tv James Baker and Thomas Donilon Testify on U.S. Global Leadership CSPAN May 14, 2016 12:35pm-2:47pm EDT
mentoring of ronald reagan and the pivotal role the former president play. to the complete schedule, go c-span.org. >> on thursday, james baker and tom donilon testified before the senate foreign relations committee. they discussed international affairs and issues for the next to administration to consider. this is two hours and 10 minutes.
place in the world and obviously the presidential races that are underway are going to heighten that focus. both of our witnesses have served in very substantial roles, dealing with daily crises that occur within an administration. the senate foreign relations committee, which is removed from that, should be a place to look at those activities, and yet are able to have some distance to look at some long-range issues that we need to deal with. there's hearing -- this hearing is a step in that direction. we are thrilled to have you both. what i would love to hear is, first of all, some of your thoughts about our current crises that we have, everything from russian aggression to the middle east to transnational terrorism, upheaval in europe, the north korean sabre rattling. second, in light of these events, it is my hope to explore your thinking as to what core u.s. interests are. that is something that we do not spend enough time focused on. third, i would like to get their perspective on the tools in our toolbox that are most effective in accomplishing our goals to
secure a future, whether it is our military, our economic influence, engagement in multilateral organizations and alliances. what is the right balance? fourth, i would love to hear about our indebtedness and our inability to find a solution to the liabilities that we have and the pressure that places on our ability to deal with foreign policy and to deal with issues around the world in the most appropriate way. finally, both of you -- i know that both of you are deep policy people and have made great things happen for our country to you have to have a little politician in you to do what you do. you are very aware of where the american people are today. where there is obviously -- they
are wondering how much we should be doing overseas. a lot of focus on what ought to be happening at home. all five of those are topics i hope we can address today. i thank you both for being here. i will turn to our distant wish member, ben cardin. senator cardin: i appreciate you for this hearing and i would like to thank secretary baker mr. tom donilon for your years of public service. this is a real opportunity befoe our committee so that we can gain from your experience and try to do what we can to make america stronger. thank you both very much for being here today.
this hearing is titled america's role in the world and we certainly have enough challenges and there is certainly a need for u.s. leadership. when i looked at america's strength, i see oliver military, the best soldiers in command, the best military equipment, but to me, the strength of america and its influence is in our ideals, what we stand for. our standing for democracy and good governance. we look at some of the actions we have taken during my years in congress -- i have been very active in the osce and a look at the founding principle that a country's security is more than protecting its borders, economic opportunities, and human rights. to need to, that has been a guiding principle -- when you look at other countries that are flexing their military, to me,
they will never succeed in accomplishing a more peaceful world because they do not have the commitment toward democracy. i look at russia, china, north korea. they certainly are not countries that are taking on international responsibility for more peaceful and stable world. what are the tools in order to accomplish our objective? i come up with certain pillars that we need to underscore. we have to work to form coalitions and partnerships. americans are not always patient. i think it is important to work with other countries towards objectives and that means that we have more credibility and effectiveness in a comp notion of a result. i think we need to continue our strong demand for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons pay her we must make that the use of our
military should be used only whenever -- only when every other option has been explored. should be a matter of last resort. the other -- the key pillar is we need to prioritize and support good governance. democracy, and basic human rights, transparency, freedom of the press, the ability to oppose government without ending up in jail, to freedom of religion, the status of civil society. free and fair elections and a government that protects its people. when leaders fail to provide governance, we see the consequences. we see them in conflict, where innocent people are put at risk and we see the flood of displaced individuals in refugees. we see a vacuum which is a breeding ground for radicalization and an improvement -- and we pay a heavy price for that. we are all concerned about the fate of ukraine. the corporate is russia and its interference. we have all spoken out and we have gone europe to work with us to isolate russia.
ukraine has to establish good governance may have not been able to do. that will be critical for their survival. in syria, we know that the assad regime does not represent all the people. as a result, we have breeding grounds for isil. a common thread is written through the world. i really look forward to the conversation we are having today with two of the champions in the history of america foreign policy. sen. corker: we are all very thrilled to have you. secretary baker is a model of public service, someone i have lived up to for a long time and i appreciate him taking his time to be with us today.
i know he served in the public arena often done multiple times with the great -- tom donilon is someone i have gotten to know over the course of the first years of the obama administration in what i do not know him as well i know he is highly esteemed and we could not be more fortunate than to have the two of you today. if you could, if he would summarize your comments in about five minutes. we are certainly not going to cut you off. i have read your written testimony in without objection will be entered into the record you can just summarize -- and we look forward to asking questions . if you would star, secretary baker. sec. baker: thank you, mr. chairman. it is a pleasure to be here. it is a pleasure for me to be once again before this committee that i have appeared before so
many times. i have been asked to keep his remarks brief subtopic and spent our time talking about the issues that you have articulated . let me say a few words to begin about america's current role on the world stage and suggest a reproach on u.s. foreign-policy that i think is best suited for the country. more than 70 years after the conclusion of world war ii the united states remained the strongest nation in the world. not just militarily. we have a resilient economy, we have the most powerful military, and we have the widest array of alliances. do we have problems? indeed. domestically, our economy continues to sag. we are losing some respect as a global leader that we aren't over the course of decades. as the current presidential
election has demonstrated, election has demonstrated, americans are losing faith in institutions from washington to wall street that even aided our investment over the years. much of the rest of the world, countries like china, brazil, and india, are catching up. that is largely because they have adopted or are adopting our paradigm of the free market. that should not be viewed negatively in my view that as a positive trend because it is helping hundreds of millions of people rise from poverty. it is my view, not counting the fact that we have slipped, that we should remain the world's countries like china, brazil, preeminent leader for the foreseeable future. we should accept that responsibility and not shrink from it because if we do not exercise power, a few people will. we have too much at stake in the world today to walk away from it, even if we could. other countries depend upon our leadership. this is most obviously true of our allies in western europe and east asia. frankly, even countries that are
sometimes anything but friendly seek our engagement. does that mean we are perfect? of course not. in the major global conflicts, world war i, world war ii, and the cold war, the u.s. played a historic role in defeating imperialism and totalitarianism. the question is, how should the united states engage in foreign 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? i want to say that in my view, international leadership doesn't involve a choice between sending in the 101st airborne or doing nothing. we can but politically, diplomatically, economically without putting american boots
on the ground. i believe that the united states should chart a course based on a paradigm that i would refer to as selective engagement. this approach which would continue the internationalism that our nation has embraced since 1945, would recognize that the united states has core interests in the world and that we should protect them. the same time, it would also acknowledge the reality that our power is limited. using selective engagement as a blueprint, we can identify america's vital interests and advance them using all the tools available to our foreign policy, including our many strategic alliances, our economic clout, our diplomatic assets, and as of last resort, our military. what are those interests? they range from combating international terrorism to managing the emergence of china
as a global power and from stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction to expanding free trade. the approach i suggest does not fall easily into traditional categories of foreign policy. that is either realism or idealism. i think it would contain the best elements of both. it represents one of our most distinctive national characteristics. we are after all a practical people, less interested in ideological. -- ideological purity then solving problems. while firmly grounded in values, selective engagement would understand and appreciate the complexity of the real world which is a world of our choices and painful trade-off.
