tv James Baker and Thomas Donilon Testify on U.S. Global Leadership CSPAN May 17, 2016 12:04am-2:26am EDT
out there, he's reluctant for many reasons. maybe he'll be persuaded to do it. the retired center for oklahoma, a wonderful man was real independent, he will be a very interesting interesting candidate. i think all of these people i can say without confidence, the only thing that's moving his patriotism. it's more trouble so to speak for their own short-term gain in the case of romney and others were very comfortably retired but all of them just think how awful it would be to go for it for the next six months with a choice being and clinton. >> the chairman of the party calling this a suicide mission and all but assuring that if there were conservative third-party candidate on the ballot, that would guarantee hillary clinton's election. >> i don't argue with that, i don't think it be seeing about it if he wasn't worried about
it. look might be most republicans will continue to acclimate to him if that's right work, accommodate him, decide he's acceptable. the but there's a lot on his record and things that will come out to cause his campaign to implode. i think there'd be good to have a real conservative on the ballot. i think it's stands for constitutional limited government, strong american foreign policy, none of these are things that donald trump's been associated with. i think having a real conservative who might also have an independent streak and be able to appeal to an independent on the ballot would be a good throwing. >> last week in your essay for the weekly standing you announce that for the first time and 11 presidential election cycles you will not be voting for republican candidate. what kind of reaction have you received? >> mixed. some people think i'm
being foolish. i've good friends with people have looked closely at the situation and decided you know what they're gonna it they're gonna go to trump, is better than hillary. they think the deficiencies and trump are manageable people to work rama. i just think his character fall short of the basic standard of being president. i can't quite join my friends and that. i have a lot of encouraging e-mails and response. republicans are concerned and if they want to take their time i don't criticize for that. if they were to take a look at how they look in september or october. you don't have to declare now. you can keep it dry and i would encourage people to do so. but people do have to cross this fundamental line. they they have asked the fundamental question are you comfortable with donald trump given his character and judgment. >> let me ask you this question, what what you think of donald trump? >> what i have anything against him, he's just some businessman he does what he does, he's may
be a pleasant man to do business with her work for, that's his own business. i've never given much thought to him one way or the other. when he was thinking of -- have no particular concern for him one way the other, just don't think you should be president united states. >> wealth is joining you in this effort to find a viable third party conservative candidate? >> a lot a lot of volunteers, smother republican operatives, some other conservative types which are in that national views written eloquently against the case against trump. it's very ad hoc volunteer effort, there's no organization other, but i'm not actually part of those. they're mostly to the primary process. this is very much a spontaneous decentralized effort. people say that were recruiting someone, of, of course were trying to step forward but there is no
means to being fresh on anyone and i don't want to put pressure on anyone. the person who run should believe in his heart that is right thing to do. >> finally as you look at the calendar, how much is about the white house and how much is about the senate race that could swing put in the back in control next january? >> i would make a case that it would get people like me an incentive to vote and it would trickle down to the senate and house races, but that's not my purpose. others can pour money into that. for me it comes down to who should be in the oval office. i just think with six months ago i had to give up on the notion that it couldn't be someone better than neither hillary clinton or donald trump. >> booker still is the editor of the weekly standard, his work is available on line. thank you for being with the.
>> thank you steve. >> madam secretary, we probably give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. >> [applause]. >> book tv has 48 hours hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some of the programs to watch for. this saturday morning at 10:00 a.m., were lied for the
festival. others include a jdm with his book, why the right went long. conservatism from goldwater to the tea party and beyond. annette gordon reed and peter on us on their book, book, most blessed of the patriarch. thomas jefferson and that empire of imagination. the book, we the people, the modern-day figures who have reshaped and affirmed the founding fathers vision of america. james rising, and his book, pay any price, greet, power and endless war., greet, power and endless war. kristin green in her book, something must be done about prince edward county. a family family of virginia town, a civil rights battle. joann with her book lover, love not, the hillary paradox. john nourse on hurt his book the first queen of journalism. and talking about the book fair layer lawyer, the remarkable lawyer of new deal attorney and supreme court bessie, on on sunday night at nine on afterwards. >> for me, the worst thing i've ever done was committed a murder
1991, i shot caused a man's death and it was by far one of the worst things you could do. i made the unfortunate decision at the age of 19 and devastated a family, i took somebody's husband, son, brother, father, from the family. it was one of the things that stays with me to this day. it was some of the reasons why do the work that i do in the city because i would never want another child to grow up with that type of burden. it was one of those burdens that never go way. >> is the author of writing my wrong discusses is 19 years in prison and his life after. >> go to booktv.org for the complete we can schedule. >> now a look at u.s. leadership around the world, former secretary of state james baker and former national security adviser tom donlon testified before the senate foreign relations committee. mr. baker said the world would
>> this committee will come to order. we are excited about the here and we're having today. we think both of our witnesses for taking the time to be with us. i do do not think this hearing could come at a better time when the nation is getting more fully to focus on our place in the world. obviously the presidential races that are underway will height not focus as time goes on. both of our witnesses have served in substantial roles and administration and of had to deal with the daily crisis that occur within and administration. the senate foreign relations committee in many ways which is removed from that should be a place where we look at those activities and yet we are able to have some distance and look at some long range issues that we need to deal with. also just where were going to be in the world. this hearing i think is a step in that direction.
