AMNA NAWAZ: In foreign policy,
the past 10 years have seen
both transformation and inertia.

In many countries, the
leaders have changed, but
an authoritarian style
of leadership hasn't.

New powers are emerging,
but are as opaque as ever.

And evolving domestic politics
could lead to new relationships
between the United States

and its allies.

"NewsHour"'s chief foreign
affairs correspondent,
Nick Schifrin, discusses
this decade of discontent

with three people who have
shaped U.S. foreign policy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: As we close the
2010s, we look back at this
year and this decade in foreign

affairs and global security.

We will tackle a few main topics
with an all-star cast, Michele
Flournoy, deputy secretary of

defense under President Obama
and co-founder and managing
partner of WestExec Advisors,

a national security advisory
firm, Rebeccah Heinrichs, a
former congressional security

aide, now senior fellow at The
Hudson Institute, and, from
London, Kori Schake, a National

Security Council staff
director under President
George W. Bush and soon
to take over the Defense

Policy Program at the
American Enterprise Institute.

And thank you very much, and
welcome all to the "NewsHour."

I want to set up our first
topic with a small setup piece
about the decade that began with

the Arab Spring and that
ends with worldwide protests.

From the streets of Cairo..

OMAR SULEIMAN, Former
Egyptian Vice President
(through translator):
President Hosni Mubarak

has decided to step down.

NICK SCHIFRIN: ... and
the demise of a dictator,
to Tunisia's Jasmine
Revolution, protesters

across the Middle East
began the decade standing
up to U.S.-backed
authoritarian leaders they

considered corrupt.

In Syria, young people called
for a peaceful transition of
power, but the country descended

into chaos and a
civil and proxy war.

The Arab Spring's legacy
is decidedly mixed.

The decade is ending
the way it began, across
the world, protesters
objecting to what they

call corruption, inequality,
authoritarianism.

From Bolivia and Chile, to
Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, popular
protests are shaking established

political systems, each
fueled by local issues,
but united in frustration
and fueled by optimism

that a better life is
within reach in this
decade of discontent.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, when you
think back to the Arab Spring,
when you think about the

protests today, do you see
stability replaced with chaos?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS, The
Hudson Institute: I do see
stability replaced with chaos.

I think, rather than
the optimism that we
had at the beginning of
the Arab Spring, it's

been replaced with, I think,
realism and perhaps mixed with
pessimism that democracy can win

the day simply by supporting
the small groups of people who
would rightly wish to overthrow

an authoritarian, even if that
authoritarian was more stable.

So, now we had stable,
authoritarian now
replaced with chaos.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Kori Schake,
that idea that the stability
that authoritarianism perhaps

kept has been lost a little
bit, when you see U.S. policy
going forward, do you believe

that it should be more based
on principle than it has been?

KORI SCHAKE, Former National
Security Council Staff Director:
Absolutely it should be more

based on principle.

What people are protesting
against in these societies
is terrible governance.

They want the rule of law.

They want predictability.

They want representative
governance.

And the United States should
always be on the side of
people demanding human dignity

and individual rights.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Michele Flournoy,
is that realistic, that the
U.S. can always be on that side?

MICHELE FLOURNOY, Former Defense
Department Official: Well,
I do think we have to stand

for democracy and freedom,
better rights for people.

I mean, that is who we are.

That's our history.

Those are our values.

But the challenge is how
to do that effectively.

I think the best programs are
the ones that work long-term
to invest in the foundations

of civil society and
sort of grow better
governance over time.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Rebeccah
Heinrichs, is that realistic,
long-term investment?

Is the political appetite
in the U.S. for a long-term
investment in these countries?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS: I
think long-term is the
only way it will work.

I do not think that we have the
political appetite right now in
the United States, especially

after we see what's happening
in Afghanistan, that our efforts
there to create a democracy

have not been met with
fruit there that we
wish after 18 years.

And so I think that this desire,
which I think is good, for the
United States, that we want

to see other countries share
the freedoms that we -- that we
have, that it almost cheapens

democracy to think that we can
simply, by helping or assisting
in toppling these authoritarian

governments, that democracy will
simply rise and remain stable.

That simply has not been
proven out in reality.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Kori Schake,
is that how you see it?

And think about, for
example, Saudi Arabia, an
example where U.S. policy
has been controversial,

especially because of
human rights violations.

KORI SCHAKE: So, I see it
slightly different than Rebeccah
and Michele, in that I think

the United States very often
takes too much responsibility
for other people's outcomes.

And it's certainly true that
programs that help build society
and independent media and

autonomous judiciaries, those
are all good long-term programs.

But it's not good enough to tell
people, in the next generation,
you will have a government

that supports individual
-- individual rights.

And it seems to me that the
craftsmanship of governance
is understanding when problems

are ripe, that the amount of
effort the United States is
willing to put to create change

matches the moment.

It's our responsibility to
judge when and how we can help
people create positive change

for themselves.

NICK SCHIFRIN: One of the places
around the world that people are
creating their own opportunities

certainly is Hong Kong.

And we have seen
major protests there.

And so let's take a little
look at a setup story about the
state of China and U.S. affairs.

In Beijing's Great
Hall of the People, the
people celebrate one man.

After the removal of term
limits, Xi Jinping can
be president for life.

Under Xi, China has dramatically
modernized its military and
created outposts in the South

China Sea, ignoring
international law
and U.S. objections.

