of course, the world has changed since his time as Vice President, and the view of the US in the world has shifted, in part, because of the actions and legacy of President Trump in multilateral institutions, and I’d say, in part, because of the catastrophic COVID-19 globally, and then, specifically in the United States.

So, what should President Biden be doing differently, compared with the way he and President Obama approached things in the past?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, first, Dr Lewis, thank you very much, and to Chatham House, thanks for extending the invitation, to allow me to be part of this discussion today because, one, I think it’s an extremely important discussion at an important time in US, and, frankly, world history. So, to answer your question, you know, the Biden administration, one, when you take a look at who he has put in key positions, Tony Blinken as Secretary of State, Avril Haines as the Director of National Intelligence, Jake Sullivan as the National Security Advisor, Lloyd Austin as the Secretary of Defense, Bill Burns as the Director of the Central Intelligence. I mean, these are incredibly experienced, thoughtful people, and the one thing they all understand is the importance of alliances. And you mentioned the fact that the President has already taken the steps to re-join the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Accords, and my guess is, he will find opportunities to do a lot more of that.

He recognises that we have to rebuild those alliances, and where they are fractured, we have to strengthen them. I mean, I think of NATO, in particular. As you know, President Trump came in, and he was very dismissive of NATO, and by being dismissive of NATO, there was the connection that he was dismissive of the European countries, and our allies, that are part of NATO. I know the Biden administration is going to be very thoughtful about how they approach that. But everything is going to be about alliances and, so, as they move forward, they’re going to figure out how to leverage these alliances, in a way that has the United States leading, but also recognises the fact that this is a partnership.

This is not about, you know, we’re – we say what to do, and everybody else follows. This is about listening. Joe Biden is a great listener, and he will listen to the allies and I think from that, he will begin to build consensus on how, collectively, we should move forward on a number of these very difficult issues. Now, a lot of folks say, “Well, you know, this is – it’s the old Obama crew coming in.” But the world has changed, and the world has changed because, really, over the last four years, the world has lost faith and confidence in the United States.

There’s a great article in Foreign Affairs Magazine by the former US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power and she has this question that she poses, America the incompetent? And her point is, the world has lost faith in us because it has not seen our competence the way it did under the, you know, Obama administration, and even under the Bush administration. You know, you take a look at what President Bush did in Africa to address the AIDS issue, what President Obama did in pulling together 62 nations to address the Ebola issue. So, we’ve got to come back on stage, we’ve got to rebuild these alliances, but that’s not enough. We have to show that we can lead in a thoughtful manner, in an effective manner. Can we address, first and foremost, the pandemic with our alliances out there? So, it is about rebuilding the trust, and then showing that we can, in fact, lead with competence.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Must remember to unmute. So, let’s go onto some specific issues right now, and if we could have a look, perhaps, at Russia. So, President Biden and President Putin have already allowed the world to take a breath and exhale over the issue of extending the New START agreement for five years. But we’ve still got some big issues, in terms of the Open Skies Treaty, and other withering, or dead, arms control agreements with Russia, which need urgent attention. We’ve got the big problems with cyberattacks, chemical weapons attacks, Ukraine and Crimea, and the constant worry over other border vulnerabilities. And Russia is in a period of some economic stress, along with a number of other countries, of course, and domestic political upheaval, and we need to see how quickly that goes, and what the implications are. So how do you think President Biden should approach Russia going forward, given as well the history that he’s had with President Putin in the past?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, well, let me start by saying I’m often asked, you know, where do I think the greatest, kind of, external security threat is, and I always point to Russia. I mean, a lot of people think about China, but Russia jumps to mind first, and part of this is, you know, you have a country of 140 million people. As you pointed out, their economy is in distress. Their military, however, over the last 15 years, ten or 15 years, Putin has gone out of his way to modernise the military, modernise the jet fleet, modernise the submarine fleet. But having said all that, you know, they are not the superpower that they once were.

But Putin has outplayed us; he has played the great game better than anybody on the world stage. He outmanoeuvred us in the Crimea, he outmanoeuvred us in the Ukraine, he outmanoeuvred us in Syria. He attacked our elections in 2016 and, so, to me, Putin is a very dangerous person. So, while I think on one hand, we do need to find areas where we can partner with the Russians, on START, maybe on the P5+1, as we look at Iranian sanctions. Maybe on climate change. But make no mistake about it, I think we need to take a hard line, with respect to Russia.

I was pleased to see that the President, in his first phone call with President Putin, addressed the Alexei Navalny issue. Exactly right. I don’t think President Trump would have done that. So, we’ve got to let President Putin know that look, there are just lines that you shouldn’t cross. And it’s not just about America and Russia, this is about, once again, how do we leverage our alliances around the world to make sure that Russia understands, you know, how they need to play, in terms of good governance, and international law, on the world stage. And, so, again, are there areas where we can co-operate with Russia? Absolutely. But, in general, my sense is, we need to take a hard line with Russia, and they need to understand there’s some things that we’re just not going to accept as a near-peer, as I already said, as a peer on the world stage, if you will.

Dr Patricia Lewis

So, you mentioned Iran. You’re on the board of the International Crisis Group, and a few weeks ago we hosted Rob Malley, as ICG CEO, to discuss the annual 10 Conflicts to Watch publication. Now he’s been nominated as President Biden’s Special Envoy for Iran. We’ve got the appointments of Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman, Bonnie Jenkins, to name a few, that suggest a serious attempt to reengage with Iran. But it is complicated, isn’t it? It’s not just the relationship with Russia, it’s also about what Iran’s intentions are, surely?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, absolutely. One, Rob is a fabulous guy, as you well know, and I think he will do a superb job in representing the United States in our dealings with Iran. You’re right, you’re right, Iran is complicated. You know, you have this kind of bifurcated command system, if you will. You have Rouhani, who, as the President, reports to the Supreme Leader, but, in fact, he doesn’t have, you know, full control of the government. Then you have the IRGC, in particular, the IRGC Quds Force, which used to be run by Qasem Soleimani, now run by President Qaani. Those two chains of command don’t necessarily talk to each other. They don’t necessarily have to be responsive to each other.

