[AUDIENCE MEMBER] Hi, I'm Brook.

I'm a student at the university.

My question for you is,
how do you think the U.S.

should approach
problematic alliances?

[SUSAN RICE] Like Turkey?

Yeah.

Well, we have a few now.

That's one. Hungary is another.

But before I answer
the direct question

I just want to say how
important our alliances are.

Our NATO alliance our
Pacific allies, are a force

multiplier for our leadership
and strength in the world.

And I think one of the
most important things

we ought to be doing is
reinforcing those alliances

and the importance of them
rather than denigrating them.

And meanwhile, uplifting
our adversaries.

So, but Turkey and some of

our less democratic allies
pose a particular problem.

And the challenges

you don't want to
jettison those alliances.

But you also can't

overlook the bad behavior.

So in Turkey's case, there's a
lot of abuses of human rights

it's obviously the
intervention in Syria,

it's getting in bed

with Russians on their
air defense systems.

And we have that
challenge to perhaps

not the quite same degree
in the Obama administration.

And the way we tried
to manage it was,

as difficult as it was,

a lot of presidential
engagement with Erdon.

And President Obama spent
a lot of time in person

and on the phone with him,
not because they were besties,

but because we knew that,
that was arguably the best way

to prevent some of
the worst excesses.

[EVAN SMITH] Is President
Erdon persuadable,

in your experience?

[RICE] Yes. Then.

And persuadable is maybe
not the right term.

You could, you could
shave the rough edges.

[SMITH] Okay.

[RICE] You could mitigate--

[SMITH] Yeah.

[RICE] --the worst outcomes,
and that's frankly in part

plus our deterrent effect,
how we made it impossible

for many years for Turkey
to invade northern Syria.

[SMITH] Yeah.

[RICE] It's not like
they didn't want to.

It's that they knew
they'd better not--

[SMITH] You held them off.

[RICE] --mess with the U.S.

[SMITH] Right.

[RICE] Or rupture
that relationship.

President Trump sent a
very different signal.

And we've seen what happens.
[SMITH] Thank you so much for--

[RICE] Thank you.

[SMITH] Commissioner.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER]
Welcome back to Austin!

And thank you for continuing
to come to Texas Tribune Fest!

[RICE] Thank you!

[AUDIENCE MEMBER]
That is always a joy--

[SMITH] This is a hashtag ad,

I didn't actually tell
her to do that, but okay.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] But
my question is this,

you have served
at a cabinet level

and I'm just wondering,
aside from a president,

who ought to be taking the lead

on climate change policies?

'Cause so many
different divisions

and offices can
claim a piece of it,

but somebody needs
to take the lead.

Who do you think that out to be?

[RICE] Well, it depends. Right?

Internationally, it should
be the State Department,

and the Secretary of State.
And John Kerry, you know,

took that role very seriously,
and was passionate about it.

And it helped lead to the
Paris Climate Agreement.

The diplomacy was run

out of State and
the White House.

President Obama was very much
engaged. We were all engaged.

But when it comes
to domestic side,

then you need EPA,
you need Interior,

you need a variety
of agencies involved.

But in the Obama administration,
the EPA administrator

was really the point person,
and very effective at it.

We had two and they
were both excellent.

[SMITH] Yup.

[RICE] So, but what
you really need

is a demand signal
from the president.

To all elements--

[SMITH] Sets the tone
at the top, Right, yeah.

[RICE] That this is a priority.

And you have to
take it seriously.

[SMITH] And the inverse
of that would be saying

we're going to withdraw
from the Paris Accords.

[RICE] Sorta
something like that.

[SMITH] Yeah.

(audience laughter)

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] Thank you.

[SMITH] That's a signal of
sort from the top, as well.

[RICE] And the energy
department you know

we don't care about, you know,
renewables, only oil and gas.

[SMITH] Ma'am.

[RICE] Coal. Yes.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] You've
been an influential advocate

for the people of Sudan.
And if I recall correctly,

you were present at the South
Sudanese independence day.

[RICE] I was.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] I'm
wondering now with hindsight

what your views are,

on South Sudan as it tries
to emerge from this conflict,

and what the Obama
administration

might have done differently.
And I'd also be interested

in your views on Sudan

and its future following
this year's ouster.

[SMITH] This is the kind
of question you get.

[RICE] That's good!

