tv Bloomberg Markets Americas Bloomberg January 11, 2017 10:00am-11:01am EST
americans welcomed this rededication to american security, liberty, and prosperity. newly leadership but new leadership is incomplete without accountability. if credibility does not start with ourselves, we cannot extend it to our friends and our adversaries. we must hold ourselves accountable to upholding the promises we make to others. an america that can be trusted in good faith is essential to supporting our partners, achieving our goals, and assuring our security. we must hold our allies accountable to commitments they made. we cannot look the other way at allies who do not meet their obligations. this is an injustice not only to us, but to long-standing friends who honor their promises and bolster our own national security, such as israel. those who areld not our friends accountable to the agreements they make.
our failure to do this over the recent decades has diminished our standing and encouraged bad actors around the world to break their word. to ignoreafford violations of international accords, as we have done with iran. we cannot continue to accept empty promises, like the ones china has made to pressure north korea to reform, only to shy away from enforcement. looking the other way when trust is broken only encourages more bad behavior, and it must end. we cannot be accountable, though, if we are not truthful and honest in our dealings. as you are aware, my long-standing involvement with the boy scouts of america, one of our bedrock ideals is honesty. the phrase "on my honor" begins the boy scout oath, and it must undergird our foreign policy. in particular, we need to be honest about radical islam. reason that our fellow citizens have a growing
concern about radical islam and the murderous acts committed in its name against americans and our friends. poses a grave risk to the stability of nations, and the well-being of their citizens. powerful digital media platforms andallow isis, al qaeda, other terror groups to spread a poisonous ideology that runs completely counter to the values of the american people and all people around the world who value human life. these groups are often enabled and emboldened by nations, organizations, and individuals sympathetic to their cause. these actors must face consequences for aiding and abetting what can only be called "evil." the most urgent step in sorting radical islam is defeating isis. the middle east and its surrounding region's pose many challenges which require our attention, including syria, iraq, and afghanistan. there are competing priorities in this region which must be, and will be, addressed, but they
must not distract from our utmost mission of defeating isis. because when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. defeating isis must be our foremost priority in the middle east. eliminating isis would be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our homeland and our allies. the demise of isis will also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical islam, like al qaeda, the muslim brotherhood, and certain elements within iran. the defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone. .e must win the war of ideas if confirmed, i will ensure the state department does its part in supporting muslims around the world who reject radical islam in all its forms. we should also acknowledge the realities about china. building in the south china sea is an illegal
taking of disputed areas without regard for international norms. china's economic and trade practices have not always followed its commitments to agreements. it steals our intellectual property and is aggressive and expansionist in the digital realm. it has not been a reliable partner in using its full influence to curb north korea. has proven a willingness to act with abandon in the pursuit of its own goals, which at times has put it in conflict with american interests. we have to deal with what we see, not what we hope. but we need to see the positive dimensions in our relationship with china as well. the economic well-being of our two nations is deeply intertwined. china has been a valuable ally in curtailing certain elements of radical islam. we should not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership. we must also be clear right about our relationship with
russia. russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interest. it has invaded the ukraine, including the taking of crimea. if supported syrian forces that brutally violate the laws of war. our nato allies are right to be a learned that a resurgent russia. but it was in the absence of american leadership that this door was left open and unintended signals were sent. we backtracked on commitments we made two allies. we sent week or mixed signals with red lines that turned into green light. we did not recognize that russia does not think like we do. do not sweep away and uneven, and at times contentious, history between our nations. but we need an open and frank dialogue with russia regarding it ambitions, so we know how to chart our own course.
based on common interests such as reducing the global threat of terrorism, we ought to explore these options. differencesant remain, we should be steadfast defending the interests of america and its allies. russia must know that we will be accountable to our commitments, and those of our allies, and that russia must be held to account for its actions. our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging that american leadership requires moral clarity. we do not face and either/or choice on defending global human rights. our values are our interest when we come to human rights and humanitarian assistance. unreasonable to expect that every foreign policy endeavor will be driven by human rights considerations alone, especially when the security of the american people is at stake. but our leadership demands actions specifically focused on
improving the conditions of people the world over, utilizing where appropriate, economic sanctions, as instruments of foreign policy. and we must adhere to standards of accountability. our recent engagements with the government of cuba was not accompanied by any significant concessions on human rights. we have not held them accountable for their conduct. their leaders received much, while other people received little. that serves neither the interest of cubans or americans. abraham lincoln declared that america is the last, best hope of our moral life. our more like must not go out if we are to remain an agent of freedom for mankind. supporting human rights is a key component of clarifying to a watching world what america stands for. in closing, let us also be proud about the ideals that define us, and the liberties we have secured, at great cost.