So, while, on one hand, you can deal with a Rouhani and the rational actors within Iran, on the other hand, you have this nefarious activity that’s going on that from the Supreme Leader standpoint is completely acceptable because that is what the IRGC, in particular, the IRGC Quds Force, does. But, having said that, I get back to the point that I think Iran, the Iranians are rational actors. If you go back to 1979, the USS Vincennes, one of our cruiser, shot down, inadvertently, an Iranian airbus, killing, I don’t know, something like 279 innocent people and we didn’t go to war with Iran.

Then you had the Tanker Wars, we referred to them, in the 80s. One of our destroyers, the Samuel B Roberts, was hit by a mine, and we didn’t go to war with Iran. Throughout the course of the last, you know, 40 years, the Iranians and United States, particularly in the Persian Gulf, have had this kind of quid pro quo action. We understand that there are certain thresholds, which neither one of us should cross. But my sense of things is, the Iranians don’t want to go to war with us, we don’t want to go to war with Iran. So, I think we can go into the discussion about anything from the JCPOA, to our future dealings with Iran, recognising that they are rational actors.

So, my hope is that as Rob gets there, and, of course, you will also have Secretary Kerry kind of hovering over, who, of course, was the Lead Negotiator for the JCPOA. My hope and expectations is the Iranians will come back into something that looks like the JCPOA. Will it be modified? Of course, it will. I think the hard part for the Iranians is, can they trust the United States? You know, in the past, we like to think that would not have been an issue. But in light of the fact that President Trump just kind of unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA, and left the Iranians high and dry, you know, we are going to have to find a way to work with the Iranians to make sure that we still keep the pressure on them. We’ve got to maintain the economic pressure, to ensure that they don’t build a bomb. But, having said that, I think it’s going to be a lot more challenging. But if anybody’s up to the task, Rob Malley certainly is.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Yeah, we’re big fans of Rob here. Can I say, Eddie Villiers from the audience, from the members, has asked the question that you just addressed, which is, you know, “How can the US regain the trust of the world, whatever the current administration does, because another Trump, or even, perhaps…

Admiral William H. McRaven

Right.

Dr Patricia Lewis

…President Trump himself, you know, could come along in four years, and rip it all up.” And we’ve seen this before, there’s this – this has been going on for some time, though, hasn’t it? There’s this – a divergence of foreign policy at the end of, I would say, the 1990s, probably, and it started to diverge with the parties in a way that it hadn’t before, for some time, and what can we do to address this in the United States? Because that continuity of foreign policy has rather been broken.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, I think there’s a couple of things that we’re going to have to address here. First, we do need to get past the next four years, and, probably, the next six years. If, in fact, whoever comes after President Biden, or if President Biden wins a second term, if we can maintain some continuity for a while, I think the world’s stage will recognise that they have some stability, if you will. But the other piece is the US Congress. You know, the JCPOA is an agreement. It’s a plan of action, and there are resolutions out there. But until you have the Congress of the United States, you know, approving a treaty that actually has congressional substance behind it, then I do think the international partners have to say, to your point, if a new President comes in, or writes a new executive action that changes all that. So, you really do have to get the American people and the Congress behind whatever agreements, whatever treaties we’re going to broker. That way they’re just not easily changeable with a change in administration. But I think a lot of this is just about we have got to show, we have to demonstrate, the United States has to demonstrate that we are trustworthy, that we are competent.

I think the first place to attack this is on COIVD. We need to figure out a way how we can, you know, attack the COVID virus, globally. You know, we are going to be able to produce, you know, hundreds of millions of vials, probably a lot more than we need for the American population. Is there a way to work with the World Health Organization to figure out where the more needy countries are in the world, after we have ensured that the American population is safe? We need to think through that. But we’ve got to show the goodwill that, frankly, I think has been a hallmark of the United States for – you know, for many, many decades.

Dr Patricia Lewis

We could turn to another really difficult issue, and it’s quite specific, but, you know, it’s the issue of North Korea. And I think, you know, if we looked at the way in which successive administrations have not been able to fix the issue of North Korea, in terms of the economy, the human rights issue, and, of course, the big issue for the United States, as well as North and – the nuclear weapons and military issues in North Korea.

President Trump did try another tack, it didn’t work, it was derided widely by experts. But it was – he did try something new. What can President Biden do, other than going back to same old, same old…

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah.

Dr Patricia Lewis

…vis-à-vis North Korea? Because I think it’s – you know, it just seems to be one of those intractable problems at the moment.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, I do think it is – you know, I like to be optimistic and think that no problem is intractable. But this is about as difficult as it comes, because Kim Jong-un is not going to give up his nuclear weapons. It is about regime survival. So, everybody that goes into any sort of discussion about how we’re going to handle the relationships on the peninsula has got to go into the discussion, and into the argument, understanding that that is not going to happen. He is not going to give up his nuclear weapons.

He is watched around the world, other Dictators that gave up nuclear weapons, didn’t go so well for ‘em. So that’s not going to happen. Now, to your point, you know, I can’t really criticise President Trump for at least trying something different. I could probably criticise him for the way he approached it, but I don’t think having a dialogue with KJU was such a bad thing. Again, could it have been better orchestrated? Absolutely. But I think we’re in a position now, and this will – yeah, I’m not sure this term will set well with those folks who think about it in the Cold War terms. But I think we’re almost to the point of containment when it comes to North Korea. I mean, they have – probably have, you know, 50, 60, 70 nuclear weapons. What they don’t have, of course, is they do not have an ICBM capable of delivering a small nuclear warhead.

