tv Senator Rubio and Ambassador Haley Discuss Trump Administration Foreign... CSPAN June 30, 2017 5:06pm-5:46pm EDT
>> here we go. [ applause ] >> i was all over twitter for like 12 hours. pretty cool. you have just an important assignment. there is a tremendous amount of interest in u.s. foreign policy, in our national security and the u.s.'s role in the world. so i kind of wanted to begin just asking you in general what it's been like to go from a chief executive of a state, which admittedly in the confirmation hearings you told everybody that -- and i -- that you had not had extensive foreign policy experience. but my argument in your favor
always was she's very good when she focuses in on an issue, and the ability to lead a state and those leadership qualities transfer and certainly in the months leading up to that you just really dove in to the details of foreign policy. and i think it's been demonstrated in the first few months you have been there already. so what has it been like to be the un ambassador? >> i didn't have any thought what is the un would be like. so i went in very open minded. and i went in knowing that i had made a promise to the people and to those that approved me that i needed to show value in the un, and we needed to show how the un could be helpful and we needed to see how we could change the un. the nice thing is, when we got there, you know, we had a lot to say, and i'm loud. i'm good at that. so we made a point to tell what the u.s. was for, what the u.s. was against and take away any gray areas. then we talked about reform. and in the minds of everybody there, they thought tus was
going to lead the un and they were going to cut all the funding and all this was going to go away. what i tried to do was change the conversation to say, look, our intent is not to leave. but help me show value in this case. help me show that this place matters, and help me do it through reforms and help me do it through cutting the fat and making it more effective. and amazingly, we have so much support. we are moving through budget negotiations now and they are working for us. they see we're well sbhengsed and we're trying to be smart about our spending. when it comes to management reform, there is a group of people that want to see that happen. so that's good. the surprise of the un, other countries really do send their best and brightest to the un. and the people they send have the ear of their president, and that person has the ability to negotiate very well. so you see me push foreign policy because i see an avenue there that you could totally
make the un work for you if you negotiate, have conversations, push the narrative. it can happen. >> i don't think this is a history, right? going in after the election, the president's views on foreign policy and his views on the value of multinational institutions was an open question. do you think that sort of uncertainty going in gave us an advantage because going in the notion that people weren't clear yet where 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 because no one knew what to expect and because of that they were very attentive. what they knew is they couldn't take the u.s. for granted anymore. they knew we were watching and we were changing things and they wanted to know how it was going to affect them. in some ways they were focussed on budget. but if you talk about syria and the chemical weapons usage by assad, the idea that we said you can't do this and the president followed up with strikes really showed them we're moving things.
and the comments i got from ambassadors, all different areas, said it's so good to see the u.s. lead again. >> someone out hearsaying the un is not an effective mechanism or asking why should we be contributing this money to this forum where these small nations can basically block action or where major issues in the world cannot be addressed because of one or two permanent members who decide to use their veto authority, how would you explain to people what the value is of the un and -- or what an effective un looks like in the 21st century and what can we do to move it in the right direction? >> i don't think we need to spend all that money. there is definitely fat around it. there is definitely bur reaucrb. but you have peace keeping missions around the world intended to protect people on the ground. what they have done is in conflict whenever there is a challenge they threw more troops
at it. well, the problem with that is if the troops aren't trained and they don't have the equipment, how are they going to do their job. to being able to make it smarter from that standpoint, that's great stability. if we could bring stability to an area, that's going to matter. >> fill in for us the details of what the work that you've been doing to try to reform that process. >> well, i mean, i think that the main thing with the peace keeping was, okay, first of all, let's go back and look. what is the political solution of the area? we have to look at the politics in the area. then we have to look at what was the original intent. and then from there go and say is it effective. and that's how we've maneuvered. in a lot of cases we've been able to cut a lot of problem areas, but the one thing we have also done is we're holding the troops accountable now. a lot of case it is troops were there and if the terrorists were coming in, they were running the other way. they weren't protecting the
