Skip to main content

tv   Senator Rubio and Ambassador Haley Discuss Trump Administration Foreign...  CSPAN  June 28, 2017 9:31am-10:08am EDT

9:31 am
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 assignment. as it shows there is a
9:32 am
tremendous amount of interest in national security and u.s.'s role in the world. i kind of wanted to begin asking you, what has been like to go from a chief executive of a state. you told everybody you had not had extensive foreign policy experience. my argument in your favor is she is very good when she focuses in on an issue and the ability to lead a state and leadership qualities transfer and certainly in the months leading up to that, you just really dove into the details of foreign policy. i think it's been demonstrated in the first few months. what has it been like in. >> i didn't really have any thoughts about what the u.n. would be like. i went in very open minded and knowing i had made a promise to the people and i needed to show
9:33 am
value it in the un and how the u.n. would be helpful and how we could change the u.n. we talked about reform and we thought the u.s. was going to lead the u.n. and were going to cut all of the funding. we tried to say look, our intent is not to leave but help me show that place matters. help me do it through cutting the fat and making it more effective. amazingly we have so much support. we are moving through and they are working with us on the budget negotiations. they see we are not trying to cut for the sake of cutting.
9:34 am
so you have seen me push foreign policy because we see an avenue there. you can see it work if you negotiate, push the narrative. >> and i don't think this is a mystery, going in after the election the president's views on foreign policy and on multinational institutions was an open question. do you think that sort of uncertainty gave us an advantage because -- did going in the notion that people weren't clear yet or the u.s. was going to head, did that create a space for you to go in and make that argument? >> it totally gave us leverage.
9:35 am
what they knew is they couldn't take the u.s. for granted anymore. the president followed it with strikes really showed them we are moving things. the comments i got from ambassadors said it's so good to see the u.s. lead again. >> if someone is believing the u.s. is not an effective mechanism or why should we contribute this to this forum when many times it can basically block objection or major issues cannot be addressed. how would you explain to people what the value is of the u.n.
9:36 am
and -- or what an effective u.n. looks like and what can we do that? >> i don't think we need to spend all of that money. there is definitely fat around it. from that standpoint we can cut but you have peace keeping missions that are intended to protect people on the ground. what they have done is in conflict they true more troops at it. the problem is that is if the troops aren't trained and they don't have the equipment how are they going to do their job? if we can bring stability it will -- >> just fill in for us what the work is for that process. >> i think the main thing that we said was first of all let's go back and look. what's the political solution of the area? we have to look at the politics in the area then we have to look
9:37 am
at what was the original intent. from there go and say is it effective? that's how we have maneuvered. a lot of cases we have been able to cut a lot of problem areas. the one thing we have also done is we are holding the troops accountable now. if the terrorists were coming in they were running the other way. they weren't protecting the people on the ground. like you just saw in congo you have all of these rapes of children happening fwi troops. one of the things we said you have to hold those countries accountable. we made -- we basically said you can't have that happen and the troop that is were there, they are gone. we moved them out. >> is there one peace keeping mission that you can say that's where it's working? >> i can honestly say they are
9:38 am
all going to start to work. the ones that are difficult, south sudan, congo, those are the ones that you almost wonder how are we going fix this. >> one of the areas i know there has been a lot of conversation is human rights council. so how does it impact the legitimacy of the human rights council whose very members are violators of human rights of their own people? >> the united states has always care about human rights. we see it that it generally is related to peace and security. if you go back in history and time you see that the worst conflicts all came from
9:39 am
governments not taking care of their people. human rights has to be very important. the reason why i didn't just make a statement from new york is i really wanted to hit that home. i went and talked to the members and basically said look, the united states doesn't want to leave the human rights council but you have got to give us a reason to stay because with venezuela and that situation so much worse than what you see on tv i tried to call an emergency security council hearing on venezuela. my colleagues were not happy i was doing that and didn't think we need today do that because they said it wasn't a peace and security issue. they all said it should be happening in the human rights council. why hasn't it been happening? because venezuela sits on the council along with china. what happened is it's now a place where actors go to make sure they are not pointed at. it's a place they have no
9:40 am
problem pointing at others or abusing others like israel. so what we left and it was something has got to change. we can do it here or we will go fight for someone else. >> do you see there's a willingness to reform it in a way that would allow the u.s. to be part of it? is. >> they took it seriously. one of the items i brought up was agenda item seven. basically for any sort of human rights violation, for any country in the world you go through agenda items four. it allows do you say there's a problem. agenda item 7 is solely for acts condemning israel. why would you do that when you have syria and north korea and all of these other places and you'll have one agenda item for israel. do it on your say general da item. >> so it has a specific agenda item that is permanent?