again, and no we are all thrilled to have you both. during the hearing what i would love to hear his first role some of the thoughts with her current crises that we have, everything from russian aggression to what is happening in the middle east, transnational terrorism, a people in europe, north korean what is happening in the south china sea, second, in light of these events it is my hope that we will explore their thinking is to your thinking as to what the interest star. i think that something we do not spend enough time focused on. when we begin to take actions. third i would like to get the perspective on the tools in our toolbox that are most effective in accomplishing our goals and securing a future role. whether it is our military, economic influence, trade, engagement, trade, engagement multilateral organizations and alliances, what is the right balance in using these tools and what are the cost and benefits. fourth, i would love to hear how
they feel about our debt at home and the inability to find a solution for the unfunded liability that we have. the the pressure that that places on our ability if you will to deal with form policy and to deal with issues around the world in the most appropriate way. finally, both of you i know our deep policy people and have made great things happen for a country and your careers, you you have to have a little politician and you to do what you do. so you're very, very aware of where the american people are today. where there is obviously wondering how much we should be doing overseas. a lot of focus on what is happening at home. so all five of those are topics that i hope you'll address today. i think you both for being here, with that i will turn toward distinguished member, ranking member, ben cardin. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i very much appreciate you convening this hearing.
i want to thank secretary baker and mr. -- for your incredible years of public service. to me this is a real opportunity to have you people are community so that we can gain from your experience and try to do it we can to make america stronger. think both of you very much for being here today. the hearing is called america's role in the world. we certainly have enough challenges and there's certainly a need for u.s. leadership globally. when i look at them america's strength, i see are military, the strongest military in the world, the best soldiers in command, the best military equipments but to me the strength of america and its influence globally is in our ideals. it's what we stand for. it is or standing for democracy,
good governance and rule of law. we look at some of the actions we have taken and might years in the congress have been very active in the osce. i look at that founding principle that a country securities more than than protecting its borders, it said economic opportunities and respect for basic human rights. to me that has been one of the guiding principles. when you look at other countries that are flexing their military, to me they will never succeed in accomplishing more peaceful, stable world because they do not have the commitment to its democracy and good governance. i look at russia's and what china is doing and sees, look at north korea, they certainly are not countries that are taken on international responsibilities for more peaceful and stable world. so, what are the pillars that we should be using, what are the tools the mr. chairman said that in order to accomplish our objectives. i take a look at this and i come up with certain pillars that i think we need to underscore. one is, we have to work to form coalitions and partnerships.
that is not easy. americans are not always patient. but patient. but i think it is very important, to work with other countries with like objectives and that means we have more credibility and effectiveness in accomplishing our results. i think we need to continue our strong demand for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction particularly nuclear weapons. we must make it clear that the use of our military should be used only when other options have been explore. it. it should be a matter of last resort. to me, the key pillar and this will not come as a surprise to my colleagues, is that we need to prioritize and support good governance. democracy and basic human rights, transparency, corruption, freedom of the press, ability to oppose government without ending up in jail. the freedom of religion, the status of civil societies is always a good in indication of how a government is doing. when leaders fail to provide good governance we see the consequences. we see the consequences and
conflict, we were innocent people are put at risk. we see the flood of displaced individuals and refugees. we see a vacuum in which is a breeding ground for radicalization and recruitment to terrorist organization. and we a heavy price for that. two examples, we are all concerned with the fate of ukraine. clearly the culprit here is russia and its interference with the independent country. we have spoken out and have gotten europe to work with us to try to isolate russia. but ukraine has to establish good governance. they have not been able to do that today. that is today. that is going to be critical for their survival. then in syria, we know the assad regime cannot have the credibility, it does not represent the people and we have a civil conflict and pretty ground for isil. to to me, common thread has risen through much of the world is a crisis in government and avert willingness
to the law and i look for to the conversation today with two champions in the history of america on foreign-policy. >> we are all very thrilled to have you. secretary baker is to me a model of public service. someone who i have looked up to for a long time. i really appreciate him taking his time to be with us today. i know he served in the public arena often on multiple times, with great distinction. tom, from from what i've gotten to know over the course of the first years of the obama administration, while i do not know him as well i know he he is highly seen. we cannot be more fortunate than to have the two of you here today. if you could, if you'd summarize your comments and about five minutes we are selling at going
to cut you off. i have read your written testimony and without objection it will be entered into the record. you can just summarize if you would in about five minutes or so and then we look for to asking questions. if you you would start secretary baker, would appreciate it. [inaudible] >> microphone. >> and other distinguished members of the committee. it is a real pleasure for me, needless to say to be once again back before this committee that i appeared before so many times when i secretary of state. i have been asked to keep these remarks brief and i will so we can spend most of our time talking about the issues that you have articulated. let me say say a few words to begin about america's current role in the world stage and then suggest an approach on the foreign policy which i think is for the country. let me begin by putting america's place in the world today into perspective. more than 70 years after the conclusion of world war ii, the
united united states remains the strongest nation in the world. not just militarily, we we have a dynamic and resilient economy, we do have the most powerful military the world, we have the widest array of strategic alliances ranges from nato to icm. do we have problems? it indeed we do. do mystically, our economy continues to say, internationally we are losing some of the respect as a global leader that we have earned over the course of decades. as a current presidential election has demonstrated, americans are losing faith in institutions from washington to wall street that abated our advancement over the years. the same time, must a the world like china, brazil, india are catching up to us. that is largely because they have adopted or are adopting our paradigm free market. that should not therefore be viewed negatively in my view but as a positive trend because it is helping hundreds of millions