So, while they are still a big threat in the region, as they begin to get the technology to miniaturise their guidance system, to miniaturise the warhead, then they become a real global problem in a way that we haven’t seen before. So, can we work with the North Koreans to get them to reduce, shutdown, slow down their ICBM programme? Maybe, if we can figure out what incentivised them. Kind of getting to probably the next question you might ask, is on China, but the fact of the matter is, we’re going to have to continue to figure out how do we partner with China in dealing with the North Koreans?

How do we also leverage the economic value of the old Trans-Pacific Partnership, which, of course, was not ratified, did not become in play, because Trump pulled out of it. But there was 40% of the global GDP that could’ve been used to – again, to leverage against North Korea, or to support our efforts in North Korea, to get them to come to the bargaining table, to get some concessions that we need. Back to the alliances. If I can leave the audience with one thing today, it is about continuing to strengthen our alliances, to continue to build new alliances, and to make sure that those alliances know that the United States is going to be trustworthy in moving forward. And that’s how we’ll be able to deal with a lot of these seemingly intractable problems. Of all of them, I think North Korea is the one that is probably at the top of the list when it comes to the difficulty of changing the behaviour of Kim Jong-un.

Dr Patricia Lewis

On the issue of China, you mentioned – and I would like to just spend a couple of minutes looking at that in more depth because, you know, it’s a very big long-term issue, not just for the United States, but that – for the whole world. We have some immediate to-do things with China. You mentioned North Korea. We also have Hong Kong, and we have the Uyghur population and their treatment springing to mind. And China is a growing economic power, it controls much of the world’s natural resources, especially in terms of minerals. It has enormous contribution to make, in terms of climate change, and preventing it, and it’s making huge advances in all sorts of technologies, for space, quantum communications, and so on. It’s a big digital power. It has a big cyber capacity, too, a cyberattack capacity, and cyber defence.

But it doesn’t see the world in the same way as the US, and US allies. And we can see that, for example, in its internet policy, where, you know, it wants to sort of control the internet, and not allow that sort of free flow of information throughout the world. It’s not the only country to have that attitude. So, what could you see as a likely successful approach, vis-à-vis China, and particularly given the dialogue that’s going on in the United States, and the – sort of the rivalry that the United States sees with China, in economic terms. It is, again, another very complicated, and complex, relationship.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, you know, to your point, Patricia, I mean, the fact of the matter is, you know, China is on the rise, in a whole lot of areas. But world confidence in China is at about 35%. Now, while world confidence in the United States has dropped dramatically over the last four years, as much as China is doing, the world leaders, and the world populations, still do not have faith and confidence in China, that they will be able to deliver on their promises, that they are the right kind of leadership we need for the world. Now, I will tell you from a military standpoint, you know, I look at China, and, again, I don’t necessarily see an adversary, not yet, although there are some tipping points there. But here you have a military of about 2.3 million people, and the United States’ Military’s about 1.3 million people. And while they are not near as sophisticated, not near as tactically proficient as the United States Military in the Pacific, or our allies, quantity has a quality all its own.

So, the fact of the matter is, the Chinese are going to build a lot of platforms that will, I think, begin to, kind of, threaten the dominance in the Pacific and we need to be concerned about this. You know, the United States, when we talk about military power, and our ability to project power globally, we talk about our carrier battle groups, our aircraft carriers. Well, the United States has 11 carrier battle groups, and when you think about 11 carrier battle groups, that is an incredible amount of firepower, that is the ability to, again, project power anywhere in the world. But what people don’t fully appreciate is, you have to use Navy math on those 11 aircraft carriers. With 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, we can really only put about three-and-a-half, maybe four of ‘em, at sea at any point in time. And, of course, the United States, we focus on the Persian Gulf, we focus on the Mediterranean, we focus on the Atlantic. Whereas the Chinese, I mean, they only focus on the bodies of water that immediately surround their territory. So, I am concerned, as the Chinese begin to grow militarily, as they continue their economic growth, as they continue to kind of choke off certain areas with their Belt and Road Initiative, this is going to complicate our ability to work with our allies in the Pacific.

Having said that, once again, I don’t view China as an adversary. They are clearly a competitor. They are clearly a competitor in the areas of artificial intelligence and machine learning. I was on a committee that looked at the progress of China and vis-à-vis the US in technology, technology and national security for the Council on Foreign Relations. And we came to the conclusion that while China is investing an awful lot, a lot more than the United States is in basic research, which is really what drives you to the new technologies, they’re probably still ten years behind us, in terms of innovation and our technological advances.

Having said that, as we put in the foreword to the report, for the United States, this should be like our Sputnik moment, where we need to wake up and realise that if we do not begin to invest in basic science, if we do not begin to figure out a way to continue to bring in the great international students, to leverage the intellectual capital that’s out there, to improve our education system, so that the young men and women starting in fourth and fifth grade can begin to code, and learn the STEM skills. Then, ten years from now, China will pass us by, and we’ll wonder what happened.

And I believe that as we look at AI and machine learning, I mean, it really is the future of a lot of things. Maybe not everything, but it is the future of a lot of things. It is the future of military technology, it is the future of commerce, it is the future of social engagement. And, candidly, back to the values-based system that we have here in the United States, as imperfect as they might be, we believe in the values, whereas China does not. And, therefore, we have to be careful as we move forward that if we let China become the world leader in these areas, I think the world will suffer as a result.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thanks, and just on the situation of China, Kate Yarrington, who, apparently, has very noisy children, has asked me to ask on her behalf, “How is President Biden’s US foreign policy on Taiwan likely to change compared with the policy of the Trump Presidency?”

