tv Senator Coons and Madeleine Albright Discuss U.S. Role in Global Diplomacy CSPAN June 28, 2017 8:49am-9:32am EDT
protected -- well, our people actually like to travel. our way of life depends what happens in other countries. can we trade, can we educate our children abroad? any number of things improve our life. nato is set up for security reasons. we have been concerned about being attacked ourselves but also we have alliances and the heart of it is article 5 which is -- one for one and all for one. it is a collective responsibility and 2 interesting thing is article 5 has only been invoked once and that was after 9/11 when we were attacked. it is a sign we have those who will help us. it's not where you just kind of pay dues to us. it is a plan to help develop the forces, the systems, fighting
terrorism, all of those things together. it is very important because we do want to trade with europe. the people in brussels help to make the rules in terms of what happens on a digital market. none of those things are easy but one can nak an argument that various congressional districts really benefit by some of the things that happen both in the eu and nato. we do have a tendency to think we know what to do all by ourselves and we are strong and the most powerful country in the world but we need tuchb have allies that will help us. >> so i think there are serious things going on now that do, in fact, have a question in terms of how do we benefit. how does it deter and defend
against north korea's provocations. what is the system and what do we have to do? you have just been there. >> we have a different set up in asia. we don't have a collective security agreement with two dozen or more countries. we have close alliances, bases, troops in a number of asian countries. for japan and south korea particularly for previous times, other threats. it has avoided the possibility of countries like japan or south korea, feeling the need to develop their own nuclear weapons in order to keep themselves safe through deterrence. it has given us a strong
footprint in asia over the last half century. there is flourishing democracies. they believe in the peaceful resolution of contract disputes, the rule of law and these principals allow our companies to be more successful in the fastest grow k economic sector of the world. they also accept set some of the ground rules. as they are not a flourishing democracy there is a real tension and with their program where they are increasingly becoming the major trading partner and investor and significant regional power it is around societies that are
organized around human rights, free elections, a commitment of journalisms and things that allow democracies. it is messy and noisy and inefficient. >> i think what is interesting is that -- we were actually studying a lot of alphabet soup and there was something called ceto which is supposed to be like nato. it is not exactly the same. if question is why is is it the role of china. i think it's something that needs to be explored in terms of look at some of the world order. >> what sort of leverage against
russia in ukraine does having a collective security entity like nato give us and why is that something we might pursuit or might want in southeast asia? >> i think it's the whole question about collective security. it really does show the predominance of countries that have something in agreement with they can defend themselves from an armed attack but also something we have been talking about which is kind of hybrid attacks. these are ways of trying to ide. they are not members of nato or the eu but they kind of have
affiliated memberships. it also -- and you were talking about democracies. it gives a sense of confidence to democratic legislators within their countries that if they move the process forward. >> one of the most important factors in europe is what you're describing. after the berlin wall fell it became free of soviet domination. what pushed their political leaders, their economic leaders to make choices that aligned with world order to insist on less corruption, on more
transparency, to support human rights was those were conditions of admission to the eu and/or nato. the poll of this enormous prosperous market was a very force. for the art of fragile states that are stabilizing or advancing and being in worst shape for egypt. you can think of states that are significant for this half century. i think in terms of how you
incentivize. the question is how do you get support for it so you're not supporting authoritarian countries but countries that are democratically based because the u.s. is more comfortable when there are democratic countries. >> subsequently both on our committee and publicly about human rights an openness. how does insisting on advocating forward democracy, human rights, free press, how does it reduce
the space for terrorism and extremism? >> i think that we have to -- i assume this. i know you do, we are all the same. one of the things i have said all along is there are a lot of young people in the audience that have studied in political science classes what comes first. political development or economic development. clearly people want to vote and eat. the bottom line is how you make democracy deliver. it provides the government one way to do that so that draw is
there. i also think supporting human rights is in u.s. national interest. the hot hair to get the balloon into the air and realism to give it a direction. so i think we need that in order to draw countries and figure out how to get them into a position. >> when you were offering up a metaphor i was afraid. let me just on that theme let me say one of the things there is support for in the senate is increasing our advocacy, our
financial support for thing that is project these values into eastern europe and into the ark of countries that are most at risk. objective journalism, voice of america, to push back on some of the misinformation where they are not just preparing for that. they are actively undermining the baltic countries. it is where they support through so called fake news or misleading journalism, parties that are committed to breaking apart nato, withdrawing from the eu. these are very challenging dynamics. in conversations earlier this
year i was haunted by a question from a diplomat from an eastern european country observing that our had been attacked and they saw no concerted action at that point by the administration to respond to that in countries where the democracy is more fragile and more immediately under threat from a power that has an alternative vision that's a significant question. to show russian citizens or those that are most at risk that
they are flourishing, that they enjoying more political freedoms because of these core values of open societies, not in spite of. that debate is playing out around the world. >> i think if i may just ask you to follow up a little by more on that in terms of when you go to these countries and you talk about this, who do you meet with? how does that work in terms of at a conference or -- how does it all work?