9:41 am
>> it is just an israel bashing item. it's been there forever and because it's there they are constantly trying to use it. i want the attention to be on north korea and syria and if israel does something do it through that. >> and i want to get back to the situation in the uc.n. you said something and that is human rights as it relates to national security. oftentimes you see human rights portrayed as a nice thing to do but you have made it a priority to link human rights and maybe you can get into it more deeply. >> i think let's look at conflicts in the past. if you go and let's look at syria. that's a major conflict. how did it start? you had a group of 13 to 15-year-old boys that were having fun that happened to
9:42 am
spray something against their government which wasn't that bad on a wall. officers go pick up those boys. they brutalize them. they pull their nails out. they return them bloody and bruised to their parents. what would parents do? they got upset and went out to the street and other parents joined them. through those situations we will now dealing with conflict. go what to tunisia. you have a guy who has a fruit stand and the officers continue to steal from him, abuse him, demoralize him, all of these things that he gets to point he just can't take it anymore. he sets himself on fire in front of a police station. so you have to look at how a government treats their people. it's the reason we have to pay attention and look at the protests in russia right now. these things matter. human rights is not a feel good
9:43 am
issue. it is truly the root cause of conflict. and so they had not talked about that. during my presidency i made it a key issue. a lot of those countries don't agree with what we think but they can't disprove with what we say. and so we need to continue to be loud about i. the ugs has always pushd human rights. we don't claim to be saints but we are always trying to get better. i think it's our job to point out the values of what we think every country should do. it really does go to security instability. >> let me pivot back and that's the treatment of israel. describe for us when you got there was there a sense this was an issue? is anyone else joining you and what are the prospects of creating some level of parity in terms of the focus on israel in
9:44 am
comparison to some of the other places in the world like you discussed, syria and the like. what's the plan and what have you done and what do you think the prospects are moving forward? >> i dbt know that much about what is the history was there. i had heard a little bit about it but wasn't that involved until i saw it. all i have done is tell the truth on what i have seen and to go and be in that hearing on the middle east and to hear every single country not talk about the threats in the middle east but all they did was bash israel. it was abusive. they did it in a way that you can tell it was a habit and they have done it every month for the last ten years. think about the time you think about working on other issues. i called him out on it. we are dealing with issues in
9:45 am
north korea and all of the issues in africa and this is what you want to talk about? i did say things needed to change. it shows how things are ch changing. i really focused on the threats in the middle east and where we were going. we probably had half go that way and the other half do the israel bashing. this past month bolivia had the presidency. they had two arab leaders that were coming in, which is fine. i said well, you to have someone else to balance it out. they agreed to that. what we saw was everyone except for about one or two didn't bash israel. i said to them, i don't want you to pick a side. it's not about being for israel or being for the palestinians. i want you to talk about what
9:46 am
this means and where we go from here. do you know almost all of them talked about supporting the peace process and encouraging both sides to come together on the peace process? it was a habit. they didn't know they were doing it. a lot of that is changing the culture to be more effective and think about what they were doing. israel was kind of like the kid in the schoolyard that gets bullied all of the time. the people that want to feel good about themselves go and bully. >> is your sense it would happen in that month a sustainable thing? do you think there's hope that is something that can be sustained? it sounds like muscle memory had built up and this is what you did. this is what they have always done. your challenge forced them to reevaluate how they behave or
9:47 am
the way they conduct these meetings. >> i'm just saying be balance about this and be fair about this. the idea that the other members said why dent we make a push to support the peace process. i couldn't believe it moved that fast. i don't think it will stop the abusiveness there but i think they are conscious of it now. >> i don't want to run out of
9:48 am
time. what other aspects of this job are part of your mission? >> i'm usually here in d.c. once a week or every ten days. duo have meetings where we decide policy. i'm a policy girl. to take this job i needed -- i wanted it to be a cabinet position and wanted it to be national security council and it helps me do my job better. when you negotiate you can steer the conversation. and so what i can tell you is you have an administration that's active, that's strong but the world is schizophrenic right now. they are constantly meeting to decide where do we go from here. it is a great dynamic. >> and you just came back from a