the ingenuity, ideas, and culture of americans who came before us made the united states the greatest nation in history. so have their sacrifices. we should never forget that we stand on the shoulders of those who have sacrificed much, and in some cases, everything. they include our fallen heroes in uniform, our foreign service officers, and other americans in the field, who likewise gave all for their country. if confirmed, in my work for the president and the american people, i will seek to engender trust with foreign leaders and governments, and put in place agreements that will serve the purposes and interests of american foreign-policy. the secretary of state works for the president, but seeks to implement his foreign policy objectives. to do that, i must work closely with my cabinet colleagues and all relevant apartments and agencies of the administration, to build consensus. but let me also stressed that keeping the president's trust means keeping the public trust.
and keeping the public trust means keeping faith with their elected representatives. i want all the members of this committee to know that, should i be confirmed, i will listen to your concerns and those of your staff, and partnered together to achieve great things for the country we all love. i am an engineer by training. i seek to understand the facts, follow where they lead, and apply logic to all international affairs. we must see the world for what clear priorities, and understand that our power is considerable, but it is not infinite. we must, where possible, build pathways to new partnerships and strengthen old bonds which have frayed. if confirmed, i intend to conduct the foreign policy consistent with these ideals. we will never apologize for who we are or what we hold dear. we will see the world for what it is, and be honest with ourselves and the american people, follow facts were they
lead us, and hold ourselves and others accountable. i thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. senator: thank you for your testimony. you commit to testify here on request on this committee? mr. tillerson: yes, sir. senator: i rarely give opening statements, seldom expansive ones like i gave. i will reserve my time for interjections and moved to the ranking member, senator cardin, and then we will move to senator rubio. sen. cardin: do you agree with stable,creating democratic, free societies around the world that support the aspirations of their people, including basic human rights, is in our long-term national security interest question mark mr. tillerson: without question. : do you agree that russia under mr. putin fails in that category. mr. tillerson: yes, sir. sen. cardin: what we try to do
too provide international leadership is to provide a face for the issue. thousands of people in russia have been harmed or killed as a result of mr. putin's leadership. and billions have been impacted by that. there is one person who lost his life in a courageous way, ergei, i don't attorney representing a client with u.s. interests. he found corruption. did what any lawyer is supposed to do -- reported it to the authorities. as a result, he was arrested, tortured, and killed. those who benefited from the corruption were held with no accountability whatsoever. through u.s. leadership, we brought that case to the international forum. .he congress has passed a law other countries have now passed similar laws to deny our banking system and the right to visit our country to those who
perpetrated those gross violations of human rights, that were not held accountable by russia. do you support that law? sen. -- mr. tillerson: yes, sir, i do. sen. cardin: i thank you for that. under the obama administration, there have been 39 individuals who have an individually sanctioned under the magnets the law -- under the law, some added on monday. the law provides for congress to be able to submit, through appropriate channels, additional names to be reviewed by the administration for inclusion for sanctions. do you commit that you will follow that provision on names that we submit to you for potential sanctions for human rights violations under the law? mr. tillerson: senator, i will ensure that if confirmed, myself and the state department does comply with that law. underardin: this year, the national defense authorization act, that was extended globally, and now
applies to human rights violations throughout the world. do you also commit to support law, using the tools of our visa restrictions to prevent human rights violators from coming to american -- america? mr. tillerson: senator, consistent with all applicable laws that might impact immigration, we will endeavor to comply with that. allow then: the laws secretary of state -- visas are privileges to come to america. there is no due process law the issue of a visa. i am not aware of any restrictions on your ability to withdraw the right of someone to come to america. there may be treaties where we have diplomats that come in, which is exempted from that provision. mr. tillerson: i understand,