people on the ground. or, like you just saw in congo, you have all these rapes of children happening by the troops and one of the things we said is you have to hold those troop contributing countries accountable and we made -- we just basically said you can't have this happen and those troops -- the troops that were there, they're gone. we moved them out and we're moving new ones in. >> is there a peace keeping mission where you say that's an example of where it works? >> i can say with all the renewals we've done, they are all going to start to work. the ones that are difficult, south sudan, congo, those are the ones that are really concerning that you almost wonder how are we going to fix this. >> so when you have countries like cuba and venezuela, saudi
arabia and other habitual violators of human rights, how does that impact the credibility or the legitimacy of a human rights counsel whose very members are serial violators of human rights and their own people? >> the united states has always cared about human rights. and we don't see human rights as a fluff issue. we see human rights that it generally is related to peace and security. and if you go back in history and time, you see that the worst conflicts all came from governments not taking care of their people. and, so, human rights has to be very important. the reason why i didn't make a statement from new york was i really wanted to hit that home. so i went and talked to the members of the human rights council and basically said, look, the united states doesn't want to lead the human rights council, but you got to give us a reason to stay because with venezuela, which is a perfect example and that situation is so
much worse than what you see on tv, i tried to call an emergency security council hearing on venezuela. my colleagues were not happen thepy i was doing that and didn't think i needed to do it because they didn't think it was a peace and security issue. we had the hearing anyway. they all said this should be happening in the human rights council. why hasn't it been heard in the human rights council? because venezuela sits on the council, along with cuba, saw day arabia, china. what happened is it is now a place with actors go to make sure they are not pointed out. and they have no problem pointing at others or abusing others like israel. so what we left them with is something has got to change. either we can do it here or we're going to fight somewhere else. >> do you see the signs that there is a willingness enough the members of the council to reform it? >> they took it seriously. and one of the items i brought up was agenda item seven and
what that is is basically for any sort of human rights violation, for any country in the world, you go through agenda item four that allows you to say that there is a problem. agenda item seven 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 are going to have one agenda item for israel. if you have to hit israel, fine. >> just to be clear, the human rights council has a specific agenda item that is a permanent item. >> it's just an israel bashing item. and it's been there forever. and because it's there, they're constantly trying to use it. whereas, i want the attention to be on north korea and syria. and if israel does something, just do it through again ta item four. >> you said something earlier that i wanted to explore with you a little further. and that is human rights as it
relates to national security. oftentimes you see human rights portrayed as a nice thing to do, as an emotional thing to do. but you have made it a priority to kind of link human rights and national security as interrelated. >> well, i think let's look at conflicts in the past. if you go and let's look at syria because that's a major conflict we're all concerned about and it is not getting any better. how did it start? you had a group of 13 to 15-year-old boys that were having fun, that happened to spray something against their government, which really 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. now, what would parents do? they got upset. they went out to the streets and started complaining about what happened and other parents joined them. and through those situations, we're now dealing with conflict.
go back to ta knee sha. 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 the point he just can't take it anymore and he sets himself on fire in front of a police station. so you have to always look at how a government treats their people. and it is the reason we have pay attention to venezuela right now. we have to look at the protests in russia right now. these things matter. human rights is not a feel good issue. it is the root cause of conflict. and, so, they have not talked about that in security council. during my presidency in april i made it a key issue that human rights needed to be talked about. a lot of those countries don't agree with what they think, but they can't disprove with what we say. so we need to continue to be loud about it. the u.s. has always pushed human rights. and we don't claim to be saints.
but we're always trying to get better. and i think it is our job to always point out the values of what we think every country should do because it really does go to security and stability. >> let me pivot back to something you have already discussed, and that is the treatment of israel, the unitd d natio nations. describe for us, was there a sense this was an issue? was anyone else joining you as raising it as an issue? and what are the prospects of creating some level of parody here, some level of fairness in terms of the disproportionate amount of attention, compared to syria and the like? what's the plan and what have you done? >> so i really didn't know that much about israel and the un. i didn't know about what the history was there. i had heard a little about it, but wasn't involved until i saw it. all i've done is tell the truth on what i've seen.