9:49 am
trip. one of the places you visited was a refugee camp. what did you see there? is there anything that gives you hope for the future and anything give you deep concern in the long term? >> so i did multiple -- i always go the refugee camps and see refugees outside of the camp. i was interested in what was happening with the syrian refugee and i did it in gaza. what i can tell you is what is amazing is the syrian people have an amazing resilience about them. they are hopeful. they are able to smile. they have seen a lot and they have been through a lot. through all of this they remain hope of. they still truly believe they are going home. i hope and pray that does happen. what i saw in jordan and turkey is the fact that both of these
9:50 am
countries are doing amazing jobs. you look at jordan. they have taken in a million people but they are supplying them but at the u.n., they use this debit card at banks, at the grocery stores, whatever, and it is eye scan, there is absolutely zero percent fraud. think about that, we should be doing that. not only that, it's a registry, so we know who they are, where they're from, who their families are. so i'm working right now to make sure that we partner with the u.n. to make sure that we have that information because that information is valuable for all of us. you look at jordan doing that. then you go to turkey. turkey has taken in 3 million refugees in the last three years. they're doing the same thing, health care, education, making sure they have funding, the
9:51 am
syrians aren't looking for a handout, they're starting their own businesses, they're learning a skill, all of these things. but turkey, the turkish doctor s trained the syrian doctors to take care of the syrian people. you're using the talentalent, s people are more comfortable with syrian doctors. so both of these countries have changed over time. my focus was how is the u.s. going to deal with the syrian conflict because we can't deal with it like we did in year one and year seven, we need to be in forward thinking. what i did was i came away with a couple of things, jordan has to go to double pressing of schools, turkish children go in the morning and syrian children go in the afternoon. they're feeling the pressure and we're starting to see it turn where they could get resentful. the roads are crowded, because syrians are so well skilled, they're competing for their
9:52 am
jobs, as you look at that, syrians are very grateful, jordanians and turkish want to be helpful, but they're wondering where they go from here. it is your our job to support those host countries, not with a check. they're both different. they can't be treated the same. out of all the refugees i spoke to, not one of them said they wanted to come to the united states. we want to go home, and their family members are there and they literally look at the mountain where syria is on the other side, and there's such a hope and an amazing motivation for them to go home. so what what i'm doing is working with the secretary general of the u.n., to shift how our funds are working with syrian crisis, so we can work to help the education efforts, and the psychological support. that's the ask that the refugees made, that they need more
9:53 am
psychosocial support, for the kids, for the trauma, we saw women going through it, we saw children going through it. so we're getting to the heart of how do we best help the syrian people and we're finding that out. >> can someone give me an indication of how much time we have? because another great panel is coming up here. five minutes. by two? ten minutes. >> five minutes by two? >> ten minutes. >> so first of all, we talked a little bit yesterday but i think it hasn't gotten a lot of attention recently, but the situation in lebanon that we have discussed briefly has not gotten a lot of attention, you have a prime minister, whose father was killed by hezbollah years ago, but then you've got a president who was part of the coalition, who is a christian, but who is a part of a coalition created a synergy with hezbollah and hezbollah in syria and
9:54 am
southern lebanon that has been able to develop it's own capability of developing weaponry. we haven't read a lot about it. but you're starting to get concerned. and we have seen a lot of people speak out about the inevitability of another syrian conflict of some sort and the danger that that could expand to broader lebanon because of some statements that have been made by the lebanese president. so just kind of talk to us a little bit about that situation and whether you think we have now reached a point where the international community wants to start speaking out a little bit more and how you view that as a flash point. >> so when i went to israel, i went to all the borders, looking at the u.n. missions, but also looking at the borders of possible conflict. and israel is surrounded by threats, and we went to gaza and looked at the threat of hamas as well.