of people rise from poverty. still, it is my view, notwithstanding the fact that we have slipped a little in recent years, that we should remain the world's p.m. and it leader for the foreseeable future. we should accept that responsibility and not shrink from it. if we do not exercise power, other people will. we are simply too much at stake in the world today to walk away from it, even if we could. other countries depend on our leadership, this is most obviously true of our allies and western europe, east asia and elsewhere. frankly, even countries that are so times anything but friendly cigar engagement. does that mean we're perfect? it is not. in the major mobile conflicts of the last century, world war i, world war ii, the cold war, the united states played stork role in defeating imperialism and totalitarianism. so the question is, how should the united states engage in poor
policy? how do we formulate policies that best serve the united states as we begin to approach what many consider to be the end of the unipolar era. first of all, i want to say that in my view and this is been my view drama look service. way back before i secretary of state, international leadership does not involve the choice between sending in 100 first airborne or doing nothing. we can leap politically, diplomatically, and economically without putting american boots on the ground. i believe the united states should chart a course based on a paradigm that i would refer to us selective engagement. this approach which would -- since 1945 would recognize that
the united states have core interest in the world and we should protect them. at the same time i would also acknowledge the reality that our power is limited. using selected engagement we can identify america's vital interest in the world can advance them using all of the tools available for form policy, including our many strategic alliances, art economic our economic club, our diplomatic assets, and as a last resort, our military. so what are those vital interest? they range from combating international terrorism to managing the emergence of china as a global power. from stemi proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to expanding free trade. the approach i suggest is not fall easily into traditional policies of foreign policy, that is realism or idealism. i think it would contain i think
it represents more one of our distinctive national characteristics. we are after all a practical people, less interested in ideological. even in solving problems. the process of selective engagement should be informed to buy what i would refer to as a pride dramatic idealism. while firmly in grounded in values, selective engagement would understand and appreciate the complexity of the real world which is a world of hard choices and pimple trade-offs. this is a real world in which we must live and decide, and act with due regard of course for our principles and our values. it would require that we had an overriding at stake particularly if any military action contemplated. i think it can help us avoid what the of realism and the
impracticality of idealism. he promises no easy answers or quick fixes. but such an approach does, i am convinced at least, offer our surest guide and our best hope for navigating this great country of ours safely to this precarious period of unparalleled risk and opportunity in world affairs. i look forward to addressing your questions. thank you. >> national security advisor, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today. >> secretary baker is. >> it was entitled were cars, studying keep out of politics. the world today is characterized
by an unusually large number of unstable and volatile situations. it is a level of volatility that we have only seen twice since world war ii. i think the volatility and instability is rooted in four broad trends which i will describe briefly. first, there is a systemic breakdown in the state authority in the middle east. indeed in the year since early 2011 a number of arab states have become failed states from libya, yemen, syria full range of other states have become different stages of failure. >> ..
of impacts. and dad said the provocative behavior of the south china sea is significantly disabling. united states and china have to get this relationship bright as testified in front of the committee to notice -- to notice it in terms of the outcome anwr is a classic trap but in my judgment international relations is not a subset of physics boss sides can avoid conflict with steady engagement. the last trend is the geopolitical impact of sustained loyal - - low oil prices. his hit will be long-lasting in my judgment.
the lack of financial reserves have been severely pressured and even exporting nations have come under serious economic strain even saudi arabia has a major reorientation of their economy. but the united states and in its ability is in decline. with the national balance sheet a strategic strength no nation can match our comprehension of the enduring strength in resilience of our economy economy, the resources, a global network, the culture of entrepreneurship and a long recognition of leadership.
and a leads to poor policy choices of the rise but i will list for five challenges for the next president. first economic growth. there is not a lot of laws by one of those certainly no nation can maintain the diplomatic privacy without the vitality. since the 2008 crash where the economic insecurity calls for retrench bit of global leadership to weaken our economy. there are a number of things that we can do it in national labor structure to support the long term demographics but the bottom line is the most important national security challenge for the next president is to maintain the growth and prosperity in the united states. second.
terrorism we have significantly reduced and are pressuring isis in syria and iraq. but overall the threat has metastasized isis is moving to the extra will focus experiencing into other regions in europe and around the world and the attacks on paris and brussels show highly are prepared europe is to address the threat. the european responses will do better but my own judgment is the failure of europe to successfully deal with the terrorist threat with information and intelligence sharing is caring the borders to the proper resources is a clear and present danger to the united states. third. cybersecurity. we rely on goods and services connected to the
internet but they also increase our exposure. and then putting their report and next is a the rebalancing of asia to be rock solid to be militarily and diplomatically ratifying with the tpp the economic centerpiece of the rebalancing is central to cement our leadership in the region. last, north korea and is the most serious security challenge in the nation globally. in this undertaking the with
the icbm in addition my opinion is on a path to be the first-class crisis. with that i will conclude with your questions it was a pleasure to be here today. >> it was good to have both of you thinks we're opening comments i will reserve my time for interjections and begin with the senator. >> mr. chairman i concur to have both individuals with us today. so i will drill down on the point to provide the wherewithal admittedly there was outside interference
window of iran's activities with a lack of stability and then up past week with sub-saharan africa in the terrorist networks operating in sub-saharan africa as which is spreading and that is pretty dramatic. what should the united states be doing with a government structure and then to go into democratic countries. and the autocratic systems were working well bomb terms were not working? is there something in our toolbox? with our diplomacy budgets
certainly much smaller than our defense budget. do we have enough resources? to have a tradition of countries of the more inclusive government with the type of violence that we have seen. >>. >> guest: need to take a shot? >> today it is less say question of what should we be doing than what we should not have done or should not repeat? we take down the photographic keeps with a pencil -- that could be beneficial to the citizens that he or she is opposed by
we need to think about what comes next we should not be so quick to get rid of leaders that we don't agree with 1,000 percent of the time. if you look at what has happened in libya who pales in comparison but i don't think he wanted to do that but he was convinced we needed to contribute and we did. saudia betty says that is wonderful but you don't do that without thinking about what comes next? we have that same situation in egypt when we bailed on mubarak had been a wonderful ally for a long time and very good with the arab-israeli problem.