China has also expanded its
influence abroad with the most
expensive infrastructure project

in history and
advanced technology.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the
United States: My administration
has taken the toughest ever

action to confront
China's trade abuses.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But the
Trump administration has
confronted China, both on
trade and international

influence, and has called China
a revisionist power whose goal
is to displace U.S. preeminence.

Michele Flournoy, are the U.S.
and China destined for conflict?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I
certainly hope not, because
we're both nuclear powers.

But we are certainly destined
for a period of much greater
competition, economically,

technologically, for political
influence around the world, and
also potentially in the military

sphere.

The best thing we can do is
actually invest in the drivers
of our competitiveness here

at home, whether it's science
and technology, research and
development, higher education,

21st century infrastructure.

Why in the world do we not have
a U.S. 5G industry, for example?

So, we are in for a
longer competition.

I -- it would be a terrible
failure of policy if that
necessarily ends in conflict.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Kori Schake,
part of confronting China has
-- is the United States working

with allies.

Do you believe President
Trump is working with
allies to confront China?

KORI SCHAKE: No, I don't.

In fact, I think he's
squandering what is America's
greatest strategic advantage in

a competition with China,
which is that we're
historically pretty good
at playing team sports.

And China, because of
its repression at home,
its intimidation abroad,
its refusal to play

by the existing rules of the
international order that have
served the United States,

other countries, including
China, extraordinarily
well, China's having a
hard time getting anybody

to support their
view beyond Russia.

And President Trump, because
he seems unable to prioritize
which arguments he wants to

have, he's arguing with
everybody all at once,
instead of making a
common front with other

countries who are nervous
about China's behavior and
who want American cooperation.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Rebeccah
Heinrichs, has President
Trump squandered an
opportunity, as we just

heard?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS: I actually
see it quite differently.

I think this is where President
Trump has the greatest
strength in his administration,

is that I really believe that,
if it wasn't for this particular
administration, the United

States wouldn't be talking
about great power competition
with China in the way that we

are, in the robust
way that we are.

You see -- you see
themes all the way from
senior administration
officials talking about

how China is not good at
reciprocity, it's opaque,
you can't count on them.

You have got businesses now
taking a second guess, looking
-- taking a second look at

maybe they don't want to
invest so thoroughly in China.

So I'm optimistic about what
the United States is doing now
to set us on a good track for

the years to come.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The U.S.'
oldest allies are in Europe,
and there are tensions between

the United States and
Europe and within Europe.

So let's take a look at a quick
setup piece about the state
of Europe, NATO and the U.S.

Beyond the traditional
staged photos at the
NATO leaders meeting, the
transatlantic alliance

is facing a crisis of
identity and confidence.

President Trump questions
the alliance's foundation,
emphasizing shared
spending, not shared values.

French President Emmanuel
Macron says Trump has turned his
back on NATO, and he recently

called NATO brain-dead,
in an attempt to shake up
its strategic assumptions.

And Europe is facing
its own shakeup.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

NICK SCHIFRIN: British Prime
Minister Boris Johnson just won
a big political mandate based

on his pledge to, in his
words, get Brexit done.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, should the
U.S. have a tough conversation
with Western Europe right

now?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS: I
think that's exactly what
we're in the middle of.

I think, you know, all
of the things that make
so many people, I think,
rightfully uncomfortable

about President Trump, about
his abrasive approach and the
way he talks to people, many

of these things that President
Trump has brought up and
raised are true, in fact.

And, as a result, we do see
NATO spending more on defense,
committing more on collective

security.

And then some of these other
problems that he's raised,
although they're not fixed, it's

good that we're now
addressing these head on.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Kori Schake,
NATO in a better place after
President Trump's term or terms

are done?

KORI SCHAKE: No,
I don't think so.

NATO has underlying problems
that the president has splashed
a whole lot of attention to.

But I think the question for
the administration is whether
the president's engagement with

Europeans is going to
solve those problems.

And it doesn't look
to me like it is.

It doesn't look to me like
it's producing greater
European commitment.

It does look to me like
it is scaring Europeans
and encouraging our
adversaries to question

the Article 5 guarantee that
NATO allies make to each other,
which is that an attack on

one is an attack on all.

So, the increased defense
spending, including
by the United States,
doesn't compensate for

the anxiety and the questioning
of our fundamental commitment.

And that really is the result
of the president's policies.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Michele
Flournoy, last word.

This story isn't only
about the tensions
within the transatlantic
alliance, but also when

it comes to Turkey, who's
in NATO, obviously, but
also President Putin,
who's about to celebrate

his 20th year in power.

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Yes,
but the two are related.

So I think the fact that
we have our European
allies questioning
the U.S. commitment to

NATO more fundamentally than
they have since NATO's founding,
that has created an opening.

And it's to the delight of
Vladimir Putin to be able to
weaken NATO, to see dissension

in NATO, and to start picking
off allies like Turkey, say,
hey, if you know you can't rely

on the United States, you're not
sure of the predictability of
their policy, the reliability

of their leadership, let me sell
you some air defenses for you.

Sounds like a great deal, but
that's a wonderful way to get
in there and start dividing the

alliance.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Michele Flournoy,
Rebeccah Heinrichs, Kori
Schake, thanks to you all.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what
a decade it's been.

Online, you can watch our
in-depth series on protest
movements that broke out across

the globe this year, with
a deeper look tonight at
the unrest in Hong Kong.

You can find that
when you follow us on
Instagram @NewsHour.