9:55 am
the take away that i had was the most concerning, obviously gaza, but lebanon, and it's because when we were on the border, you could see hezbollah and how they were stationing areas. you could see they were looking back, but now they started to build rockets and missiles. and they are preparing themselves and the government of lebanon is looking the other way or either feeling pressure to stay quiet. because that's not happening. now i'm moving to look at the u.n. mission there, because the u.n. troops there are not looking at hezbollah or bring ing any attention to that. so they need to talk about if they see missiles or anything like that happening. so i'm going to look at the u.n. route, but israel has their back up, they see the movement, they see the progress hezbollah is making and they're getting ready. and it's something we should be very concerned about and we should watch it because to have
9:56 am
conflict break out between lebanon and israel, i mean the destabilization that would do would be horrible. so i hope, what i'm trying to do is just get this on everybody's radar to say, don't think this is just another threat to israel, this is bigger than that and we have got to pay attention to that and we have got to figure out how we're going to deal with the government and how we're going to deal with hezbollah. >> we saw for many years particularly after the iraq and afghanistan wars, that the u.s. is always telling people what to do, that we're overly engaged and complaints about us. but as you walked in there, was your sense that they were looking for america's assertiveness, even if the u.n. criticized them for it. or is it that we want america to do less and we're tired of taking orders from you? what was your sense of the
9:57 am
world's appetite, particularly our allies regarding engagement? >> it was very clear to me, they all didn't want to look like they were our best friend, but behind closed doors they wanted us to know that they were supporting everything we were doing. and so we need to figure out what are the true relationships and it has gone from, what's happened in five months is it went from what's the u.s. going to do? what are they thinking, how are they acting? to now, they still don't know what the u.s. is going to do, but that's a good thing, but taking us very seriously. and one of the best thing that this administration did was when the president made that decision on the chemical weapons, usage of assad, and acted, it stunned everyone and the amount of support we got for being a leader on that and the number of people that said it's so good to
9:58 am
see the u.s. leading again, now they're starting to be where they're not afraid to be in a picture with us or say that they're our partners, so there's a very healthy transition taking place but it's volatile. >> so there are countries saying behind closed doors that they support you but in public -- >> i always try to remind people that, most people only get to see my fellow senators when they see them in an interview or on the floor giving a speech, and a lot of times they like what they're seeing in a speech and that's all they know about it. what is that dynamic like with ambassadors, even countries we don't have the best relationships with, they're real people too. is there a similar dynamic at play or are they depending on the country a lot more guarded about what the they're able to say and do?
9:59 am
>> i think that's my job, to create the relationship and create the dynamic that we want the u.s. to have. and what i'm attempting too do is to show strength, but let them know we want a relationship, but we're not going to be pushed over, we're not going to be taken for granted. we're here, we're going to call you out if we see something wrong, we're going to praise you if you do something right. but be honest to us, we'll be honest back to you, because these ambassadors are so closely tied to their presidents, they're constantly trying to get information to figure out how they're going to move. it's an interesting dynamic, in terms of some of them. bolivia when i first got in was bashing us terribly and i met with them and said why do you hate america? and it just kind of stunned them. but when we were talking, we agreed that there were disagreements but don't go and do that.
10:00 am
and he stopped. it's not that he doesn't say where the disagreements are. but the rhetoric has to stop because it's not healthy, it doesn't allow any good to happen if we allow that rhetoric. and so that's the culture change again that we're trying to change. >> just five minutes, that's plenty of time for this question. tell me, obviously you came from the political realm, you were a governor, before that a state legislature, we know what our schedule looks like, you've got votes, you've got issues that come out. what does the typical schedule of the u.n. look like for you and your staff on a regular basis, there are regular meetings of the security council, regular meetings of the general assembly. what is that like from week to week? >> we're trying to bring order into chaos, because a lot of
10:01 am
things are fast moving. these are such important situations. so basically the security council is all yearlong. it's typically four days a week. 15 members meet, five of the permanent members, u.k., france, russia, china and us. then you've got the five elective members that rotate out every two years. we pick and choose when i should participate, when she should participate but we're always negotiating what is going on at the time. >> that was ambassador nicky hey le -- nicky -- ni
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
10:05 am
10:06 am
10:07 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on