with that dictatorship but at least be have stability. it is good to get rid of saddam hussein we should've done a better idea of when he left these are fails states primarily because it will upset the order we didn't like the people that were running the show. but we need to do a better job of what comes next. right now my view with respect to syria it may be a little too late it is too bad we did not support what the turks wanted which was the no-fly zone of the
border of syria and turkey if we were willing to go along without why couldn't we negotiate and the friends in the region to say we will furnish the intelligence in the logistics' you put the boots on the ground and we will take care of this and we will have the emergency but now maybe it is too late maybe it isn't we could have a coalition but that is what we should have done. >> and i agree with your
to make progress against isis in terms of the military efforts but to have that looming government's crisis the instincts are in the right direction but we have serious pressure with a situation unlike iraq. there is a very important piece of our strategies going forward. >>. >> i enjoyed your testimony with the selective the engagement in regime change the presented -- the present has said it was a mistake to is not prepared to make a country of nothing with massive amounts of resources. so i couple of possibilities
maybe you shouldn't do it to begin with and then you have massive resources to create nature and how you create democracy in the middle east? people don't realize we have representative government within a hundred year tradition and continuity and we think we can blow up gadaffi and jefferson will be elected? maybe sometimes the selective the engagement is what we should militarily engaged but i would like to hear your comments because it is the same situation. ultimately the solution says that russia cannot be a part
of it but probably engaging russia could be part of the answer. >> the ada to come to an accommodation i think we have bipartisan agreement on that. and what secretary kerry is trying to bring about. but you are quite right with selective engagement that is like -- why i like the paradigm you look at these foreign policy problems to
the prison of our national interest and you say if we take this action where will it be? that is the way the president ought to approach these things were that your interest is at stake and if you don't get to that point you still have the tools with the diplomatic engagement. >> with the guiding principle sometimes too quickly we jump to that conclusion what is in our vital national interest? then what is important is congress has a role to give all power to executive.
>> they give most of that to the president so understand my bias but for certain foreign policy powers they think they work. >> even president obama admitted not to go to court dealt the authority of congress and george w. bush cave twice with the use of opposition force. my point is to determine our national interest if we have the debate what actually is that congress has to retain some authority particularly libya. maybe we would not have gone there but we would not have chaos some americans so it's best if the legislative executive branches on the same linkage least before we
start sending them into harm's way so whenever possible, the president should come to the congress to seek their approval i am convinced president 41 had a democratic house and the democratic senate and it was extraordinarily unpopular the only way we got approval was to go first to the security council with the use of force resolution by them but had congress turned him down right he still would have done what he did i don't think we will never resolve the issue who has field in a power commander in chief for congress. >> if you are under imminent
threat the commander in chief will want to have that responds the less there is an imminent threat to when i questioned him on libya he said yes to benghazi. i was perplexed because i thought that was to united states and not a foreign city if we make a limited threat to any city around the world is okay for the president to unilaterally begin a war because any city is under imminent threat that would be absurd. would you expect the standard would be to the united states or a military base or an asset to of hours >> paula deen the un charter it says in a country that feels the need assistance can call and a member state to assist them and that is
exactly what happened when we went into kuwait it was into them a threat to the united states not all. we went the surest and best test of a great power is if you have to act unilaterally you do so. of the that is the best test for a great power we went into panama with nobody. there were brutalizing our servicemen we took over them brought noriega back to the united states. there are circumstances when that is appropriate to but on balance to be in sync and to act with allies. >> i hope it is more the
exception than the rule. >> there are a lot of policy options between invasion and doing nothing. pin number two i agree that the political solution is the first up any we are working on that talk about governance it is important to understand we have a security problem with isis we will not settle that at a peace conference elevator enforcement the we have all
manners of obligations that obligate us to act as necessary. >> the only quick response is with regard to isis are they better or stronger or are they less likely if he he was stronger? >> with my first introduction adult think we should have done what we did i thought of president used we were not involved in hostilities moment to do that. i cannot agree more but when he do selectively and that the teaching in war what is the best way to ensure your
success? >> i am biased but i would submit mr. chairman that the textbook example is the way president bush 41 went to war with the first call for an told the world what he would do then got the rest of the world behind his efforts to the extent for the first time ever he could get the use of force resolution against the number states and then came appear on the hill that was very unpopular at the time but the total of the senate 5248 in the photo of the house by a larger margin with overwhelming force on the ground he went in to do exactly what he said and no more did not go to baghdad the way people were pushing him to do.