>> in every country we would get a briefing and meet with high level officials but we would also meet with opposition parties. we would meet with journalists, human rights act iivistingistac. and i think it's important to show that they are not just going for example to cuba or to ukraine, china or vietnam. they will also meet with minority party members. they raare also going to do interviews. it is by modelling this behavior that we demonstrate in other countries what it is that leaders ought to be doing.
she interviewed from southern african country. this young man asked very direct questions but pointed. you could see them bris l. they are not used to ever taking questions like that. one said why is he doing this? he is setting a bad example. i thought he is doing this because he is setting a good example. he is taking questions from someone a generation or two younger and has no official role who is simply trying to hold him accountable to a brouder
audience. the bottom line i is fantastic example. >> i think we are at a point we have to talk about budget cuts and those stand at some tension. you tell me if you would like to start with how do we sustain a bipa bipartisan consensus it was blishd, nato, republican really supporting president truman's policies. i have been a creator of a foreign policy. the person that i worked with
really well was jessie helms. it was as a result of trying to figure out how to do things together. we were able to expand nato. i do think that a bipartisan foreign policy is absolutely essential in order to be able to get anything done but also again to the example that we were just talking about when you travel in terms of how you get various people with some disagreements to find a place where it's win-win. i think that a bipartisan foreign policy needs to be the hallmark of american foreign policy because it has worked very well for us. i know it's not simple. we had a bipartisan lunch
and this was immediately following a vote. i said to him, bob, if you asked me a month ago what was going to happen on russia sanctions i would have predicted that we would end up with an iran sanctions bill too tough for virtually any to sign off on. instead a disciplined group request sat down and hammered out the differences, came up with a joint bill and it passed by 98-2 in the senate on these other devicive questions.
it is to find a way to produce meaningful results. only a room full of would appreciate this one. we had a hearing a few days ago and their staffs that work very well on this. we had a very constructive hearing from the bush and obama administrations. we did not have an administration witness. we did have a reason bipartisan conversation about our troops, families should expect of the senate as we are conducting war against isis and as we are seeing an increasing range of geographies. the difficulty in crafting and feeling optimistic about this. i think we'll get it done in this work period.
>> i'll put this in the form of question. i have a view on it. having been a staffer on the hill don't you think that the staffs have a lot to play in terms of helping develop the background for a bipartisan foreign ball ppolicy. >> you know, the congressional dell graegations for trips over to get to know each other af way from the hill and a senator can say i really want to work with someone on this. it's staff who actually exchange drafts, who find a way towards a consensus document. get it marked up and get it moving to the floor. it starts the senators
indicating they value that. it's the sort of thing they recognize. staff make or break bipartisan sh bipartisanship. >> and i think one of the issues is how do they work on that? >> it has seeded is role in foreign policy over several administrations, over several decades. it may be because of the real positions on several key issues. we have to work together. the administration is the face to the world of the united states. the state department, or
ambassadors and when the secretary of defense, vice president, the president visit another country, visit a regional summit, when they speak that has enormous consequence. there are a few senators who have a comparable profile. his record, his role has residents beyond a typical senator. soond it needs to figure out a working relationship where we are working in tandem. i had a very encouraging conversation yesterday about our shared concern about south sudan. it is very tricky country where there is a governance crisis.
it has been gray shous and responsive. i look forward to partnering with her. it will keep engaging and keep trying with this administration particularly on foreign affairs. >> i think it's essential. they do not understand our approach to things and for instance, during the carter administration, when we were talking about the salt treaty and he had negotiated a lot of it. >> and back and forth on those
kinds of things. that's the magic of our system. i do have to say i worked here but then i went into the carter white house to do congressional relations. if i could tell a funny story, which is true, and we'll go back to the law of the sea treaty, senator musky had me write a letter saying i really support the law of the sea, it's really important. we have problems with that. i need your help on this. i wrote the letter and put it on the auto pen and i went to my new job in the white house there is this letter i said i'm so sorry but the law of the sea treaty is important. the bottom line is i think, you know, to see what the cooperation between the
executive and legislative branch or even one party foreign policy is important. >> i see we are just about out of time. i will simply thank you. >> aren't we going to talk about the budget? >> we could take two minutes and talk about the budget. >> yeah. i want to -- i do think -- >> yes. let's talk about the budge. >> i think the issue is what the budget looks like. it does determine what national security policy is going to look like. we talked about deploem si and national security. you are in a key position. do you see the way that the budget is going to develop to be supportive of the kind of tools we talked about on human rights and democracies? >> let me try to answer this.
if t proposed budget makes cuts particularly in u.s.a id and the state departments that if fully enacted i'm convinced would lead to a significant retreat from the world by the united states. they have had significant layoffs. while i recognize no agency should go without tough budget review, 30% and that is not trimming. that's not correcting. that's slashing. there is a bipartisan expressed view on the foreign relations
appropriations sub committee on which i serve that that budget isn't what we are going to be doing and we'll be moving forward with many of the investments we have historically made. that's not a done deal. i'll tell you in recently visiting a number of embassies in asia, africa and europe there is real concern among the rank and file and career foreign service officers. people make services. if the budget this year and next year contain cuts of that and we continue fighting over cuts of that magnitude it will send a signal overseas that we are not serious about engaging. it will discourage promising young diplomats and secretary
mattis himself has previously testifies it creates curt risks. it puzzles me how we can have a stated strategy of engagement through our diplomats the put pressure on north korea how can you cut it by a third? i don't understand that. i have said in some settings that one unexpected outcome of the trump administration may be to make the senate great again to write a budget we think reflec reflects. >> i will say in closin closing
dedicate themselves, whose staff dedicate themselves, to ad advocating who recollects has made us safe, strong and free. i want to thank you for a lifetime of leadership. >> thank you for everything you do. i think it's a great forum. i do believe in bipartisanship and i have testify until front of foreign relations committee and i respect people with their views and i want to be able to work with everybody especially with you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much.
next, marco rubio on advancing foreign policy issues. it was part of national security forum last week with members of congress and current and former administration officials. this portion is 35 minutes. >> let me first say i wanted to confirm i successfully executed a hug. >> he is a good hugger. >> i was all over twitter for 12 hours. pretty cool. we appreciate you being part of this. you have such an important