this is the 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 there be an overriding national interest at stake, particularly if any military action were contemplated. this is the real world in which such a balanced approach, i believe can help us avoid both the cynicism of realism in the impracticality of idealism. it promises no easy answers more quick fixes. but such an approach does offer our surest guide in our best hope for navigating this great country of ours safely through this precarious period of unparalleled risk and opportunity in world affairs. look forward to addressing your questions. sen. corker: national security advisor donilon. mr. donilon: it is a privilege to be here next to secretary baker.
secretary baker is one the most influential public servants of our time. the title of one of his books, "work hard, study, and keep out of politics." we are fortunate he did not heed that advice. the world today is characterized by a large number of unstable situations. it is a level of volatility we have only seen twice since world war ii. i think the volatility is rooted in four trends. first, they systemic breakdown of state authority in the middle east. in the years since the arab revolution in 2011, a number of states have become failed states, from libya to yemen to syria and a range of others have become different stages of failure.
they have lost the ability to maintain a monopoly on the use of force and as a result, vast uncovered spaces exist from libya to pakistan, created power vacuums and paving the way for the rise of isis. these peoples have put extreme pressure on u.s. partners and fueled a migrant crisis in europe. the primary cause of this breakdown is a profound failure of governance on the part of arab regimes over decades. this really is the root of what is going on in the middle east today, a profound failure of governance. the second trend is the reemergence of power competition. for roughly 25 years after the fall of the berlin wall, the world and jordan era marked by constructive relationships between the great powers. none of them regarded each other as hostile. that has ended. it ended in 2014 when russia invaded ukraine and annexed
crimea. a third source is the global reaction to the profound economic and political transitions underway in china. china and its rise served as an engine of global growth, and unsurprisingly, the recent slowdown of their economy has had a number of disruptive impacts. on a diplomatic front, the u.s. and china continue to cooperate on a number of issues like climate change and iran and north korea are china's provocative behavior in the south china sea including the militarization of land formations is significantly destabilizing. the u.s. in china have to get this relationship right. over history, the dynamic between established powers and rising powers in terms of
outcome has most likely ended in war. this is a classic the city trap. it is not a subset of the in our country's leaders can avoid conflict through steady engagement in a concerted effort to avoid miscalculation. the last trend i will mention is the geopolitical impact of sustained low oil prices since may 2 thousand 14. the impact has been vast and substantial in will be long-lasting. nations that lack of financial reserves like venezuela and nigeria, has been pressured. even exporting nations with
significant reserves have come under economic strain. just the last week we have seen saudi arabia announce a major reorientation of their economy. some look at this increasing volatility and draw a simple conclusion. i reject this thesis that the u.s. and its ability to shape the world are in decline. the idea that america is in decline does not stand up to any rigorous analysis of our national balance sheet of strategic strength. no nation can ask our comprehension -- comprehensive strength. the extreme pessimism we hear and a general lack of appreciation for u.s. strength is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous. i will close with listing four or five challenges. economic growth. there are not a lot of laws in history that one of the -- no nation can maintain its diplomatic or military primacy without maintaining its economic vitality. our economy is recovering significantly since the 2008 crash but continued economic and security is a feeling call for retrenchment which would go -- which would undercut leadership or to maintain -- investing a national infrastructure,
defending our edge, supporting long-term demographic advantages of a sensible immigration policy. the bottom line is that the most important national security challenge for the next president is to maintain and extend economic growth and prosperity in the united states. we have significantly reduced from al qaeda and we are successfully pressuring isis in syria and iraq to the overall threat has metastasized. frankly, i think it has entered a new dangerous phase. isis is expanding into other regions. the attacks on paris and brussels have highlighted how unprepared europe is to address this threat appeared despite the transnational nature of this thread, european responses remain cloistered behind borders in my own judgment is that the failure of europe to
successfully deal with a terrorist threat in terms of information sharing and securing borders, is a clear and present danger to the united states. every year, americans rely more on the internet. these advances represent a tremendous moon for our economy that exposes to cyberattacks. president obama has asked to -- asked me to chair a national commission on enhancing cyber security a will be putting our report out into separate and it is really a transition report for the next president with a perspective looking at the next 5-10 years. next is asia. my judgment is that the next president -- our allies system in asia remains solid that our allies see even greater engagement. ratifying the transpacific partnership, the tpp, which is the economic centerpiece of our
rebalance is central to cementing our leadership in the region. last, north korea presents the most serious security challenge in asia and the most serious liberation challenge locally. north korea has undertaken a nuclear spent in recent months. in my judgment, the situation in north korea is on a path to becoming a first-class crisis. with that, i will conclude and i look forward to your questions. it is the real privilege to be with you here today. sen. corker: it is a privilege for us to have both of you. thank you for your opening comments. i will reserve my time for interjections and begin with senator cardin.
i want to drill down on the point you made, and that is the observation of the lack of governance in the middle east provided the wherewithal where we now move toward failed states. there was outside interference in yemen. we know iran's activities. all of that has contributed to the lack of governance in these countries. this past week, we had a hearing on sub-saharan africa and the terrorist members operating there. it is spreading. the risk of failed states in africa is pretty dramatic. my point is that, what should the united states be doing? in an effort to try to deal with the governing structure -- we have moved from autocratic
countries that have not been able to transition into democratic countries under -- in this for a while -- the autocratic systems were working but long-term they will not work. is there something in our toolbox -- i mean, i look at what we have available to us, our diplomacy budgets and our development assistant budgets that certainly are much smaller than our defense budgets. we have enough resources? are we using them properly? is there a better way to focus on having a more consequential impact on the transition of countries, particularly in that region to a more inclusive government that can prevent the type of violence we have seen? sec. baker: you want me to take a shot at that? first of all, i think, today, it is less a question of what should we be doing perhaps and what we should not have done. when we take down an autocrat, it is great.