he won the war in a few weeks at the time with minimal casualty then guess what he got other people to pay for the war. that is the way to fight a war. it cost 70 million on saree $70 billion in repaid 10 million. the people that we were hoping paid the balance i submit that is the way to go to war. certainly make sure that when you undertake an effort with those forces necessary to get the job done. >> appreciate your having this hearing with american foreign policy with where we are headed i appreciate secretary baker and the
security adviser i thank you both have seen american foreign policy and its challenges and reno of the geopolitical developments to where we are in the importance of ensuring that foreign policy to end up the water is a legend without respect as chairman of this committee we worked across the aisle and brought everybody back over labor day weekend. to draft and pass the use of military force to give obama incredible option to get russia us to engage the use of chemical weapons against his own people and that was
of high water mark for the committee and reacted in the spirit of bipartisanship but never like to hear your perceptions at the corner of the foreign policy debate with intervention aggressive intervention without clear goals in the aftermath as secretary baker has suggested visas to wars and that cost us national treasure and blood so without the credible threat to of consequences can affect our influence to shape the world. and isolationism which is said dangerous view emerging with these presidential debates creates an environment because history
has taught us time and again it is of vacuum minutes is an incredibly dangerous question so i think you choose secretary baker for his testimony to directly to the idea of america in decline but as i travel i get the perception around the world united states is stepping back from its role as a last superpower true or not it is a dangerous perception that emboldens our adversaries if they will judge those differences i worry certainly those that will return to torture or free turn our backs with the nuclear weapons that we see
is the best for the united states. frankly burden shifting the means equally perplexing where it is on us to project our values so look at the roads profile. it worries me messaging is more important than substance and the nature of the witnesses coming before this committee create a misperception that i never bought into but i certainly worry so i wonder if you share your views as to a foreign policy of shifting burden does that not create
a potential of losses and though world? what is the role of that pragmatic view? i think sometimes we short change that because in the pragmatic process to create a potential benefit the long-term the situation becomes of bigger problem what about the international order we came into the view there were certain international standards to come together in the violation of those would create consequences is that dissipating with that concept of international orders that we can expect other countries to join to
enforce to have consequences with those values and standards are violated. >> senator i don't think it is unreasonable for the united states given our track record to ask our allies in particular to live up to their commitments to spend 2 percent of their gdp on defense so nato is strong and remains the most successful security alliance in history. there isn't anything wrong with that and as tom has said the biggest challenge
facing the country today the biggest foreign policy challenge is our economy you cannot be strong politically but not economically and in his first term president obama asked me in a couple of others what should be my number one priority? i'd thank you were there. i said in my view i think he thought i would come back with north korea or iran i said i think your number one should be the restoration of our economic strength and i still believe that that we will not be able to do what we need to do around the world were remain the
preeminent world power or continue to lead internationally if our economy does not remain strong like the way it used to be in terms of growth. we're not there. that is one thing it to the extent we may have the undue share of the burden of stability and peace in the world is not fair for the american taxpayers for the american people i don't think there's anything wrong to say that more of a burden ought to be shared by our allies in particular and i don't think that will take us down the wrong road of course, foreign policy should always be informed by our principles and the promotion of democracy in the free market that we have to be smart how we do that
but i believe it is not unreasonable for us to say to the people we carry the load for it is time for you to help. >> i wasn't talking about native or would totally agree to adjust the monetary elements like the middle east to sail largely. >> the leadership? >> that hasn't worked out very well in my experience i remember when i was secretary of state dealing with the end of the cold war and the horror of iraq and panama the unification of germany in things begin to fall apart in yugoslavia in the european allies said we want the leadership we have had more than enough we
turned it over and they split they all went to their own way. sometimes the doesn't work sometimes you need leadership people appreciate it when america leads there is some resentment and jealousy but they want to see us leave and they appreciate it when we do. >> on that point the burden of leadership does require us to continue to have a presence around the world. it provides deterrence it provides reinsurance -- reassurance around the world with respect to the nuclear row but it is critical to preserve the norm so we do
have happened without u.s. leadership will not provide the balance we needed asia there will not the global trade agreements is the burden that we bear and as we both said as a fair assessment on the balance sheet of assets and liabilities would believe that those right policies will be the most important and powerful the most influential in the nation for time to come. >> just to build on this people are looking under own economic struggles the people coming back wounded there is always the fundamental question why doesn't everybody else do more? why are we still engaged
with asia to provide defense assistance to japan and south korea? i would ask you to describe a world where nato lost its way reduce integrated what would the world looks like we're the strategic environment if that umbrella never cover japan herself korea or if they were diminished or disintegrated? >> it would be far less stable we have a lot of problems to date you would have a helluva lot more fat was the case in these commitments we have around the world promote u.s. security.
ever since the end of world war ii the security alliance with japan and south korea is the foundation and nato has been the base for peace and stability in europe and on the eurasian continent. >> suggests led japan itself to really get their own nuclear weapons. >> the more countries that acquire nuclear weapons the more instability in the world in my opinion if you look at the way north korea uses its nuclear capabilities that is solid has that's the big card and it plays it ever since the end of world war ii american has led the fight of those non proliferation of nuclear
weapons that could kill millions and millions of people that would not promote stability but instability. >> this is a really important political exercise to think about what would happen of these norms and institutions of the united states is the lead as operations and worked there? >> for 70 years we have invested in a platform that the foundation has been built would you have seen that prosperity? that the key would have seen a proliferation of nuclear weapons and to build the platform of the socio-economic development nato is another example.