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, thanks for – I appreciate the follow-up. Actually, I was going to mention, in my discussion on China, that the one area where I am concerned is, in fact, Taiwan and you’ve seen a much more aggressive stance from Xi Jinping recently, regarding Taiwan. But you actually have to go back to the late 70s, or early 80s, when we normalised relations with China, and, in doing so, part of that normalisation was an agreement, the Chinese didn’t like it, but it was part of the agreement, that we could provide defensive weapons to Taiwan and, of course, we continue to do that, the Chinese continue to object to that. But this was established, you know, decades ago.

You know, this has been an ongoing issue. I don’t know how the Biden administration will approach Taiwan. I think they will be very, very cautious, in terms of making sure that we don’t tip over the apple cart and we’ve got to figure out a way to maintain the peace and stability in the Pacific, because, once again, China’s not an adversary, we don’t want them to be an adversary. They don’t want us to be an adversary. We’ve got to figure out how to maintain the sovereignty of Taiwan, and this great democratic nation that has grown up there, in – you know, in concert, and in parallel, with the work that’s going on in our relationships with China. It is going to be challenging, but I think the Biden administration will be up to that task.

Dr Patricia Lewis

I’ve got a question from Cora Lynn Rathbone. I wonder if we could ask Cora to ask her question herself? And then I want to go to Rob May, and Andrew Donaldson. So, Cora, if you could ask your question, please?

Cora Lynn Rathbone

Thank you, and unexpectedly fascinating. I really appreciate your insight, as all of us do. I have two questions. I’m not sure which one you wish me to ask?

Dr Patricia Lewis

I want – and the one that caught my attention was Myanmar. But feel free, go ahead.

Cora Lynn Rathbone

Okay, so…

Dr Patricia Lewis

Ask away.

Cora Lynn Rathbone

…let me ask about Myanmar. How do you see the situation there, recent as it is? What are the options for them, and with regards to international relations? And how do you see China’s hand in this?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, it’s a complicated question. Let me see what I can do to answer it, though. Obviously, the Biden administration’s already come out and told those that orchestrated the coup that this is not right, that they have got to, you know, put the elected government back in power as quickly as possible. So, I think the kind of shot across the bow was important for us to – you know, again, to get the right signal sent on the international front.

Now, you know, what can we realistically expect to do about it? I do think this will be a wait and see. You know, these things have happened in the region before. I think we need to make a strong push at the UN. I think we need to make a strong diplomatic effort. I think we need to, again, get our allies in the region to pressure the military that has taken power in Myanmar, to, again, relinquish power, and put the elected government back in place.

This gets back to alliances. I’m not sure where the best leverages are, or levers are. Are they in China? Are they in the neighbouring countries? I’m not sure I know enough to be able to answer that. What I do know is that the Biden administration will reach out and use those levers as best possible to, again, get the democratically elected government back in power.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Cora, you also asked a question about US leading these alliances, and questioning, I think, the legitimacy of that? Are you there? Cora, are…?

Cora Lynn Rathbone

Thank you. Thank you. Forgive me, I don’t wish to be rude at all. I’m a Cuban-born American citizen who’s lived in the UK four years and I have UK citizenship as well. So, you know, I’m incredibly grateful to the US for, you know, giving my family the chance to re-establish. But the US right now is in a predicament, the US, we’ve lost our moral upper hand and, so, I was struck when you said, you know, the US coming back into the international alliances, and leading in that. And I wonder if there’s a place, a new phase for America, not to see itself as leading in these international alliances, but being an equal?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, I think if you run the tape back, what you’ll find I said was we need to lead by listening, and we need to lead by, you know, encouraging the other partners to recognise that we feel ourselves to be an equal partner in these alliances. So, to your point, and not a rude question at all, what I have heard from the Biden Administration is this idea that for us, leading is leading in partnership. It is not, and, again, as I mentioned earlier, it’s not about us telling the alliance what to do. That never serves anyone well. Having been in leadership positions my whole life, you know, you want to build consensus, you want to build relationships, you want people to trust the other members of the committee, the alliance, the group, and that’s the best way to lead. It is not by being so directive that other people don’t have a say in the – you know, the undertakings of the organisation.

So, I do believe that the Biden leadership will be more to what you are recommending, which is, “Hey, let’s listen and let’s be equal partners.” Now, having said that, recognising that equal partners need to, you know, provide equal resources where they can. So, as we look at NATO, one of the things that NATO, or that the Trump administration, I think, did well, again, I would have approached it a lot differently. I would not have been as pointed, and I would not have been as public about it. But our NATO partners needed to stand up and provide, you know, the sufficient amount of GDP, in order to support the NATO Alliance. So, once again, as we begin to look at our alliances around the world, I do believe the Biden administration looks at these as partnerships. And leading is really an opportunity to gather our alliances, and our friends, and move everybody in the right direction.

Cora Lynn Rathbone

Thank you.

Dr Patricia Lewis

I note as well, that question came up, I think it was Martin Cohen asked it earlier as well. So just to say that that’s been answered, I hope, to your satisfaction, Martin. Andrew Donaldson, I think, is next, now. If you could – I think Andrew wants to ask a question about Cuba, and I mentioned Rob May before, but I realise he was asking about Myanmar as well. So, I will skip that, sorry, Rob.

Andrew Donaldson

Yes, thank you Dr, and thank you very much, Admiral. I just want to know will the Biden administration pick up where Barack Obama left off? And how will he go about sort of undoing, you know, this – the aggressive undoing of the Obama Administration’s rapprochement that was put in place by the Trump administration?

Admiral William H. McRaven

I’m sorry, and the question was about Cuba, specifically, or in general?