it is in keeping with our values and on the whole, generally speaking, can be beneficial to the citizens of the country that he or she is imposing upon. what we need to be thinking about what comes next. we shouldn't be so quick to come in and get rid of leaders that we do not agree with 1000% of the time. if you look at what is happening in libya, what we did there pales in comparison to what the europeans did. we did assist. president obama -- tom will know this better, but i don't think president obama want to do that. he was convinced that we needed to contribute and we did and we
contributed assets. it was wonderful. great. you do not do that without thinking a little bit about what comes next. we have the same situation in egypt when we bailed out on hosni mubarak, a wonderful ally of us for a long time and, by the way, good on the arab-israeli problem. so we ended up with the muslim brotherhood and that became a problem. now we have a military dictatorship in egypt. at least we have some stability. we had the same situation to some extent in iraq. these areas that are failed states went in there because we upset the order and we didn't like the people running the show.
but we need to do a better job of thinking about what comes next. my view with respect to syria, it may be too late. it is too bad we didn't support what the turks wanted, which is a no-fly zone along the northern border of syria. had been willing to go along with that, i don't know why we couldn't have negotiated it. willl where we say we furnish the air and the intelligence and logistics. group -- put the boots on the ground and we won't -- and we will take care of this problem. maybe we could generate some
sort of coalition like that. that is what we should have done. >> i agree with your point. that is not what america should be investing in. long-term we need more open governance. is there something we are missing in our action to give a better democratic system? >> you can't expect an emergence of a democratic system unless you have stability. you should not expect it to happen if you are going to eliminate the stability that exists. couple of things, it is important to stress governance as part of our approach to these problems.
iraq in many in way underscores the point. the government was an authoritative government. we had a governance failure in the deterioration of the iraqi security forces. i'm very worried about iraq today. of progress in terms of our military effort, really serious progress. we still have a looming governing crisis in iraq. >> thank you both very much. senator rand paul. senator baker i enjoyed your testimony, especially the
discussion and ideas of selective engagement. admitted itt has was a mistake to topple gadhafi in libya. he said it was a mistake not to be prepared to create a country out of nothing. so i think there are a couple of possibilities. one is you should not do it to begin with. we have masses -- massive resources. how do we create democracy in the middle east? think people don't realize in our country, one of the amazing things of the american revolution as we had represented government before that. of that,d continuity and we think we can blow up gaddafi and out of that thomas jefferson would get elected. doesn't go back to we need to
be better prepared, a lot of times the selected engagement should be this is a 10 week shouldn't have selectively engaged. it is the same sort of situation. the only other thing i would mix into that. i think altman lay the solution in syria is not saying russia can be part of it. has a base there, probably engaging russia in a solution to syria. >> they absolutely have to be a part of it and so does iran. to idea that we could come some sort of accommodation or agreement without those two players is ridiculous. i think you would probably agree with that. i think we get bipartisan agreement on that. they have to be at the table.
that is what secretary is trying to bring about. you are quite right about your comment on selective engagement. look at each one of these discrete and specific foreign-policy problems, through the prism of our national interest and our principles and values, and you say if we take this asset, where is it going to land. that is the way a president ought to approach these things. where the vital national interests of the country are at stake, you may decide to go even as far as military. tools of oure the political, economic, and
diplomatic engagement. guidinghe idea of the pins will being of our national interest. >> what becomes important there is congress has a role in this. our founding fathers did not want to give all the power to the executive. >> they gave most of it to the president. the president has certain policy powers that weren't given to him on the founding fathers. >> even president obama admitted no president should go to war the authority of congress. my point is in determining what ,s in our national interest that means congress can have to
retain some authority, and we should ask congress's permission. my guess is the debate would have been very messy. it might still have problems, but we wouldn't have chaos. >> it is always best if the electiveve and branches are on the same wavelength. possible, you know in the first gulf war, i'm convinced -- i'm convinced president bush 41, we had a democratic house and a democratic senate. it was extraordinarily popular to do what we were getting ready to do. of only way we got approval congress is to get the use of force resolution by them.
i want to tell you something, i think they still would have done what they did. i don't think we will ever resolve that issue of who has the and -- who has the ultimate power. >> unless there is an imminent there wasn't an imminent threat to benghazi. i always thought the imminent threat was to the united states. any city around the world was around -- was on imminent threat.
recognize the standard that the imminent threat would be to the united states. >> we feel the assistance can call on the u.s. state to assist them, that is exactly what happened when we went into kuwait. an imminent threat to the united states. there were no threats to the united states at all. always best to act multilaterally. if it has to act unilaterally, we went into panama with nobody's consent. they were brutalizing our servicemen down there.
we invade and get back in the united states. there are circumstances when that is appropriate. is always better on the executive and legislative. >> it would more likely be the exception than the rule. analysis one in the that secretary baker said, there are a lot of policy options between an invasion and doing nothing. that has to be part of the analysis. i agree with respect to secretary kerry that the political solution there -- we are working on that. it is important.
we talk about the other things we need to do as a nation. it is important that we have a security's -- security problem with isis. the united states is going to have to lead an effort to eliminate that threat. last i agree with secretary baker, we have all men with obligations around the world. this obligates us to act with for some time as necessary. to isis, we have to ask the question are they bigger and stronger because of our involvement in pushing aside back? or are they less likely to be a reat if a sod were still stronger. i might have my first interjection here. i thought the president used a
-- where thought senator paul may go, where we do way to what is the best ensure that you are successful? biased, but i would ismit the textbook example the way president bush 41 went to war. even when out and got the rest .ill he was able do get a use of force resolution against a date. she narrowly got a vote of the
senate 52-48 supporting it. he went out of overwhelming force on the ground to make sure what he was going to do was going to be successful. did not go to baghdad the way people were pushing him to do. people to payher for the war. that were cost $70 billion. the people who we were helping paid the balance. i submit to you that is a way to go to war. certainly when you undertake that effort you have forces
available necessary to get the job done, do that and no more, come on home. >> senator menendez. >> i appreciate you having this hearing. i appreciate secretary baker and security advisor donelan for being here. foreign policy and challenges from quarter-century. we all know the geopolitical developments that have led us to where we are. and in that respect, when i was , i andn of the committee
other members worked across the aisle most notably when we came back over and brought everybody back over labor day weekend. as he went to the g 20 summit to get russia to engage. i think that was a high water mark in terms of its abilities. we act in the spirit of bipartisanship that is incredibly important. from my view, at the core of the foreign policy debate. clear goals particularly in the aftermath that secretary aker has suggested has led us to wars that stabilize entire regions and cost us immeasurable blood.