we figure today and take for granted that europe is stable and peaceful and prosperous. that isn't the history of europe absent the kind of institutions put in place it should never be taken for granted these are permanent situations absent tending to them on a constant basis but the outcomes are clear. >> that thought experiment had been proposed but let me talk about this but i want to revisit this serious situation because it is misconstrued we did not stir the uprising in libya or syria that people stood up peacefully in the beginning than were met with violence the people of libya stepped
to gaddafi and -- to gadaffi and neither could hold onto power in the long term unless they did what gadaffi was going to do in massacre people to hold onto power so there is a valid argument at the time to have the foresight that these dictators were in trouble the only way to hold onto power is to massacre to lead to instability in the middle east and the part of that is the basic ingredient necessary for the radicals to take charge of that environment so these are not efforts by u.s. government to overthrow dictators but the people of those countries that stood up against them so we had to make a decision but is in our best interest with gadaffi if we massacre those
people although militia us to take up the arms but it is the accurate assessment to say we did not start that we would analyze what was the best thing to do? i a argue it was international interest whatever resistance there was because in the absence of those elements that vacuum would be filled this filled in the absence of arab leadership. >> but that's not what happens. >> i agree. >> people were beginning to stand up but we enable that to happen by using our military force to remove those dictators in the same thing in iraq. this is a bipartisan problem but look where we are of all
three places of syria and iraq and libya would leave them there had we not done those things? i am not sure we would have in fact, i don't think we would have. >> you think voskhod would have crushed the rebellion? >> but i know we would have the situation we had today but for years we used saddam hussein against iran as secretary of state we worked with him we finally fought a war with him that we would work with him to bring him into the community of nations the he was against the interest of iran the most important country today and iraq is not the united states with the embassy but iran the most important
me like we don't have the non-military resources to play the game the russians are playing. to offer substantial energy assistance to answer the question of dependence on russian oil. we have some money for anti-corruption efforts the military strength is still unchallenged what about those that project american power? and that is the example sign to that we don't have a we
need to protect that country. >> you did mention in sanctions they were quite strong and having a significant defect over the russian economy. those who drafted the budapest memorandum. they said get rid of the nukes were you afraid of? they said the russians they will give the ironclad guarantee they will respect your independence and we got back and look for that is. i don't think we have the absence of tools we should
not act their unilaterally in bringing them along is a lot more difficult that is why we have the difficulty we are having if you don't like wood is happening in other countries it is the question of the political will with the european allies. >> i do think we have the tools so with respect to europe and it needs to be a broad look of functions and capabilities russia is a multi dimensional war
owed these negotiations important for europe. to add a multi dimensional look there are a number of things i can and should do. >> with my intervening time with the saudis led coalition in obama campaign to expand that territory beyond yemen what is your advice with fast-growing proxy war should we be evaluating each conflict on its own merits? >> we should apply the principles of selective engagement.
some that we be there or militarily. we need to get closer they have been an ally for a long time. work with democrat a republican in ministrations they have spent a good ally i don't see why we should not be there for them not to that full extent of military action but i do see a problem to deal with the
end to have the and do security that is the essence so talk about energy with the rationale that relies on energy so what we expect them to do contribute with the nato alliance but with a number of our allies alike as with those strategical and abilities of their dependence on russia would this help to drive those nato alliance members to develop further energy security?
to prevent them from developing all their energy resources or the ngo actors. or do they help them shore up the strategic vulnerability. >> if those instructions are imposed and one of the united states can do much more persuasion. and a lot of us have been announced to sign a letter of the idea the u.k. should not leave the european union
and as a former treasury of secretary of a fast to sign such a letter and i declined because if i was over here as a for minister wrote me a letter to say this is what you ought to be doing with their own affairs i would resent that i don't think it is our proper role to change the laws of those states other than persuasion and diplomatic channels. >> but there is a lot that europe can do with their diversity to receive natural gas from other places if
they can work on a more rational pipeline and we can provide advice i think we should be asking for europe to take steps to diversify their energy supply and reduce anything the russians might have and there has been some progress but a lot more can be done spirit the secretary's speech in 2011 he said allow me to be blunt we're not a majority by any means but to see china as rise as a threat to our international status they believe the conflict is inevitable as we clash with power plays in gentleman these observers are wrong but they're also dangerous the grossly underestimate as those interest converge does that still hold today, we
should handle them? >> i happen to believe one of the biggest challenges facing american policy makers is how we react to the rise of china as the global power it is extremely important we get it right in china gets to write with their relationship with us. some areas there is a convergence of interest to be semi cooperative the there are plenty of areas were we will have tension on human rights and anti-one and tibet in now with the south china sea but we need to cooperate where we can with regional security and energy perhaps trade but we
need to manage the differences that will exist so cooperate where we can manage those differences were they exist certainly maintain a robust military presence in the pacific with the seventh fleet to guard against any chinese efforts to achieve hegemony in a lot of our allies are counting on us to be there and i think we can it is not preordained that they will become an enemy is in my opinion. >> obviously freedom of navigation operations but what more should we be doing?