Andrew Donaldson

And specifically, Cuba.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, you know, Andrew, I’m – I apologise, because I don’t really have sufficient insight about how the Biden administration is thinking about Cuba, and I’d be, kind of, talking out of school if I tried to answer that in a lot of depth. Other than to say, I do think that the Biden administration will be, you know, more receptive to engaging with Cuba, certainly than the Trump administration was. But much more than that, I’m not sure I can add to the dialogue.

Andrew Donaldson

No, thank you. Thank you very much.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Sorry.

Dr Patricia Lewis

It’s on the record now, Andrew, thank you. So, we have a number of questions about Yemen, and we have Helen Roland and – asking if there’s a way for US policy approach to approve – improve the situation, and situations like Yemen? And then, I want to turn to Katie McGilligan, who wants to ask something quite specific about Yemen. Katie, if you could take the floor, that would be great.

Okay, so, Katie – I’ll just read out Katie’s question. So, “The review of US arm sales have been seen by some as an initial move, this is to Saudi Arabia, and UAE, of course, by the Biden administration, and in terms of Yemen. Will Yemen, do you think, be a priority for the new administration?” It’s a huge priority, I think, for people in the UK. “And, if so, how likely is it, as well, that Biden will reverse the Houthi terrorist designation, and what might persuade him to do so?” I hope that did your question justice, Katie.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, well, you know, I probably should’ve said at the very outset that, obviously, I’m not speaking for the Biden administration. So, I’m not sure whether or not the Biden administration will take away the terrorist designator for the Houthis. You know, in terms of priorities, I think what’s happening right now is the Biden administration is beginning to kind of line up their priorities, if you will. And, once again, when you go back to the people that he has put in positions, the Tony Blinkens, the Jake Sullivans, the Lloyd Austins, all of them have dealt with Yemen, in some degree in the past, and they understand the strategic importance of Yemen.

But they also understand the complexities of Yemen, between the Houthis, and the Southern secessionists, and the civil war, and, oh, by the way, Al-Qaeda has a strong foothold in Yemen, and all of this is, again, a very complex situation right now. I think that the issue for them is going to be how do you make sure that the Saudis and the Iranians don’t make matters worse in Yemen? So, if I were a betting man, I would see our engagement with Saudi Arabia about ensuring that they begin to ratchet back any sort of support they might’ve had in Yemen, so that, again, it doesn’t create this state, this failed state, and this incredible natural – or this incredible disaster that’s happening with respect to the population of Yemen. Because, frankly, the Saudis and the Iranians are using Yemen as a bit of a proxy war. So, we do need to figure out a way, once again, to reduce that.

Now, can you, in fact, work with the Iranians, as we look at the JCPOA, to – you know, as part of that, to say, “Hey, stop shipping arms to Yemen”? And then, can you work with the Saudis, as part of the – you know, the Abraham Agreement, or just part of the bilateral relationships, to say, “Hey, stop supplying arms”? And this would, in fact, I think, bring down the temperature in Yemen.

But to be honest with you, I can’t tell you exactly what the Biden administration’s plan is. What I can tell you is that all the old hands that are in positions have dealt with Yemen before, they understand the strategic significance of Yemen. They understand this kind of horrible, you know, situation that is really just heart-breaking, when you look at what’s happening to the Yemenis as a result of, you know, decades of war. Nobody wants that. It’s not just about the strategic nature of Yemen, where it is geographically, it’s just about this incredible heartbreak that you see every day when you see pictures of families that are torn apart in Yemen, as a result of the war.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thanks, Bill. Well, while we’re on Yemen, and I wonder if we could turn to Ethiopia and I wonder if Martin Plo would want to speak at the moment on this issue? Martin?

Martin Plo

Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for taking the time. The situation in Ethiopia’s now so grim, and the prevention of humanitarian and, shall we say, journalistic effort to discover what’s going on in Tigray is so severe, I think we could soon be in the 84, 1985 situation and I wonder what the Biden administration can do, and also, to remove the Eritreans who are, you know, involved in that war?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, and it’s a great question, Martin and it’s a little bit aligned, I think, with the situation in Yemen. Once again, you’ve got old hands that probably remember the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea years ago. And so, I do think we will have some historical analogies that we can draw upon to see if there are ways that we can, you know, reduce the marshal fever that is there, and help with this incredible humanitarian disaster.

I believe, as the Biden administration, back to, you know, who are we, you know, who are we as Americans? We’re going to have to find opportunities to engage with the – whether it’s the Yemenis, or the Ethiopians, or, you know, pick a country, where we have these great humanitarian disasters going on, and figure out how can we help. And not how can we help because it’s good for the United States, but how can we show that we really do care about the people around the world? Because that – I always say that, you know, being good has a value proposition all its own. If you are good, then people will trust you and if people trust you, they will trust you with their money, they will trust you with their resources, they will trust you with their lives, they will trust you with their treaties, if they believe you to be good and altruistic. And, so, every once in a while, in addition to the politics and the geopolitics that will take place in places like Yemen, and Ethiopia, and Syria, and pick, you know, a dozen other countries around the world where these humanitarian disasters are occurring, how do we, as the United States, again, leverage the international community to be able to help with these kind of humanitarian disasters? And then, at the same time, figure out how do we lower the temperature by applying pressure at the right governmental level, to ensure that these humanitarian disasters don’t occur?