intervention without the incredible threat of consequences, whether they are diplomatic, economic, or military can in fact -- can affect our influence in the world. and isolationism, which is debates, onlyhese my view creates the permissive environment in which our enemies will thrive. history told us time and time again that nature is a vacuum. i see that secretary baker and -- few veryy directly counter the idea that america is on the decline. as i traveled throughout the world i get the perception that the united states is stepping back from its role. is true or not it
is a dangerous perception. the standard by which we ought to judge the differences of views. i worry. i cannot believe -- or turning our backs and disarming the world of weapons is something we cs the best for the united states. frankly the idea of burden shifting is made equally as perplexing to me. so i wonder if both of you, and i look at the roads that profile and home much truth there is to that -- and how much truth there and the nature of witnesses that come before this committee or speak to the american people create a
thatrception or misleading i personally never bought into. i wonder if you both which share as to a foreign policy of shifting burden to other nations. does that not create a potential for the loss of influence in the world? what is the role of the pragmatic view of democracy of human rights? sometimes i think we shortchange that because in the pragmatic short-term, that creates a short-term benefit. in the long term process we let situations become bigger problems. what about the international order?
the post-cold war, we came into the view that there are certain international standards by which the world could come together and agree that the violation of those standards would create consequences. is that dissipating? that concept of international orders in which we can expect other countries to join with us in and forcing those international orders? i would like to hear your perspective. >> spending 2% of their gdp on nato and on defense, so that
nato is sufficiently strong and that nato remains the most successful security alliance in history, which i believe it has been. i don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. is as tomf the matter has said, the biggest challenge i think facing the country today, the biggest foreign-policy challenge or any challenges our economy. you cannot be strong economically, politically, democratically if you are not strong economically. in his first term president obama asked me and a couple of other people, what should be my number one priority?
a presence around the world. the presence provides determines, short of conflict of where we want to be. it provides reassurance allies. asiapresence in northeast is an example of that. absolutely critical in terms of preserving the norm. we do have an irreducible demand for our presence around the world. iran is a good example of that. you are more familiar with it
than anybody. with your health and the help of the congress we had a successful sanctions effort, pressuring iran to come to the table and lead to an agreement with respect to nuclear capabilities. overtime was an important part of it. it would not have happened without u.s. leadership. we will not provide the balance we need in asia. there will not be global trade agreements. it is the burden that we bear. and ih secretary baker said, a fair assessment of our balance sheet, of strategic assets and liability, leading to believe the right policies will continue to be the most most powerful and influential nation in the world for a long time to come. >> just to continue to build on
obviously people around the country are looking at our own economic struggles at home. people coming back wounded so forth. there is a fundamental amount of questions about why doesn't everyone else do more? we 70, 60 years after the end of the second world war, still engaged in asia, providing assistance to japan and korea? should be up to face their own defense. i would ask you to describe a world in which nato lost its way or disintegrated. in a world when japan and south korea -- what would with a -- what would the world look like? what would the strategic environment look like in asia? what would the world look like if nato was diminished or even disintegrated?
>> they would be far less stable. today. a lot of problems these commitments we have around promote u.s. security. ever since the end of world war japan andurity with south korea has been the foundation and basis for peace and stability in the pacific. nato has been the foundation and the base for peace and stability in europe and on the eurasian continent. >> some suggested why not let should -- why not let japan and south korea get their own nuclear weapons? thate more countries
acquire nuclear weapons, the more instability there would be in the world in my opinion. if you look at the way north korea was using its nuclear capabilities. america continues to fight against the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons that can kill billions of people. >> this is a really important thought experiment. what would happen if these norms and institutions -- in asia i think secretary baker ,as offered a platform in asia and if you do the thought
experiment do you feel over the last three -- would you have seen that prosperity in asia? and building the platform in which the social economic development has been built in? example.nother that is not the history of europe. absent the kind of institutions that are put in place and never be taken for granted, that these are permanent situations, really tending to them on a constant basis. i think the outcomes are clear.
>> want to revisit this syria libya situation for a moment. the syrian people stood up against a side in the beginning and were met with violence. unless they did what gadhafi was going to do. that is massacre, in order to hold onto power. the only way they can hold on to power is to massacre people. that is the basic ingredients
necessary for radical jihadists to come in and take advantage of these are notnt, efforts by the u.s. governments to go in and overthrow it. we now have to make a decision about what will be our best interest in taking three steps forward? all these malicious takings of arms, staying in perpetuity, leading to the kind of instability we see now anyways. we continue to stand by those arguments. it would be made up of people more stable than what we could work with. in the absence of those sorts of elements, that vacuum would be filled.
we finally ended up fighting a war. you know what the most important country today in iraq is? not the united states without big embassies, it is terror and -- it is terror ran -- it is tehran. not my view that the libyan people were going to be able to throw gadhafi over unless we had the europeans. had to protectve a consulate in that country that served as a magnet for radical jihadists to come in. more of a magnet from what we have now? should have empowered elements to provide some level of stability after the fact.
we started a consulate, the vacuum has now been filled by isis in the northern part of the country. >> thank you, senator murphy. >> thank you both for your time. probe thisontinue to question of what american leadership means today. is only asy to lead good as the effectiveness of the tools in your kit. i wanted to ask some questions about whether we are properly resourced to deal with the way our adversaries try to project their power. let me pose it through the prism of ukraine. russia has clearly militarily invaded ukraine. to use its military power to
politically and economically ruined that country. and it is doing all sorts of other things, whether it be bribery, intimidation, bullying. all of our conversation here has been enough that has been about whether or not we armed ukrainians. wejust seems to me that -- don't have the ability to offer substantial energy assistance to try to answer the question of dependence on russian oil. we don't have the ability to do that on a large scale.