and to go and be in that hearing on the middle east and hear every single country not talk about the threats in the middle east, not talk about the terrorism we're seeing, but all they did was bash israel, it was abusive. and they did it in a way that you can tell it was a habit and they've done it every month for the last ten years. think about the time we could be working on other issues. and, so, i just called them out on it. i said this is ridiculous. we're dealing with issues of north korea, syria and all the issues in africa, and this is what you want to talk about? so i did say that things needed to change. again, it does show awe the un is changing because in the next -- when we had our middle east hearing when i was president i really focussed on all the threats in the middle east and where we were going. we probably had about half go that way and the other half continue to do the israel
bashing. but this past month, bolivia had the presidency. and they had two arab leaders that were coming in, which was fine. but i said, well, you have to have, you know, someone else to balance it out. they agreed to that. but what we saw was everyone except for about one or two didn't bash israel. and i said to them i don't want you to pick a side. it's not about either being for israel or being for the palestinians. i want you to talk about what this means and where we go from here. and 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 just didn't even know they were doing it. and, so, a lot of that is just changing the culture at the un to be more effective and to think about what they're doing. israel was kind of like the kid in the schoolyard that gets
bullied all the time. the people that want to feel good about themselves go and bully. that's what they were doing to israel. is your sense it was a sustainable thing? what it sounds like you are describing is sort of memory, muscle memory had built up over ten years. it was just this is what you did. this is what they have always done and your challenge forced them to go back and re-evaluate how they behave or the way they conduct these meetings. >> i'm not asking them to change their minds. i'm just saying be balanced about this and be fair about this and understand all the conflicts in the world. in april, when i had the presidency, i didn't think it would last past my month of trying to get them to move. the idea that this month that when we're deciding the agenda and i said, okay, are we going to have another israel bashing session, the idea that the other members said why don't we make a push to support the peace
process was great. i mean, i just couldn't believe it moved that fast. whether it's sustainable, we'll have to wait and see. i don't think that's going to happen the abusiveness there, but i think they're conscious of it now. >> two things. i don't want to run out of time. the first is, a lot of people are not aware, but you also have retained, which the previous administration apparently did as well, a cabinet level of standing, which makes you a member of the national security council. beyond the meetings we see you on with that ear phone and when other people are talking and engaging in these debates, what other aspects of this job that people are not familiar with are part of your mission. >> i'm usually here in d.c. once a week or every ten days. we do have white house meetings, and those are the meetings where we decide policy. i'm a policy girl. to take that job, i wanted to it be a cabinet position and i wanted to be the national security council and it helps me do my job better because when i
know where the issues are, when you negotiate at the un, if you know the direction the country is going before others know it, you can steer the conversation. and, so, what i can tell you is on the nsc you have an administration that is active and strong. but the world is schizophrenic right now. we're constantly meeting on different areas to decide where do we go from here. but it is a great dynamic. it helps you do your job to know exactly what the decision-making process is. >> you just came back from a trip. one of the places you visited was a refugee camp. i know you shared it with us yesterday in the foreign relations committee. but what did you see there? anything there gives you hope for the future and does anything there give you cause for deep concern in the long term. >> so i always go to refugee camps and then also see refugees outside of the camp. i did it in jordon and turkey. and then i did it in israel and
g gaza. first of all, 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. but through all of this they remain hopeful and they still truly believe they are going home. and i hope and pray that that does happen. what i saw in jordan and turkey was the fact that both of these countries are doing amazing jobs at taking care of syrians. if you look at jordan, they have taken in a million people, but they're supplying them health care, education and a stipend. they all have a debit card. we know how those things can be abus abused. they use this debit card at banks, at the grocery stores, you know, whatever, and there is
absolutely 0% fraud. think about that. we should be doing that. but not only that, it is a registry, so we know who they are, where they're from, who their family members are. so i'm working right now to make sure we partner with the un to have that information because that information is valuable for all of us. so you look at jordan doing that. then you go to turkey. turkey has taken in three million syrians in the last few years. so you look at the fact that they are doing the same thing. health care, education, making sure that they have funding. the syrians aren't looking for a hand-out. they're starting their own businesses. they're learning a skill. all of these things. but turkey, what was special there, is the turkish doctors in three months trained the syrian doctors to take care of the syrian people. so you're using the talent. syrians are more comfortable dealing with syrian doctors and