should we be pursuing other asymmetric actions of diplomatic channels with the right of passage exercise? >>, the diplomacy we cannot believe that we need to impress upon the chinese the danger of these activities and what they present with the conflict with china and japan over those islands because we have a security treaty with japan if they start fighting over those uninhabited areas that is not good for us. >> there is no more serious diplomatic burden in the u.s.-china relationship because of history and the dynamics it is a challenge indeed a lot of attention
second this will require us to continue our presence in the region with three ballast effort to ensure we have appropriate resources right now and to make very clear to the chinese and we have to make absolutely clear we will maintain our alliance as anachronistic cold war they are the basis on which we engage in will continue in one of the great beneficiaries has been china the south china sea it is important to explore those key principles we seek to maintain a peaceful resolution of disputes we do
that through our presence and exercises but it is important for a code of conduct to be established with respect to the -- those of disputed we can press with china in dialogue there is a real danger with miscalculation in one we should do everything we can we should avoid i have said many times we have a tremendous amount at stake sometime in the middle of the night we will get a call over a rock formation that we don't know and cannot find on the map it is something we need to think very hard about it be ready to accept that in the last
thing i will say is a premier test of the u.s.-china relationship over the next year is the situation that is the most important security challenge that we have in asia the north koreans are proceeding headlong with the missile program and nuclear program and at the end of the dead day we have to take steps to protect ourselves obviously. it is unacceptable to have the north koreans with the icbm deccan reach the united states and that will make china strategically uncomfortable and this is quite urgent going forward. >> i could not agree more that there is any chance at all to get some sort of of military response which is
an appealing and best, it has to be with china the only ones a lot of influence on north korea. >> we have been meeting in north korea in the sanctions building. in light of the fact that trade with north korea has increased in not decrease and that is powerful but they're headed the wrong direction. >> thing cannister chairman. as the committee has been discussing this for a long time to like to follow-up on the north kerry apart talking about how important it is that we address the issue but what steps specifically do you think congress should take and
what the executives should take on north korea with what is developing there right now? >> i think the executives should make it clear to the chinese leadership this is a matter of utmost in serious concern if the executive comes to the congress to ask for sanctions i think the congress ought to respond quickly and affirmatively because the first will not be military andrea understand that but we have to do something because they are racing toward nuclear capabilities that is a serious threat to us and our
security treaty allies. >> with sanctions that is a real step forward in cooperation with the chinese and there are loopholes with respect to coal sales and though should be closed but taking experience from iran basically we put together over half a decade is series of sanctions the regime threatening that should be the goal the second to put in place the appropriateness old defense system to protect us and our allies and we are moving to do that
also putting a system in south korea that we need to do more and taking concrete steps to pull back of the south koreans from the joint industrial facility with unified peaceful korea and also to undertake the effort of the future of the peninsula is uncomfortable but when you're presented with a fax the united states passed to protect itself they're not aimed at beijing disease than is uncomfortable that heads toward us serious strategic disagreement with the chinese but again it is aimed at p'yongyang and china has to understand that to imagine a future for the
peninsula and those of the key sections of missile defense and a deeper conversation with the chinese about the situation for this to be a key test of the relationship in the coming year. >> thanks for those answers. we had a lot of discussion about syria and afghanistan and at certain points we should take stock where we are in route lessons we have learned and it seems if you look at the amount of aid we have spent great then in the marshall plan looking in our results were the lessons we
should have learned? focusing on afghanistan since there is so much difficulty stabilizing that. >> i am not sure i am the best person to answer that i never had to deal with that but it is now the longest were we ever fought we're still there but i would suggest we don't make a mistake to quickly to withdraw our forces is i support the president's decision to leave forces in afghanistan and unfortunately it think we
will be there a good bit longer. doing everything we can to promote the agreement between the government and the taliban anything we can do to enhance that as well we ought to do. >> with respect to afghanistan it is our longest war but we have diminished the threat from the al qaeda and that is an important outcome. and it would be useful in preparation for the next president to ask those hard questions how we fought the war in the last decade and a half to drill down and prepare for the next president with lessons learned we had some success
but we made a number of errors and had some strategic difficulties but where we are today given the pressure we will probably need occur level of u.s. forces it is important to underscore we had said the figure of progress to provide the afghan people to build a society but have some humility to reform society setter so different is ltd. ultimately so we do we can on the other side but to exercise how we fight a war is useful for the next president to look to.