I realise that’s kind of a broad response to your question. But I think the administration’s got to get a framework, first and foremost. These issues are so complicated, in Yemen, in Ethiopia. They are complicated to the point where if you don’t come in with a – kind of a strategy for how you’re going to approach this, in terms of we’re going to solve the humanitarian problem, we’ve got to be able to put pressure on the government, we’ve got to reduce the temperature, we’ve got to cut the outside influence from coming in. I mean, if you do those things in Yemen, if you cut out the outside influence, if you put pressure on the governments, whatever governments are there to listen, and if you help with the humanitarian disaster, you’ll begin to slowly resolve the problem. Not going to happen overnight, but it will happen. So, I would encourage the Biden administration to look at, kind of, those three aspects of any of the problems in this particular area and figure out how are they going to address those specific issues of humanitarian problems, governmental problems, and outside influence.

Dr Patricia Lewis

We’re going to jump continents for a minute, and there’ve been quite a few questions on Afghanistan. Denis MacShane is asking about, you know, “How the US might enhance its leverage with other countries, and work with other countries in a regional capacity, such as Uzbekistan, and so on?” And Christopher Kinder is asking more generally about whether the US – “What’s the US policy going to be over Afghanistan, and how’s it going to move and shift under the Biden administration?” I mean, I think it’s another of those very difficult legacy issues now, isn’t it?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, it is, and I know that the President has elected to keep Zal Khalilzad, the Ambassador and the US Representative to the negotiations in place and probably nobody better to negotiate the peace agreement, or treaty, or whatever it’s going to be with the Taliban than Zal. Having said all that, I am not in favour, Bill McRaven, personally, is not in favour of a peace treaty with the Taliban. I’ve gone on record many times before to say that I think it’s – it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. As soon as US forces, you know, withdraw from Afghanistan, my guess is the Taliban will come back in, and, you know, within a year, they will be back in control again and that will not serve the people of Afghanistan well.

This is, again, back to Patricia, to one of your earlier points, I’m not sure it’s an intractable problem, but it is a very difficult problem. Again, if I were, you know, kind of King for a day sort of thing, I would say look, we need to figure out what is the right level of US persistent presence in Afghanistan, in order to make sure that we can keep the Taliban at bay? You know, is it – it’s certainly not, I don’t think, 2,500, which is what’s there now, or what we were drawing down to. But we’ve got to figure out, once again, how do we leverage our NATO alliance in Afghanistan, how do we continue to work with the Afghans?

But I’m not in favour of a peace treaty with the Taliban, if that peace treaty is going to cause us to withdraw completely from Afghanistan. I think, then, there are no checks and balances, and this idea that we will be able to kind of keep an eye on the Taliban, with drones or with the, you know, overhead satellites, that just doesn’t work. So, again, I wish them well, if they can broker a peace treaty that really has the right checks and balances in place, okay. I’m not confident that that can happen, even though I think, again, Ambassador Khalilzad is a terrific guy. Like I said, if it was up to me, we would not broker a peace treaty, we would keep the requisite number of troops in Afghanistan to maintain and support the Afghan National Security Forces, and to keep the Taliban at bay.

Does that mean that we would be there for years, and decades, and it would cost us billions of more dollars? Yeah, it does. But when you think about the potential impact on particularly the women in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan in general, if we were to leave, I think it is morally the right thing to do, politically the right thing to do, strategically the right thing to do and, so, I would hate to see us leave Afghanistan and have it collapse back into Taliban control.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thank you very much, Bill. So, we’re coming into the last ten minutes, so I’ve got – we’ve had quite a few questions on the Middle East, and I think, you know, if you want to get into intractable situations, so perhaps if we could address, perhaps, two of the big questions. One of them is the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and all of its problems there. People haven’t talked much, that I can see in the questions, about Turkey. But perhaps we can throw that into the mix and discussions, the important role of Turkey, and the relationship with the United States. And then, I think, if I could turn to Edward Glover, who has asked a question, which is one that you won’t be surprised about, but probably will give a very similar answer to other ones about intractable problems. So, Edward, if you – if you’re there, that’d be great.

Edward Glover

What will be the approach of the Biden administration to the ongoing issue of Israel and Palestine?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, so, let me back out – or I’ll get to your question, or I’ll get to your answer here, Edward, but let me back out a little bit, because I think the initial question that Patricia was asking from the participants about Saudi and Turkey, and it all, I think, is a little bit interconnected. You know, our relationship with Saudi, I mean, it’s been a relationship we’ve had for many, many, many decades. We need to have a relationship with Saudi Arabia. But, once again, I think the United States has got to lead on the global stage and, in this case, I do think it is about – leading it is about setting the example of, you know, doing things that are moral, legal and ethical. Doing things where good governance is important. So, when you have an ally, like Saudi Arabia, that murders Khashoggi, a Journalist, and we do nothing about it, then we should not be surprised when bad behaviour continues, with our partners around the world.

You have to hold bad behaviour accountable, and whether it is the killing of Khashoggi, whether it is the internment of Uyghurs, whether it is the, you know, incredible, you know, humanitarian disaster caused by Assad. I mean, you have a responsibility to – I think if you’re going to lead on the world stage, you know, to hold these people responsible. And, again, you’ve got to hold yourself responsible, too, and we’ve made a lot of mistakes over the years. But if the world doesn’t believe that doing things that are moral, legal and ethical are important, then I think we’ve lost a little hope for the future.

Now, when it comes to the Israeli and the Palestinian issue, you know, I saw the other day that Jared has been nominated for the Nobel Prize, Peace Prize. I’ll leave that as a headline alone. Having said that, obviously, the Abraham Agreements were, I think, important., but they’re not about solving the problem with Palestine. So, my expectation is that the Biden administration will go back in. I – again, I certainly can’t speak for them, but they want to, I think, drive to the point where the Palestinians have equal representation. My expectation is they will support a two-state solution, but I don’t know that to be true. But my general sense is they think that was a good and right approach, and we need to figure out how to reengage in that area. You know, obviously, Israel is one of our most important allies in the region. But, as we do with any sort of behaviour that we feel is not consistent with the international norms, we need to hold, again, ourselves accountable, and our allies accountable, and I’ll leave it at that, Edward.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thank you very much. So, I’m going to turn now to Richard Bridge and Andrew Payne, who are asking questions that are related to the Departments of Defense and Departments of State, in the United States, and the impact of recent goings-on. Richard, if I could go to you first, please?