it is taking the strain off of turk turkey. my focus was how is the us going to deal with the conflict because we can't deal with it like we did in year one and year seven. and what i came away from was a couple of things. jordon and turkey are pressed. they now had to go to double shifting of schools. the children go in the mornings and syrians go in the afternoons. so they are feeling the pressure and we're starting to see it turned to where they could get resentment. the roads are crowded. they're competing for their jobs. as you look at that, syrians are very grateful. jordanians and turkish want to be helpful, but they're wondering where do we go from here. it is our job to support those countries. they're both different. they can't be treated the same. but out of all the refugees i spoke to, in and out of the camps, not one of them said they wanted to come to the united states. what they said was we want to go
home. we don't care if we have to start over. we don't care if we have to build it ourselves. 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 that's -- there is such a hope and amazing motivation for them to go home. and so what i'm doing is working with the secretary general at the un to shift how our funds are working to help support the education efforts because that's where they're feeling the squeeze and psychological support. that's the ask that the refugees made, was that they need more psycho social support for the kids, for the trauma. i mean, we saw women going through it. we saw children going through it. so we are getting to the heart of how do we best help the syrian people. >> can someone give me an indication of how much time we have? we have a great panel coming up. >> there she goes. >> five minutes, great.
>> five minutes by two, so ten minutes. >> i know what five times to is. so a couple quick. first of all, talk -- we talked a little yesterday, but i think it hasn't gotten a lot of attention lately. but the situation in lebanon has not gotten a lot of attention. you have a prime minister whose father was killed by he has bow la years ago, but you have a christian that created this synergy. and then you have syria and obviously southern lebanon, which has been able to develop its own capability of weaponry, not only requiring -- you seem to be concerned. i think you are starting to see more people speak out and the danger this time that perhaps
that could end up and down to the broader lebanon because of some statements that have been made by the leb these president. talk to us a little about that situation and whether you think we have now reached a point where the international community wants to start speaking out a little more and how you view that as a flash point. >> so when i went to israel, i went to all the borders, also looking at the borders of possible conflict. and israel is surrounded by threats. and then we obviously went to gaza and looked at the threat of ha mass as well. the take away i had was the most concerning obviously gaza, but lebanon and it's because when we were on the border you can see hezbola and how they were stationing areas. you could see how they were looking back, but 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 pressured to stay quiet because that's not happening. now i'm moving to look at the un mission there because the un troops there are not looking at hezbola or bridging any attention to that. nigh told to talk about that. so i am going to work it the un route. but israel has their back-up. they see the threat. they see the movement. they see the progress they are making and they are getting ready. and it is something we should be very concerned about and we should watch it because to have conflict break out between lebanon and israel, i mean, the destabilization that would do would be horrible. what i'm trying to do is just get this on everybody's radar to say don't this this is another threat to israel. this is bigger than that. we've got to figure out exactly how we're going to deal with the
government and how we're going to deal with hezbola. >> one of the things we saw after the iraq and afghanistan wars began is the sense that you hear in many circles around the world that the u.s. is always telling people what to do, that we're overly engaged and complaints. but as you walked in there, was your sense that the world was looking for america's assertiveness even if politically their leaders had to chris size us for it. or was it a sense that, yes, we want america to do less and we're tired of taking orders from you? what was your sense of the world's appetite, particularly those of our allies about u.s. engagement? >> so having come from politics, 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 they really supported us and everything we were doing was great. so you have to say, okay, what are the true relationships and what it has gone from and i
can't believe it's been five months. what's happened in five months is it went from what is 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 things 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 that we got for being a leader on that and the number of people that said it's so good to see the u.s. leading again, now they're starting to be where they're not afraid to be in the picture with us, where they're not afraid to say they're our partners. there is a healthy transformation that's taking place, but it is volatile. >> do you mean to say there are countries out there encouraging us behind the scenes to do things but then tell you, by the way, we'll have to criticize you for this. >> shocker. it is the political role.