>> if i have my second introduction with afghanistan i will say al qaeda is coming back in just recently we allow the troops to go against them which was pretty phenomenal and no question that pakistan is undermining us every day with their support that is the greatest threat to the afghan government but it has been hard but selective engagement is house secretary baker has framed it what is your take on that view of foreign policy? >> it is sensible. the united states should always ask before it engaged is militarily the interest
that will dictate what we do or what steps we take a further response to every problem is not u.s. military action. >> thought you would agree. the world is watching we are the greatest power on earth so the world is watching as this presidential race evolves we had a leader from china yesterday ended "the reader" has changed greatly from february as they watch what is the best way to communicate strategic engagement? there knbc inconsistencies looking at the core national interest but if you're advising folks who will be
the focus since as to how they might communicate that to though world. >> the principal? >> correct. >> with the new president they will say this is the paradigm i am prepared to follow i will take a look at each issue that comes before we will test them against the national interest and principles and values and we think is doable and i will decide how i address that problem diplomatically and politically or militarily as well that is the way it works its will depend on
each instance that comes before the commander in chief. >> i will follow-up. >> it is important for those to communicate their vision and in some detail during the course of the campaign is important for the next president to communicate that with confidence united states has resources to be the leading nation of the world and should be it is important to communicate to have a focus on our economic growth and disease to be an important focus on allies end of a unique global alliance that we will
continue to have but economics presentations and how we worked in the world. >> tell is that different from your perspective and how the world is viewed today? >> this it depends on the next president. >> if you would contrast with u.s. foreign policy today what would that be? >> right this very minute or over the past 20 years? i think us beauty of this paradigm that you suggested you looked at each and every foreign policy problem on its own tests and decide
which range of tools you'll use you are not wedded to either foreign policy based on idealism or frankly just the national interest but what i would say is if you talk about sending american is john men and women into harm's way you better have a significant national interest at stake because as the body bags come home you will lose the policy if you don't have a significant national interest at stake like cataract 2003 in vietnam. i know the view of u.s. foreign policy today because
frankly we have embraced a number of different paradigms'. >> guess the question would be viewed presume about their retrenchment to pull back leadership my judgment is the fact is united states continues to be aggressively around the world whether a judge to rebalance with china in constructive ways to manage our differences look at who is leading with trade agreements tpp with united states expanding in the center or the middle east united states leading the effort with the proliferation challenge from
iran counterterrorism effort in the world and increasingly important to a accelerate the efforts of syria and iraq is important to underscore the facts we have taken important steps with our relationship and honesty dash back out way too little attention go great power or nation has a strategic base we do is important to underscore that fact and continue to a accelerate efforts to address those problems that will exist beyond obama is presidency but that is the conversation we should be having with the world with u.s. leadership.
>> without being interpreted as a political statement because i agree 99% 20 to make the world understand real lead from the front and not from behind. >> i apologize if i repeating questions but with the je sepia way in iran the purpose was the nuclear program we cannot deny that it has changed the order of the middle east since 1979 because of the pursuit of nuclear weapons and now it has been status as a responsible nation state i
thought the vote was a closer call been most i opposed it because of iran's other activities but talked about what is ahead with the change of the order that we need to maintain our alliances and how do we do that with this new order in the middle east? >> reassure all our allies and the other moderate arab states to let them know we still have their back that this deal with the rand is nuclear only nothing else
and we will be there and will oppose the purchase a patient that iran is a state sponsor in to reaffirm our support to help prop them up because they're really not happy with us about this deal. ago when the question was if we go for murder not i was in favor of going forward because i didn't think the europeans alone could maintain sanctions you to argue we never should have got here with iran's bad behavior outweighs the risk and the stability we will
get for 10 years of no nuclear weapons than we would not start that to begin with we freed up all of those iranian funds and they agree to do all the nasty things and they will do them but when that issue was before congress in the country is that i was in favor of going forward but they were very effective to bring iran to the table but now i think obligation to let our longtime allies in the region and we will have their back and we are not changing our view or opposition to iran's bad actions in the region. >> describing the
termination it was seen as president obama as the principal security threat in the region and at this stage we had the opportunity to stop it and we succeeded that we essentially stopped it with reasonable certitude of a decade and a half and it was a decision made i think it was right with six serious security issues it was not a quick exercise with the divisions of the regime but the purpose was transactional not transformational when we were dealing with the program for a period of time but we still face the regime that is engaged in destabilizing these
activities in the middle east we have to confront them there are '02 different pieces. those in need to be enforced strictly as i it -- as a diversion in the behavior outside that is much more problematic going from ted -- going for riddick to be confronted and we need to have in place a very serious deterrent iran needs to understand if they pursue a nuclear weapon contrary to those undertakings it is prepared to take action including military action this is very important message going forward for
the world in the region. >> secretary baker and made the first time in 1989 when i was an india they were going to that transition you came down with negotiations. >> that was namibian independence. >> the what has happened in africa we're half -- having issues with political leaders you don't want to leave after their term in office concluding rwanda and east africa so what your thoughts with the efficacy of unilateral sanctions or other measures we could take? our influence is limited. >> unilateral sanctions are
never as effective as multilateral but there may be a time with an instance like that looking through the paradigm of selective engagement this is a matter of great interest to the united states three need to be engaged by putting sanctions on these individuals way the pluses and minuses with a cost-benefit analysis. what do we gain and if anything what does it cost? i don't know why we should not do that if that is the right approach. >> will be holding some hearings so that is a preview thanks for your testimony. >> thanks for being here and your service to our country
secretary baker thinks for recommending to president bush he not go to baghdad to stand the test of historical scrutiny. >> i said shortly when we got out of office to three years every time they made a speech people would say why didn't you take care of him when you have the chance? that don't get that question anymore. >> you have to balance what you did with wisdom and you brought that to that decision and we thank you so much. now today we see the rising influence of who was behind the issue yet takeover they're calling for reforms
but those include changing the role that they play in the government and basically we are already looking at the sunii is wondering if this she never let their control go so they can play a role in the government that is great problems with the takeover of model -- mosul to say it is worth it to fight to isis because then we are giving back our control of that city give us your view of the role iran plays with this agenda in iraq right now and what the united states should be
doing to push back so those forces of inclusion retaken those roles that our prominent. >> again thomas probably more up to speed but this is not the political statement that i think we left too soon i have said that in response to an afghan question we were unable to negotiate its status forces agreement we didn't and then we left so iraq i am very seriously concerned and what you saw with the takeover of the greens of was very disturbing and more of what