Richard Bridge

Good, thank you very much, Patricia, and thank you very much, Admiral. It’s really a question about capacity and capability of the State Department, because I’ve heard people say that under – in the last four years, for reasons we well know, that the State Department has been undermined, and its staff numbers have fallen. And I just wondered, when we think about Tony Blinken coming into – to run things, he’s going to have two very difficult jobs. One, of course, is to, you know, re-cement the alliances, and recreate the policy, but the other thing is recreating the State Department. So, I wondered if you had any thoughts or insights about that?

I had heard less about The Pentagon, and I’m sure your – you know, you – you’re in a very good position to know whether the same kind of damage has happened at present.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thank you, Richard. I’m going to go immediately to Andrew to ask the question about the Department of Defense, ‘cause I want to tie these two questions together. Andrew?

Andrew Payne

Thanks, Patricia, and thanks for the conversation today. So, I want to ask about President Biden, obviously, inherits quite a difficult civil-military legacy. Trump frequently brought the military into domestic controversies and campaign politics and, as you know, the relationship under Obama wasn’t exactly great either. And, more recently, many were worried about the erosion of civ-mil norms, with the nomination of another retired General to serve as Sec Def, which you’ll have more than a passing interest in, I suspect. So, what steps do you think can Biden and Secretary Austin take to restore trust in that civil-military relationship, and reinforce the norm of civilian control? Thanks.

Dr Patricia Lewis

And, Bill, before you answer that, I should say that somebody’s actually suggested that you might want to stand for office yourself. I’m not expecting you to answer that question, but just to let you know, you’ve obviously impressed people on the line here. So…

Admiral William H. McRaven

I appreciate that. So, let me go to the first question, on the State Department. I actually think, you know, both of these may be the two easiest challenges that Tony Blinken has on his hands. What – I think that the – our alliances want the United States to re-engage with us. They want the United States to come in and, again, listen, be respectful, extend a friendly hand and say, “Look, I know the last four years have been rough, but we’re back and I realise you can’t just trust us right out of the shoot, but we’re going to earn your trust back.” And Tony will do that and will be exceedingly good at doing that.

I would also offer, internally, in the State Department, let me tell you, there are so many people that are thrilled that Tony Blinken is there. I think you’re going to find the young men and women who want to serve in the Foreign Service, who want to serve in the State Department, and some of the older hands, who maybe thought they were going to move on will stay. So, you’re right, Tony’s going to have a challenge of making sure that he gets the right experience in the right places, in the Under-Secretaries, in the Assistant Secretaries of State. But I think they are going to come kind of knocking on his door, looking to be players, because they understand just the high character, and high integrity of this man, and I think they see the direction that the State Department will go under this President.

I’m the biggest fan of the State Department you’ll ever meet. I mean, I’ve seen these young Foreign Service Officers, and State Department Officers, you know, out in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in some remarkably challenging places. They’re just – they are heroic in every sense of the word. But I think, actually, those two aspects that you raise, Tony will be able to get a handle on those pretty quickly. That’s not to say they won’t be hard, but I think people will welcome all of his efforts to do that.

In terms of the civ-mil relationships, yeah, one – Lloyd Austin, an old and dear friend, will be a superb Secretary of Defense, and I know there was a little bit of consternation about, you know, bringing in a retired General. I guess, from my perspective, at the end of the day, he’s no longer General Lloyd Austin, he is Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin and Lloyd will absolutely understand his role. His role is not to be the Military Advisor to the President, that’s the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Lloyd’s role will be to, you know, promote and advocate, and follow the policy agenda. And he is so experienced, so here’s a – you know, a man who spent, you know, almost four decades in the Army, certainly knows the Middle East, knows the world, and all of its various positions in the military. So, he’s coming in with a great deal of experience.

I think he will build – rebuild the civ-military relationship with President Biden and, again, Biden is an entirely different person than Trump was. The interesting thing about Trump was, you certainly found some of the rank and file, they liked his bravado. But I would offer that most of the Senior Leaders did not appreciate his bravado, and his not only attempts, but the things he did to undermine the good order and discipline within the military, particularly the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So, I think it, again, it is a new day, Secretary Austin is the right guy to be the new Secretary of Defense, and I do think these issues of civ-military relations are going to be strengthened under this administration, in a way that we haven’t seen, certainly in the last four years.

Dr Patricia Lewis

So, I’ve got a couple of questions here about the UK. I’m not sure if we’ve got time to answer them and I hope you can grant us some extra few minutes?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Of course.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thank you. So, B Miller, who wants to ask a question about the Royal Navy, who I’m sure you’ve had a lot of dealings with, in your career…

Admiral William H. McRaven

Uh-huh.

Dr Patricia Lewis

…and it’s a question, which I think might be quite an interesting one. So, if B Miller is still on the line, that would be great.

B Miller

Hi, I was just interested how you think the UK should manage the Royal Navy to be most effective to spread UK, or UK influence in the world, and how that effort could work in conjunction with the US Navy?

Dr Patricia Lewis

And particularly, whether or not the Royal Navy should perhaps do more in the Pacific, I think, as well, isn’t that right?

B Miller

Yeah.

Dr Patricia Lewis

So, yeah.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, you know, when you look back over the US Navy’s routes, the 245-some-odd years, of course, we drew everything from the Royal Navy. All of our traditions come from the Royal Navy, and much like our special relationship with the UK, the US Navy really does have a special relationship with the Royal Navy. And my engagement with the Royal Navy, throughout my almost 40 years, incredibly professional Sailors, incredibly professional Officers.