senator. that is what i intended. i would assure that a full examination was made of any and .ll applicable laws or policies we would follow those and increment. sen. cardin: you mentioned in your statement about the invasion by russia of crimea. does russia have a in your view, a legal claim to crimea? mr. tillerson: no, sir, that was a taking of territory that was not theirs. sen. cardin: do you agree that russia did not comply with the minsk agreement in regards to the resolution of ukraine? mr. tillerson: the process for implementing the minsk agreement . as i understand it, continues a full completion of all the minsk accords has not yet been achieved. sen. cardin: so i want to get your view on the sanctions that the united states applied. maybe i will drill down by asking you this first question. you stated in your statement that part of the reasons why
russia -- why we were ineffective in preventing russia is, we did not exercise strong enough national leadership. what would you have done or recommended to have been done to prevent russia from doing what it did? well, senator, in terms of the taking of crimea, i think my understanding is that caught a lot of people by surprise. it certainly caught me by private, just as a citizen. so i think the real question was the response to the taking of crimea that led to subsequent actions by russia, which i mentioned, the next action being coming across the border of eastern ukraine with both military assets and men. that was the next illegal action. i think in the absence of a very firm and forceful response to the taking of crimea, it was judged by the leadership in russia as a weak response, and therefore -- sen. cardin: what would you have
done after we were surprised by what they did in taking over crimea? what should the u.s. leadership have done in response to that that we did not do? mr. tillerson: i would have recommended that the ukraine take all its military assets they had available, put them on the eastern boarder, -- border, provide those assets with defensive weapons that are necessary to defend themselves, announced that the u.s. is willing to provide them intelligent, and that either nato or u.s. will provide air surveillance over the border, to monitor any movements. sen. cardin: so your recommendation would have been to go to a more robust supply of military? mr. tillerson: yes, sir. i think what russian leadership would have understand -- would have understood as a powerful response that indicated that, yes, you took the crimea, but this stops right here. sen. cardin: so, to understand,
our nato partners, particularly the baltics and poland, are very concerned about russian aggression. deployed troops to this region in order to show russia that article five means something. i take it you support that type of action? mr. tillerson: yes, i do. that is the type of response that russia expects. if russia acts with force, and the taking of crimea was an active force -- they did not just volunteer themselves. act required a proportional , a proportional show of force, to indicate to russia that there will be no more taking of territory. sen. cardin: that is encouraging to me to hear you say that, because that is not exactly consistent to what mr. trump has been saying with regard to article five commitments to nato by the united states. i appreciate your commitment, your views, on that issue. let me get to the response that was done. we imposed u.s.-led sanctions against russia as a result of
its conduct in ukraine. we went to europe and were able to get europe to act. the united states, in my view, wanted to go even further, but we could not get europe to go beyond what they were willing to do. you agree or disagree with that strategy for the united states to lead by sanctions, as we did? mr. tillerson: senator, sanctions are a powerful tool and an important tool in terms of deterring additional action. once actors have acted up, and we want to deter any further action on their part, yes, american leadership is often times -- if not almost always -- required to demonstrate that first step. sen. cardin: as you understand, unless we move -- and we have to move in a strong position -- we are going to get the strongest reaction on sanctions from the united states. we saw that in iran. i know that some of us have mentioned to you the legislation
that was filed yesterday. i do not know if you have had a chance yet to respond to it or not. i would like you to do that for questions for the record. but we have legislation i would urge you to take a look at that seems consistent with what you are saying here, that would provide the administration -- the administration -- with the tools to show russia that if you attack us by cyber, or you continue to do what you are doing in ukraine, or what you are doing in georgia, that there is going to be an economic price to pay. i take it you believe that is a powerful tool, one that you would consider applying. mr. tillerson: senator, i have not had the opportunity to review the legislation. i am aware that it has been introduced. and, yes, i think in carrying out the -- the state department carrying out its diplomacy or carrying out its support role in trying to negotiate to a different course of action, to a different pathway, we need a strong deterrent in our hand.