in which our military strength is still unchallenged, what should we be thinking about in terms of the other tools that project american power that will eventually win the day? the fight in ukraine an example of what we don't have, the influencers we need in order to protect that country? >> i didn't hear you mention sanctions, which are having an effect. they are quite strong sanctions. we negotiated that, it is the end. i was trying to get the ukrainians to get rid of their nukes. in this new environment, what
are you afraid of? we will get the russians. we got it, it was called the budapest memorandum. i don't think we have an absence of tools. we cannot act there or should not act there unilaterally, we have to act within our european allies. i think that is why we are having the difficulty we are having. made to sitt be back. if you don't like what is happening in other countries -- that is outrageous. are doing barrel rolls around our aircraft and ships in the baltic sea.
i think we have the tools, it is question of if we have the political will to use them. >> i think we do have the tools. it needs to be a broad look at the functions and capabilities of nato. russia has been up to a multi--- to a covert war effort in the ukraine. that is not across the border, that is a different kind of threat. we have cyber and assets. indeed our great progress is are
promoting a diversity of supply. i think their efforts underway in year -- and there are efforts underway in europe to do that. we need to work on our counterterrorism efforts. tohink it is important complete these negotiations, which is important for us. to have a multidimensional look at this european policy. there are a number of things we can and should do to focus on the challenge, especially the challenge from russia and isis. >> can i just bring you back to the middle east for a moment? we have a lot of discussion about u.s. participation in the coalition campaign in yemen. and donaldr advice
advice as well? sackinge be packing the to should we be backing the saudi caught -- should we be backing the saudi's play? theink we should apply principles of selective engagement. some instances are going to require we be there and be there militarily. as a generic matter, we need to get closer with the saudi's. been a pretty good ally for a long time. have they done some things we need to shut down? yes. we worked with both administrations to get that there.
they have been a good ally. i don't see any reason why we should not be there for them, have their back for them. extentessarily the full of military action. see the problem with having to deal with the threat of iran. >> we need to give our best advice. we are pretty deeply involved in doing that. we need to give them our best advice. and presidentr obama went to a summit. is important to provide reassurance with respect to our partners. it is always important to have a cane understanding of the
threats that they feel. as we perceive with our policy going forward. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to hear your hearings, your testimony today. following up a little bit on this question of energy issues and the burden of american taxpayers, carrying other instances around the globe. you mentioned it is not fair to carry undue burden. is the essence of what you talked about. we have this 2% requirement with nato and what we respect, liking them to contribute to the nato alliance.
and thecomes to energy other strategic vulnerabilities and the other nato allies, it is one of those key strategic vulnerabilities. we have policies that would drive our nato alliance members to develop further energy and securities? would prevent them from having to develop all of their .nergy sources can the united states do more to help shore up this strategic vulnerability? >> by way of taking on their own restrictions? if those restrictions are imposed by their state, i don't know if the united states can do that much through persuasion and diplomatic channels to try to
get them to concentrate on removing those. a lot of us have been asked to sign a letter. supporting the idea that the not leave the european union. i was asked to sign such a letter and i declined. i were a minister or president of the united states over here. the other country wrote me a letter, saying what we ought to be doing. getting into trying to change the laws of those states, other
persuasion and diplomatic channels. >> i think there is a lot europe can do. they can do a lot more with respect to infrastructure. things that can work on a more rational pipeline or distribution system. i think we should be advocating for europe to take steps to diversify energy supply and reduce any monopoly influence that russia may have. a lot more can be done. >> not a majority by any means.
china's rise as a threat to international status, they believe the conflict is inevitable. ladies and gentlemen, these observers are wrong. they are dangerously wrong and are very simple. i do believe that statement still holds today. >> i happen to believe one of the biggest challenges facing american policymakers today is how we react to the rise of china as a global power. it is important china gets it right in terms of their relationship with us. there are some areas where there can be convergence of interest. and where we can be semi-cooperative.
we are going to have tensions on human rights. tensions on taiwan and tensions on tibet. going to have tensions involving the south china sea. we need to cooperate with china where we can. we need to manage the differences that are going to exist. cooperate where we can, manages to -- managed differences. we continue to maintain a robust presence. in the form of the seventh fleet to guard against any chinese efforts. of our alliest counting on us to be there for them.
it is not ordained that the united states and china are going to become enemies, not in my opinion. i know you would like to add a little bit too fat. our freedom of navigation operations, what more should we be doing in the south china sea? we be pursuing other asymmetric actions in addition to our right of passage exercise? be doing all the diplomacy we can. we need to impress upon the chinese the danger that these activities present, particularly where you have a conflict between china and japan, japan over the islands. shooting over the beands -- it is not going to
and one of the great beneficiaries over the last recorder century has been china. areas -- twotic problematic areas. it is important for us to continue and impress the region. we can press with china and dialogue and understanding that this is a real danger of mistaken miscalculation. with respect to this area, i said many times we have tremendous amount of states here.