Yeah, there was a point in time when the defence budget, as you well know, was in dramatic decline. We all kind of went through this, to some degree. I think it particularly affected the UK Military and, in particular, the Navy. But I see, you know, a turning of the corner on this. Their – the UK is investing more in the Navy, in a way that I think will serve the UK exceedingly well.

Now, as far as whether or not they need to be in the Pacific, I mean, I will leave that to the leaders in the UK. I wouldn’t presume to tell the UK where to sail their ships. What I can tell you is that whenever a Royal Navy ship and a US Navy ship, you know, come into the same waters together, there is a brotherhood, and a sisterhood, there that is just remarkable. And, of course, in my time, I have also spent a great deal of time with the Special Air Service, and the Special Boat Service, some of the finest, you know, warriors I’ve ever spent time with. So, everybody in the UK should be extremely proud of their military across all branches, frankly.

Dr Patricia Lewis

So, one last question, I think, from James Tudor-White. So, James, if you could read out your question, that would be great.

James Tudor-White

Good afternoon, Admiral. I would just like to extend my gratitude, also, to Chatham House for organising this event. The 2020 research paper by Chatham House suggested that Biden is unlikely to be enthused by improving relations with the United Kingdom, especially as, in his own words, he referred to Boris Johnson as, “A physical and emotional clone of Donald Trump.” How accurate do you believe this understanding to be, especially after Democratic Representatives have already suggested Biden wants to see greater multilateral engagement, and the strengthening of EU-US relations as a priority?

Dr Patricia Lewis

And I…

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah.

Dr Patricia Lewis

…don’t have to caution you to be diplomatic here.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah, yeah, trust me, I shall be. One, I haven’t read the paper, and I wouldn’t – I certainly wouldn’t comment on Boris Johnson. But what I’d offer is that I have never seen a President not understand, until maybe the last President, not understand and appreciate the special relationship the US has with the UK. So, again, I – as I said before, I can’t speak for the Biden administration, but while I do think that there will be more multilateralism, make no mistake about it, we understand the strength of certain bilateral relationships. Of course, on our intelligence side, we have the Five Eyes. You know, there are just so many special relationships that we have with the UK that I’m certain that the Biden administration will go out of its way to continue to strengthen that relationship, bilateral, multilateral, in any way they can.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Before we close off, Admiral, I wanted to, of course, thank you for the extraordinary generosity in which you’ve been able to answer these questions, in terms of your time, but, also, your willingness to answer some very difficult questions. But, you know, what you’re most famous for on YouTube is, of course, your – you know, before you do anything else in your day, you make your bed, right? And if anyone hasn’t read Bill McRaven’s books on this, and seeing him give inspiring talks, you should. So, my question to you is, has President Biden finished making his bed yet?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, they don’t let me in the residence, so I can’t inspect it. But my guess is, knowing President Biden pretty well, yeah, I’m sure he got up the first thing this morning and made his bed. You know, I will…

Dr Patricia Lewis

But do you think in terms of policy, he’s made his bed? Has he finished doing the things he needs to do…

Admiral William H. McRaven

Oh, I see.

Dr Patricia Lewis

…back home?

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, you know, I think he’s got – he certainly has a first 100-day agenda, and, boy, you can see him moving out on this with lightspeed. I think he just did a magnificent job of staying out of the fray after the election. You know, he could easily have been dragged into all the Trump drama, and he chose not to do that, and I think in the time period between the election and the inauguration, his team was at it, you know, figuring out what they were going to do in the first 100 days. Drafting up the Executive Orders, all these sort of things that you saw on day one, he’s sitting behind the President’s desk signing, coming back with the Paris Climate Accords, re-engaging with the World Health Organization. So, I do think he’s made his bed, in a way that is going to set him up for the rest of the day, if you will. He’s got more to do, but this 100-day agenda, they seem to be on track and moving, you know, very aggressively towards getting to the President’s agenda.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Well, that was a great answer. So, thank you so much for, you know, just engaging with us, for, as I said, the generosity of your time, and your intellect, and for interpreting for us what’s going on over in the United States. We have more drama to come, I think…

Admiral William H. McRaven

Yeah.

Dr Patricia Lewis

…and I think you’re right, President Biden seems to be trying to just take one step back, and be very Presidential, for want of a better phrase. So, I want to thank everybody as well in our audience today. There’ve been large numbers of you, and you’ve all been so great with all the questions. It’s been quite hard to follow all of them and I know I haven’t been able to answer all of them, and I’m really – we’ll get them all answered. But I’m hoping that you’ve felt that most of your points were addressed.

We are taping this, so I think it will be online later to look at and I just want to wish you the very best, Admiral Bill McRaven, in everything that you’re doing at the moment, and we hope to have you back in Chatham House again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Well, first, let me say thanks once again to you and Chatham House, and I’ll leave you all with one final note. I’m very optimistic about the future, and I think all of us, certainly in the United States, as we woke up every morning over the last four years, wondering, you know, what was happening next. And now, I’m very optimistic with the Biden administration, as I said, with the incredibly experienced people that he has put in place. And I’m hoping that our allies, certainly the UK, but our allies around the world recognise that we are ready to lead in a way that is thoughtful, that is practical, that is collegial, that is co-operative, in order to, you know, advance the entire world’s agenda. To do good things in the world, and I’m very confident that the Biden administration is going to take that approach. And, so, I’m really happy that we have a new President, and a new team, and I look forward to a much, much brighter day.

Dr Patricia Lewis

Thank you very much, we certainly need some good news. Bye, everyone.

Admiral William H. McRaven

Thank you very much.