it is the old tenet of teddy roosevelt -- walk softly, carry a big stick. even in diplomacy, it is useful to have a stick that is in your hand, so that whether you use it or not, it becomes part of that conversation. sen. cardin: let me ask one final question. i was meeting with mr. pruitt yesterday, and i asked about his view of the leadership on climate issues. he said, you should ask that question to the secretary of state nominee, so i am going to ask you. of club we were part 21. do you agree the united states should continue with the international leadership on climate stage -- climate change issues? mr. tillerson: i think it is important the united states remain its debt to retain his seat at the table over conversations around how to address threats of climate change, which do require a global response. no one country is going to solve this alone. thank you. sen. rubio: welcome, mr. tillerson. 2016u believe during the
residential campaign russian intelligence services directed measures including the hacking of emails, the use of internet trolls, and the dissemination of fake news denigrating a presidential candidate and undermining faith in our election process? mr. tillerson: senator, i have had no unclassified briefings, because i am obviously not cleared yet. however, i did read the interagency report released on january 6. that report clearly is troubling. it indicates that all of the actions you just described were undertaken. sen. rubio: based on your knowledge of russian leaders and russian politics, do you believe these activities could have happened without the knowledge and can at the vladimir putin is to -- and consent of vladimir putin? mr. tillerson: i am not in a position to make that determination. that is indicated in the report, but there is additional classified information. sen. rubio: you have engaged in significant business activities
in russia, so i am sure you are aware very things happen in that country without vladimir putin's permission. based on your views of russian politics, and your experience, for something like this to have happened without vladimir putin authorizing it? mr. tillerson: i think it is a fair assumption. sen. rubio: that he would have? mr. tillerson: yes. sen. rubio: if congress imposed visa bans and sanctions on persons who undermined the server security and public and private infrastructure of thecratic institutions in united states, would you advise the president to sign it? mr. tillerson: i would certainly want to examine all four corners of that. sen. rubio: those are the four corners. we would sanction people involved in separate attacks against the united states and interfering in our elections. mr. tillerson: the cyber attacks throughout -- those are coming from many corners of the world. certainly, this most recent manifestation -- and i think the new threat posed, in terms of
how russia has used this as a tool -- that introduces even another element of threat. but several attacks are occurring from many nations. sen. rubio: no matter where they come from. if they come from belgium, if they come from france, if someone is conducting cyber attacks against the united states, and we pass a law that authorizes sanctions and imposes sanctions as mandatory, would you advise the president to sign it? mr. tillerson: i think it is that second element, senator, that you just described, that leaves the executive branch no latitude or flexibility in dealing with the broad array of cyber threats. i think it is important those be dealt with on a country by country basis, taking all other elements into consideration, and relationships. giving the executive the tool is one thing. requiring the executive to use it without any other considerations, i would have concerns with. sen. rubio: i understand your testimony. you are saying if it was
mandatory, you would not be able to advise the president to sign it, because it would not allow the president the flexibility to decide which countries to sanction and which ones to not sanction. mr. tillerson: under which circumstances to sanction. sen. rubio: because he wanted to other things under account, such as relations with that country. therefore, the president maybe does not want to sanction them even though they are attacking us. mr. tillerson: there could be a whole array of important issues that require consideration, including trading issues, trade relation issues, mutual agreements around our national security. i do not think it is -- i do not think it is appropriate, certainly, for me, at this time, to indicate i would say it is a blanket application. i think that is the role. -- is the role of the executive branch and is the role of the secretary of state and the state department, to assist and inform the president in judgments about how to use what is a clearly powerful tool. sen. rubio: what is troubling
about your answer is the implication that somehow, if there is some country that we are trying to improve relations with, or have significant economic ties with, you may advise the president not to impose sanctions on that country , or on individuals in that country, out of concern it could damage the rest of our relationship with them on a cyber attack, which is a direct attack on our national security and electoral process. let me ask you, would you advise the president elect to repeal the recent executive orders regarding cyber security and russian interference in the 2016 election? sen. rubio: i think the -- mr. tillerson: i think the president-elect has indicated, and if confirmed, i would support, that what is really required is a comprehensive assessment of our cyber threat -- threat or cyber security policies. in my view, based on what i have been able to read and have been briefed, we do not have a cyber security policy. we do not have a comprehensive strategy around how to deal with what has been a rapidly-emerging
at. -- emerging threat. we are seeing it manifest in ways we had never envisioned. sen. rubio: i understand the cyber security plan. we need to have one to protect ourselves and handle cyber attacks against our country. that is separate from a question of whether people who already conducted attacks should be sanctioned and singled out. there is an executive order now active that has sanctions on individuals. my question is, do you believe that executive order should be repealed by the incoming president? mr. tillerson: i would want to examine it and all aspects of it , in consultation not only with the president, but with other interagency's, as to their views. sen. rubio: given all the executive orders, it says certain individuals responsible for several activities against united states would be sanctioned. you still need to examine whether that is a good idea? mr. tillerson: correct. sen. rubio: let me ask you, is vladimir putin a war criminal? mr. tillerson: i would not use