we have a problem around some rock formation. it is going to be a real blow to our relationship. for the chinese to think hard about. we need to be very steadfast in addressing it. we had a premier test of the u.s. china relationship going into next year, the north korea situation. this is the most important security challenge in asia. the north koreans are proceeding headlong with respect to a missile program and nuclear program. day we areof the going to have to take steps to protect ourselves. with ane north koreans
icbm capability that can reach the united states. and this dialogue with china on this is quite urgent and a real test of the relationship going forward. what tom just said. i couldn't agree more with the north korean comments and if we have any chance of getting this done short of some sort of military response, which would be unappealing at best, it is going to have to be with china. >> thank you for that. if this committee has been leading in the area of north korea. ?hat more could be done it has actually increased and not decreased. that is a powerful effort they seem to be heading into the wrong direction on. >> thank you for your leadership
in that. this committee has been discussing this for a long time. you talked about how important it is that we address the issue. thinkpecifically do you -- what spent -- what steps specifically do you think congress should take? >> i think the executives should make it clear to the chinese leadership that this is something we view very gravely. it is a matter of utmost and serious concern to us. to theexecutive comes congress and asks for sanctions of any kind, i think congress
ought to respond quickly and effectively. response is not going to be a military one. we are going to have to do something. they are raising to nuclear capabilities that constitute as a serious threat to us and security. >> i guess i will go through a list of things. one is sanctions and the resolution of the u.n. 220. we did this in cooperation with the chinese. those loopholes should be closed. taking my experience from the iran situation, we basally put over the course of half a decade a series of sanctions
that were regime threatening. the second is congress will support the administration to continue to put into place the important missile defense systems, both to protect us and our allies. opened up discussions with the south koreans. we need to do more on that. the joint industrial facility in north korea, the president talked -- and then forth from the executive branch side, they really undertaken effort to deepen our conversation about the future of the peninsula. it is an uncomfortable conversation, but when you are presented with the facts that the united states is going to have to do a number of things to
protect themselves, beijing is going to see the master teacher lee uncomfortable, that is going to head off toward a very strategic disagreement with the chinese. again, the steps will be aimed at china. these are aimed at pyongyang. china has to come to the table without understanding and work with us on imagining a future for the peninsula and working with us much more coming to much more aggressive way. sanctions, missile defense, politics and a deeper conversation with the chinese about the situation. going to be a key test for the u.s. china relationship in the coming year. senator udall: one of the things is ate talked about,
certain points, we should take stock as to where we are and what lessons we have learned. it seems to me that, when you look at those three countries, and you look at the amount of aid that we have spent -- i think people are talking about greater than the marshall land, when you look at what results we ,ave got and where we are today what do you think the lessons are we should have learned? in particular, i want to focus in on afghanistan. since we have had so much difficulty there, stabilizing them. mr. donilon: -- mr. baker: i'm not sure i'm the best to answer that. i will say that it's now the longest war that we've ever fought. we are still there.
i would suggest that the one thing we ought not to do is to make what i think was a mistake in iraq -- withdrawing our forces too quickly. i certainly support president obama's decision to lead forces afghanistan, and i think unfortunately, this is going to be there a good bit longer. we are doing everything we can to promote an agreement to between the governments and the taliban. anything we can do to get that done and enhance that is what we ought to do. those are my thoughts. senator udall: we have diminished the threat from al qaeda, that's been an important we'vee -- mr. donilon:
diminish the threat from al qaeda, that's been important outcome. it will be useful for our military in preparation for the next president coming into office is to ask the hard rest of -- the hard questions about how we have fought wars in the last decade and a half, and really drill down on it and prepare for the next president. it's lessons learned, as to how we fought wars. we had some successes, we've had some strategic difficulties. i agree with secretary baker. where we are today in afghanistan, given the pressures -- the pressure from a resurgent taliban, we're going to need the current level or something like the current level of u.s. forces we had there for some time to come. the port underscore, we could make significant process against al qaeda. we did provide the afghan people with an opportunity to build society. you have to have some humility about this as well. for this distance to
reform societies that are so different from ours is really something that is limited, ultimately. we had in a fight the threats to us and deal with those, do what we can on the other side. we do think it's lessons learned exercise about how we fight war is a useful thing for the next president to be able to look to. >> i'm going to give senator flake just a moment. back, i qaeda is going say that as a challenge. we just recently allowed our troops to go against them, which was pretty phenomenal. one there is no question that pakistan is undermining us every day, which is the greatest threat to the afghan governments and our men and women in uniform. the duplicity of pakistan in all of this has been hard for most of us to stomach. let me just ask this question. wayctive engagements is the secretary baker has flamed this
-- has framed it. what would be your take on that view of u.s. foreign-policy? mr. donilon: i think it is sensible. should always ask before it engages militarily. involved,nterests are , the degree of interests implicated will dictate what we do. the response ever problem in the world is not a u.s. military action. i thought you would agree. let me take it to the next step. the world is watching right now. we are the greatest power on earth, the world is watching as this presidential race evolves. europe is watching, i could tell their demeanor has changed greatly over the course of since i met with him last in february. as they watch what is occurring. what is the best way for us to
communicate engagements? i can be inconsistencies there. they can look at our core national interest. as you look at our best way for our nation, if you were advising folks who now are going to be the focus, if you will, of u.s. foreign-policy over the next six months, as to how they might communicate that to the world -- how would that be? mr. donilon: how they would communicate the principles? well, when we have a new president, he or she ought to say this is a foreign-policy paradigm that i'm prepared to follow. take aer: i'm going to look at each one of these issues as they come before me and test them against the national interest and against our principles and values. i'm going to test them against what i, and my advisors think is doable.
and then i'm going to decide whether or not or how envoy to address that problem. if i'm going to address it economically and politically, diplomatically, or am i going to address it militarily as well? that's the way would work. on eachng to depend specific instance or issue that comes before the commander-in-chief. sen. corker: i'm going to follow up in the second. mr. donilon: it's important for people who are going to be president to communicate their vision of the foreign-policy they intend to bring. it's important to do that in some detail during the course of the campaign. i hope we can have that during the course of this campaign. i think it's important for the next president to communicate that with confidence. as we both discussed, the united the resourceshas
to be the leading nation in the world, and should be the leading nation in the world, is required to be the leading nation in the world. i think it's important to communicate we will have focused on economic growth, which is important for us and the world. there needs to be an important focus on allies. and the value that this global or unique global system we have has to the united states. think a competent presentation with economics of the center and allies is really the key to how we work in the world. sen. corker: how would that be different from your perspective, briefly, how would that be different then you think the world is viewing the united states today? -- it depends on who the next president is. sen. corker: selective engagements. abouto of you are talking your are going to contrast that with how you look at u.s. foreign-policy today, what would
that be? are you talking about right this very minute? or u.s. foreign-policy over the last 20 years? i think the beauty of this paradigm that i have suggested is that you look at each and every foreign policy problem on its own bottom. and then you then decide what range of tools you are going to use to try and address it. wedded to either a foreign-policy based only on idealism -- we're only got a go for principles and values, or only on the national interest. again, isld say, once if you are talking about sending america's young men and women into harm's way, you had better have a really significant national interest at stake.