>> i have always been curious. here in the senate where i serve with 99 other people, i always try to remind people that most people only get to see my fellow senators when they see them in an interview and that's all they know about it. i get to see these people when they're people and not just starts. what is that dynamic like with ambassadors? they're real people, too. is there a similar dynamic at play? >> so i think that's my job, is to create the relationship and create the dynamic that we want the u.s. to have. and what i am attempting to 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 praise you if you do something right. but be honest to us, we'll be honest back to you. i think that 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. so it is an interesting dynamic in terms of some of them, you know, bolivia has -- when i first got in, was bashing us terribly. and, so, i went and met with them and i said, why do you hate america? and it just kind of stunned them. and then when we started talking, we agreed that there is disagreements. but don't go do that. and, so, he stopped. and it doesn't mean he doesn't part with us or say what his disagreements are, but that's the part we have to stop, the rhetoric we have to stop because that's unhealthy. it doesn't allow for any good to happen if we allow that rhetoric. and, so, that's the culture change again that we're trying to change. >> justify minutes?
okay. that's plenty of time for this yes. tell me -- i know obviously you came from the political realm. you were governor. before that a state leglator. we know what our schedule looks like. what, if there is such a thing, what does the typical schedule of the un look like for you and for your staff on a regular basis? regular meetings of security council, general assembly? what is that like week to week? what is the typical week, if there is one, look like to you. >> we are trying to bring order into chaos because it is fast moving. these are such important situations. so basically the security council is all yearlong. it is typically four days a week. and 15 members meet. five of the permanent ones, uk, france, china russia and us and you have the ten elected members that rotate out every two years. >> you meet four times a week, the security council? >> it might be my deputy
ambassador as well. so we pick and choose when i should participate, when she should participate. but we're always negotiating what is going on at the time. so it is always a team effort in terms of how we do that. then you have got the general assembly, which starts in september and ends in december. but the neg gagotiations go on year. those committee meetings happen separately. a lot like y'all have. so those continue on. then you have to build relationships. i've got to meet 193 ambassado. you want to make sure they know you're there, you're not ignoring them and they're important, all while trying to do the d.c. work, which i really do love policy. so the idea that we can go and decide how to move as a country in terms of changing the dynamics is important. so the d.c./new york thing is busy, but i can do video conference when i can't get
here, so it still works. but to say we're all over the place is a good thing. we got our hands in all the pots that matter and now i've just got to make sure that our voice is strong and that we're being heard and that people know what we're for. >> for the vast majority of countries at the un, their mission to the united nations is their most important diplomatic outpost? >> they look at this as only senior people get these positions. this is considered their most trusted and senior person to send to new york. the un is such a big deal for all of them. and, so, they didn't understand the un backlash. but now i think they understand, it is not that we don't see the un as important. but you can't just take our money and not let us have a voice or not think that we're going to be a player and do all these things. so i think there is a new respect for where we are. but i also think that we have to respect all of these people who are there and the fact that that
is the person that has the presence here. >> have you been back to south carolina? >> i took -- michael and i took the kids for spring break for a week. >> i guess one of the things i have always been curious about is what skills or talents or abilities or experiences as governor have equipped you for this job? anything that surprised you that you said i did a lot, something like this when i was the governor. i imagine that legislature sometimes is as difficult to deal with as your fellow diplomats from time to time at the un. so what wasn't ate being governor when you got there surprised you that there was synergy between your old job and your new one? >> that was the surprising part because i have always been honest that i didn't have a lot of foreign policy experience pyre. when you're a governor, you run a state. it is more executive and just balancing the agencies, making sure they are efficient and effective and dealing with the politics of what happens.