[SMITH] Right, you like that?

[RICE] That's good. I write
actually a lot about Sudan

and South Sudan in "Tough Love."

Because it is a sort of
through line going back

to my time working on Africa,

as well as in the
Obama administration.

I'm very saddened
and disappointed

by what's evolved in South
Sudan since independence.

It, for those of you who
don't follow this carefully,

you know, it's basically
a civil conflict.

And very corrupt,
venal leadership,

in the government

and very corrupt
venal leadership

in the opposition
fighting the government.

And what has been a real

moment of promise in
2011 has been squandered.

And the people of South
Sudan have suffered so long,

are really as bad or worse off
then they were even before.

So it's a huge tragedy
and I think it was right

for the people of South
Sudan to have the opportunity

to vote on a referendum
for independence.

They voted 98.6%
for independence.

But then they got stuck with
some really bad leaders,

and they hadn't been
able to change that.

And I think U.S. policy,
and I do write rather

critically of our
approach, not just there

but where I think
we've made mistakes,

and where we've gotten it
right across the board.

But in South Sudan,
and I take a fair share

of responsibility
for this, I think

we were late to push for
broad-based sanctions

against the government
of South Sudan,

and the leadership
of South Sudan.

And there are various
reasons for that

which I get into which I
won't bore everybody with

but I would have, in retrospect,
think we would have perhaps

been able to use our
influence more effectively

had we resorted to those
tougher measures sooner.

But, we've now done it and
it's still hasn't worked.

So, it's really hard to tell.

With retrospect to Sudan itself,

this is the government
in Khartoum.

You know, the ouster of Bashir
and the change of government

driven by real popular sentiment
was an amazing achievement.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] Extraordinary.

[RICE] And again, what comes
of it is still to be seen.

We're in this
transitional phase.

But I think the people of
Sudan deserve enormous credit.

For, in effect, you
know bringing about

a change through
largely peaceful means.

They, some of the
civilian protestors
were certainly harmed.

But they did not use violence
to achieve their objective.

And there is now hope.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] Thank you.

[RICE] Thank you for
asking. I appreciate that.

[SMITH] Steve, your time?

Do we have time for one more?

I'm very sorry if we don't
get to your question. Sir.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] Oh,
is this the last one?

[RICE] Apparently.

[SMITH] You get the last one.

[AUDIENCE MEMBER] Ambassador
Rice, are you concerned

that there's been an
exodus of professional

foreign service officers
from the State Department?

[RICE] Deeply.

[SMITH] It's an easy
short answer, right?

[RICE] Deeply, deeply concerned!

and--

[SMITH] Can you rebuild that?

[RICE] With a lot of time.

And a lot of effort.

I mean, we've had,
so we've lost people

at the very senior levels
who have been told,

in effect, that
they're not welcome.

The most experienced.
We have deficits now

in terms of recruitment.
And now we have

the president of
the United States,

very directly and personally,
attacking and denigrating

foreign service officers.
And the Secretary of State--

[SMITH] Declining to
stand up for this.

[RICE] Refusing, to
stand up for them.

[SMITH] Right.

[RICE] And, on the one hand,
that's devastating for morale,

and it's going to accelerate,
I fear, the exodus.

On the other hand, I
think what I'm hearing

from my former colleagues is
they are foreign service proud.

There's hashtag F-S Proud.

Because what they have
been able to show the world

and the country is how
dedicated and professional

and you know faithful
to their oath

under the constitution
they actually are.

[SMITH] If there's
a silver lining

over the last couple weeks

it's that Marie Yovanovitch
and Bill Taylor,

and these other folks
from the State Department

defying directives not to
do this have demonstrated

what public service
looks like, right?

[RICE] I think, absolutely.

I don't think the American
people understand how smart

and committed and, you know,

under the radar
screen these people

are trying to fly everyday
doing our business for us.

[SMITH] Right.

[RICE] And they don't get the

praise and support
and the respect,

that our service
men and women do.

But they are putting themselves
in harms way everyday.

As we just discussed
as when you look at

you know, our losses in
Libia or in East Africa.

These people are putting
their lives on the line.

[SMITH] Literally on the
line for us, that's right.

[RICE] And they do great work.

[SMITH] Ambassador, thank you
so much, for your time today!

[RICE] Thank you.

[SMITH] Thank you all!

We'll see you again.

(applause)