because as the body bags begin to come home, you will lose the policy if you don't have a significant national interest at eight. witness vietnam, witness iraq in 2003. view ofknow what the u.s. foreign-policy today is by people on the outside, because frankly, we've embraced a number of different paradigms. that's the best way i know how to answer question. mr. donilon: i think i know where you are coming from. the question would be, if you assume there's perceptions in some quarters about retrenchment , and pulling back of u.s. my judgment is that's not borne out by the facts and i think i know were some of this comes from. the fact is the united states into use to lead aggressively around the world, whether in asia, where we implementing a rebalance and engage with china
in constructive ways, and in terms of managing our differences and confronting our differences. if you look at who is leading in terms of putting in place trade agreements, the tpp with united states standing in the center, putting together the most import trade agreement around the world. if you look at the middle east, toted states led the effort challenge iran, the united states is leading the counterterrorism effort in the world. the united states has increasingly -- it's been important to accelerate our efforts with respect to the challenge in syria and iraq. it's important underscore the very, and we've also taken important steps with respect to deepening our relationship in our own hemisphere. that gets way too little attention in terms of strategic strength of the united states. no great power or nation in the world has the kind of strategic base that we do in terms of the potential. it's important underscore the
fact of american leadership, the specifics. i think it support and for us to continue to accelerate efforts in iraq and syria to address those problems, which will address -- exist beyond president obama's presidency. that's the kind of conversation we should be having with the world. confident, based on the fact and rooted in continued u.s. leadership. mr. baker: without this being interpreted as a political statement, which it isn't, because i agree with 90% of what we said today, we need to make the world understand we're going to lead from in front, not behind. i think that's an oxymoron. sen. corker: thank you. senator flake. flake: i'm sorry i couldn't be your earlier. with regards to jcp away and was tohe purpose of it blunt the nuclear program, but that it hasy
changed the order in the middle east. iran has been a pariah secession ofbecause of its pursuit nuclear weapons. and now it has gained status at as a responsible nationstate, guess. however you're going to treat them by relieving sanctions. i thought the vote on the jcp away with a closer call than most, and of opposing it because of iran's other activities related to address. can you talk little about what's ahead in terms of iran, and the change in the order of the middle east? we mentioned before we need to be careful and maintain our line with the saudi's, for example. how do we do that with this new order in the middle east? i think we have to
reassure it not just the saudi's but the other allies in the middle east and israel and other moderate states of the arabian gulf -- let them know we still got there back, and as we said over and over, this deal with iran is nuclear only. it doesn't have anything to do with anything else trade it's too bad it doesn't. but it doesn't. going to beare there and we are still going to oppose be participation in that iran is a state-sponsored terrorism and has been living with for some time. i just reaffirm our support for them and help prop them up. because they are really not happy with us. they are not happy with us about this deal. was whether weon should go forward or not go -- i was in favor of
going forward because i didn't thek we could bring europeans along to maintain sanctions. you could argue that we never should have gotten into this negotiation. behaviorink iran's bad -- thehs the risk stability we will get for 10 iran, youo nuclear in wouldn't have started this to begin with trade we freed up all of those iranian funds, and they are still free to do all of the nasty things they do in the region and they're going to do them, in my opinion. when that issue was before the ,ongress and before the country i said that i was in favor of going forward with a, because i didn't think we could maintain the sanctions. the sanctions were very effective in bringing iran to the table.
now i think our obligation is to really let our long-time allies in the region know that we're going to have their back, and we're not changing our view. in our opposition to iran's bad actions in the region. secretary baker describes the determination, it was seen by president obama and the administration as a principal security threat in the region. it was at a stage where we have the opportunity to stop it, we succeeded in negotiation which essentially stopped at pretty much with a reasonably high degree of certitude for decade and a half, that was a decision that was made. inhink it was correct regards to a serious security issue. it was not some sort of quixotic exercise with illusions about the nature of the iranian regime.
the purpose of it was a transactional not a exercise, where we were in a transactional arms control setting and dealt with their nuclear program for extended time. we still face and iran regime that is engaged in destabilizing activities in the least. we have to confront it. dealsare two different here. the four corners of the deal with you to be reinforced. penalty -- there needs to be penalties for diversion. and there's iran's behavior outside of the four corners of the deal, which is going to be more problematical in forward and needs to be confronted directly. and third, we need to have in -- excuse me.
we need to have in place a very serious deterrent. that ifds to understand they pursue a nuclear weapon, contrary to the undertakings they took in connection with the deal, the united states is prepared to take action, including military action to keep them from doing so. these turns messages are very important going forward for the region, and for the world. sen. corker: thank you. baker, i met you and nvidia -- senator flake: thank , senator maker, i met you in namibia. mr. baker: that was namibian independence. senator flake: we are having issues right now in a number of countries, where political leaders don't want to leave after their terms in office in the drc right now. in east africa as well.
rwanda and burundi. what are your thoughts with regards to the efficacy of unilateral sanctions were other measures that we could take? influence -- are influence a time is limited, how should it be wielded? mr. baker: unilateral things and's or not as effective as multilateral sanctions. but there may be a time for those in the particularly in instances like that. it through the paradigm of selective engagement, if we say ok, this is a matter that is of great interest to the united states and concern to the united states, we need to be engaged. we are going to put sanctions on these individuals who won't step down. you have to wait up less than the minuses trade do a cost-benefit analysis, in effect. what are we going to gain from it, and what is it, if anything that it would cost us?
i don't see any reason we shouldn't do that if we don't -- we think that's the right approach to take. senator flake: we will be holding issues in the subcommittee on that, this is a good review. sen. corker: senator markey. markey: thank you for being here every service or country. foretary baker, thank you recommending to president bush that you not go to baghdad. that stands as the test of historical scrutiny. mr. baker: i don't think you were here when i said shortly after we got of office, for two or three years after we got out, every time i would make a speech anywhere, people would say why didn't you take care of saddam when you had the chance? i don't get that question anymore. senator markey: you have to balance american military might with wisdom. to thatght that
decision. we thank you very much. today, welook at iraq can see the rising influence of thisbah, he was behind shia takeover of the parliament. ostensibly, they are calling for reforms. includee reforms changing the role in which the sunnis and the kurds play in the government. in that country. we are already basically looking at sunnis in tikrit wondering when to the she ever let their control over that city go, so they can once again play a role in the government. that's in creating problems for the takeover of moles will, for example, so that the sunnis in that city would say it's worth it to fight the isis sunnis.
because we will then begin back our control over that eddie, on and on. could you give us -- over that city, on and on. could you give us your view on the role iran is playing in the al-sabah agenda in iraq, and what the united states should be doing in order to push back, so that the forces of inclusion -- not just the shia, but the sunnis and the kurds, retain roles that are prominent inside of the government? mr. baker: tom is more of to speed on this, he dealt with it more recently. this is not a political statement, but i think we left too soon. i've said that in response to an afghan question. negotiate ale to status of forces agreements.