going into foreign policy, it's been like i'm studying for a final exam every day. it is a constant learning curve is there, but what is -- there is a lot of things that actually work. and one is trusting your gut and moving with your instincts is very important. the negotiation tactics you put right up there. decision-making and the idea of moving fast has to happen if we're going to have a strong presence in the world and just the ability to deal with people who aren't telling you the truth and calling them out on it is incredible important and powerful in a time like this. so a lot more skills than i thought going into it. but the knowledge part, obviously, that's the part that -- >> so as you know, we have a mutual friend, the coach of the carolina men's basketball team. has he asked to help identify national players? >> no, because he knows i'm a
clemson girl. >> all right. >> but we are proud of frank. and i do miss the people of south carolina. a lot of people comment on the fact that i had my palmetto necklace and that is because you never forget where you come from. that was a young indian girl growing up in a town of 2,500 people where they didn't know who we were or what we were and you see this state that has blossomed and overcome so many issues and is now building everything, planes and cars and tires and all these things. it is something i will always be proud of. it is something where i will always have one eye on south carolina. but the people of south cash lie that taught me so much. and i'm just trying to make them proud by what i do at the un and use that gift that they gave me. >> i told you this before and i'm sure you sensed it yesterday. but we live in a time of tremendous political conflict between the parties. but the one thing that -- and i think you sensed it yesterday is a lot of my colleagues in the
foreign relations committee in particular have been very complimentary of your work and one particular senator said yesterday when he voted for you it was a lane of faith and you haven't supported him from the other side of the acele. we are grateful. i've always been a huge fan of yours, always appreciative of our friendship. but i think i speak for a lot of people. we're proud of how you used that platform to remit our country and our values. there isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a clip of you at one of these security council meetings. >> yelling at someone? >> well, but making an important point. and we feel like you're not just representing our country, you're representing our values. we're grateful you were part of this. this is a great forum and we thank you for being a part of this. we have a great panel coming up. let's thank the ambassador. >> thank you very much.
[ applause ] >> former acting attorney general sally yates spoke, commenting on the investigation of russia in the 2016 elections. in her brief tenure in the trump administration, here is a preview of sunday's program on c-span. >> you know, one of the things that's concerned me a little bit as folks have talked about the special council investigation that's going on that bob mueller is doing, you know, i know bob mueller. and folks ought to have tremendous confidence in him. i mean, he is the con sue matt professional. he is going to call it like he sees it. he is going to do this the right
now. but bob mueller is going to be deciding whether or not crimes were committed. they could be used for prosecution or for impeachment. surely that's not our bar. that's not the standard of conduct that we're looking for from our president or our administration. it shouldn't be whether you committed a felony or not. it should also be whether or not you're observing the kind of norms that we have been talking about here today that have been so essential to the fabric of the rule of law. so while i have total confidence in baob mueller and his ability to conduct this investigation, i don't think that we should just be putting all of our hopes in, well, that will tell us whether anything bad happened here because there is potential -- and i don't know what the facts are, so i am not drawing conclusions about what he may ultimately determine. but, you know, there are facts here that should be alarming to us as a country that fall short of facts that would establish a
basis for impeachment or for prosecution. >> a discussion on the rule of law in the trump administration. you can see that program sunday at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's public cable television and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. earlier this morning deputy attorney general rod rosenstein testified on the propose budget for the justice department. here's part of his testimony.