we should have been able to do it or not, but we didn't, and we left. -- i'm like tom, very serious we concerned about the situation in iraq today. i think what we saw with the wasover of the green zone very disturbing. before.e of what we saw senator markey: do you see it as an extension of iranian play? mr. baker: i don't think there's any doubt in the world that iran is the most important foreign player in iraq today -- not the united states, nobody else, iran. they have influence on the shia government, and have had since the government came to power. state, a shia majority -- i see a lot of iranian influence.
senator markey: from your perspective, what should the united states be saying or doing -- building a coalition of other countries that have a stake in long-term iraqi stability in order to make sure that this shia perspective, this radical shia perspective does not poison any ability to bring the sunnis and the kurds long-term back to the table to have a united country? mr. baker: i don't know anything we can do other than continue to work with the iraqi government. president obama is incrementally increasing the presence of u.s. forces there. tom knows the extent and degree of that better than i do. i think that is probably called for now. i hate to see it. i hate to see us going back in there. we're not going back in full board. senator markey: if maliki had around -- had allowed for more
troops to stay in iraq -- mr. baker: i think that would've made a big difference. i think it would have made a difference in -- it would not have made a difference in whether or not the maliki government did what they should have done, which was to give the kurds in the sunnis a fair shake. they have never done that. they've been very partisan. ever since the beginning. in this new government's last partisan, i think. senator markey: thank you for your wisdom. mr. donilon: a couple of things. number one, the governance in baghdad are as important as the anti-isis efforts outside of baghdad. because the source of isis in iraq is basically a failure of governance. it was the maliki governance undertaking authority terry and -- authoritarian government.
we can be successful with respect to our efforts, and i think we will be in terms rolling back isis and the feeding them. but it will be a short-term success for the faculty of noninclusive government again, which will lead to the same kind of dynamic. how do you value that a body, given this pressure that al-sabah is now bringing, one have the capacity to create a political the other religions? mr. donilon: it's concerning, but we need to support him in that effort. senator markey: you want the loyola prices -- low oil prices. we can't do anything about that but loyal -- lower them further. at the more likely direction. are you optimistic, in terms of ultimately what will unfold in iraq, can we give the support to a body and push back against
al-sabah, does he have the will to push back against the iranians have directly have a stake in the instability in that country? mr. donilon: they have a big stake. at this point, he only identify the policy priority. i can judge from this distance the likelihood of success, but i do know what the right policy priority should be which is support our body in having a more representative government. , what happened is that isis is now entered a new and dangerous phase, which is moving towards an external agenda. outside the theater of war, it something we don't have a choice i think but to press against undefeated. point, we have a narrow window of success. senator markey: we can't break their back and less after we take over with the sunnis, put
mozilla and other cities. and it holds session will result mosul and other cities. unless we can think through and apply the right pressure, especially to iranians on this agenda, and ultimately, all of our efforts are not going to bear the long-term fruits that we are hoping for for that region, and i want to thank both of you for the great service to our country. i know we are pressing up against a hard stop for senator baker. >> i would like to thank for your decades
of strong and capable leadership in american foreign-policy, it's been a fabulous hearing. coons:'s been remarked by many members of this committee that the current presidential election has seen candidates principle that underlain u.s. foreign-policy for a long time. some of these seem to have struck a chord with the american people, this upcoming election season is an opportunity to reflect the changing nature of the world and the challenges and threats and opportunities we face, and to reassess our role in it. of the outcome of the election, this committee in particular must grapple with the trends you are transferred in the system, and define how we advance our values. with that in mind, let me ask you brought questions -- ask you two brought questions. the role of the committee in the i think it's important
one of our strengths is the role institutions like imf, wto. these help america. they help us maintain security theyhe american people and strengthen america. i think that would be my answer to you on that. thanks for the question. coming forward with approaching ideas is really important. it's important to close the deal. problem, and at the i think the second is field and to he
states. >> as a member of the appropriations subcommittee that the state department and foreign aid, i'll just mention senator graham has made a number of public comments. held a hearing on the on the cost of restabilizing countries like syria, iraq and continuing to hold together and ries like nigeria pakistan is going to be substantial. we need to engage in a thoughtful way in advancing why it's in america's prevent the collapse of larger and potentially dangerous states. for convening this hearing. >> yes. our t to thank both of witnesses again. certainly agree with your statements about the united must reassure our gulf
state partners and israel of our their security. i do just make the observation. we talk about being strong in to the iranian activities that are not directly related to the jcpoa. i agree with that completely. concerned though that with to say the inuing united states is not working in good faith. we are. to be able to take firm actions against ran ran or nuclear activities. currently made in europe to me could lead to a concern as to whether we can unity and oppose jcpoa. > that's an important issue that we need to confront going forward starting right now. of eally is a matter diplomacy. it ught to stay engaged on starting right this minute and
then talking -- keep talking to allies. keep them together. we're not going to be able to do anything yuan laterally on that problem. >> thank you so much. thank you for your career service to public our nation. your willingness to come back and help us as you have and make contribution. >> we can't thank you enough for today.here >> thank you for your time.
affirmation. so he's harkening back to an tradition. i wouldn't even use older. more mature. >> i think if we don't do it often, you know, it's a big event that you report on and does.one else i think the problem is we're not doing it enough. to be within ht those 12 naught cal miles weekly. 60% of our naval assets in that part of the world.
unless it's routine which it should become then, yes, you this notion that -- as was mentioned here today in the hearing that things quickly escalate and be problematic. but as long as it's understood routine thing for 12 u.s. navy to come within naught -- nautical miles. i think you're seeing that foreign policy evolve. worry too much right now. as i've said to others, i think
evolving to much of what you saw secretary baker say today. do.ally i will say that i met with a russian leader last night. a chinese leader yesterday. causing people to focus more fully. i think that's actually a good thing. same time, over the course -- over the course of the months, my sense is that candidates on both sides of be more fully laying out where they think u.s. policy should be. again, i like the viewpoints baker laid out and much of what tom said today. agreement on e in many things. but in particular, i really what i've heard from the campaign is something that embrace much of what secretary baker said today.