that term. sen. rubio: let me just from the situation in aleppo, and perhaps it would help you reach that conclusion. in aleppo, mr. krugman has directed his military to conduct a devastating campaign targeting his militaryets -- has targeted schools and markets and other civilian infrastructure. it has resulted in the death of thousands of civilians. this is not the first time mr. putin was involved in campaigns of this time. back when he was just appointed prime minister, before he was elected -- i'm sure you are aware of that time -- there was a series of bombings, and they blamed it on the chechens. esther putin personally said he would punish them, so he ordered the air force to bomb the capital of grozny. they hit hospitals, the main outdoor market filled with shoppers. 137 people died instantly. they used explosive bombs that ignite, and they burned the air breathed in by people hiding in basements. they used cluster munitions. he used battlefield weapons
against civilians. ann all was said and done, estimated 300,000 civilians were killed and the citizen -- and the city was completely destroyed. the incredible body of reporting, open source and others -- all of those bombings were part of an operation on the part of the ssb. if you want to know the motivation, here is what it is. putin's approval ratings for the attacks were 31%. by mid-august, it was at 78%, which is three months. andd on this information what is publicly on the record about what has happened in aleppo with the russian military, you are not prepared to vladimir putin and his military have violated the rules of war and have conducted war crimes in aleppo? mr. tillerson: those are very, very serious charges to make, and i would want to have much more information before reaching a conclusion. i understand there is a body of record in the public domain. i am sure there is a body of record in the classified domain. i think in order to deal with the serious question like this --
sen. rubio: aleppo is in the public domain. the video and the pictures are there. mr. tillerson: fully informed while advising the president. sen. rubio: i encourage you, there is so much information out there about what happened in aleppo and the chechen issue. what happened there is clearly documented. there is so much information out there, it should not be hard to say that vladimir putin's military is conducted war crimes. it is never acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians, which is what happened there through the russian military. and i find it discouraging, your inability to site that, -- cite that, which is globally accepted. in my last minute, an additional question. i want to enter two things into the record. >> sen. rubio: without objection. sen. rubio:the first is a list of critical putin who were murdered or died under suspicious circumstances. the second thing i want to enter into the record is a letter adressed to this committee by
man who was himself mysteriously poisoned, who was an opponent of the regime. i would like to enter that into the record. >> without objection. , do rubio: mr. tillerson you believe that vladimir putin and his cronies are responsible for ordering the murder of countless dissidents, journalists, and political opponents? mr. tillerson: i do not have sufficient information to make that claim. rubio: are you aware they were poisoned shot in the back of the head, and do you think that is coincidental or likely as i believe that they were part of an effort to murder his political opponents? mr. tillerson: people who speak up for freedom in regimes that are oppressive are often in a trap and these things happen to them. in terms of assigning specific responsibilities, i would have to have more information. as i indicated, i feel it is important in advising the
president, if confirmed, that i do with facts, sufficient information, which means having at this to all information. i'm sure there is a large body of information i have never seen . becoming fullyto informed, but i'm not willing to make inclusions on what is only publicly available -- >> none of this is classified. these people are dead. mr. tillerson: your question is people who were directly responsible for that. i am not disputing they are dead. congratulations on your nomination and thanks for coming by to meet me. theuld like to take opportunity to expand upon the conversation we had last the opportunity to expand upon the conversation we had last week. since he worked in one sector for one company throughout your career, getting a sense of your worldview is incredibly since you will be the
chief advocate an adviser to president elect on those issues. i would like to go through a series of questions. i think many of them can be answered by a yes or no. others can take a more extensive answer. you alluded to this in your opening statements. do you believe it is in the national interest of the united states to continue to support international laws and norms is devilish after world war ii? mr. tillerson: yes. you believe the international order includes respecting the territorial integrity of sovereign countries and the invite only of their borders? mr. tillerson: yes. >> did russia violate this order when it invaded ukraine? mr. tillerson: yes. >> is did the continued occupation of foreign country violate laws and norms? mr. tillerson: i am not sure which specific countries. of crimea,xation eastern ukraine, georgia, just to mention a few.
mr. tillerson: yes. >>'s russia's targeted bombing campaign aleppo and hospitals violate the international order? mr. tillerson: yes. it is not acceptable behavior. >> do you believe these actions constitute war crimes? mr. tillerson: i do not have sufficient information to make that type of a serious conclusion. coming to that conclusion will require me to have additional -- >> do you understand knowing a standard and knowing all that is in the realm of public information, you cannot say those actions are a were crime or not? i would want: confirmation from agencies who would be able to present me with indisputable facts. >> i am not taking your time.
it will be added back. have sufficient evidence looking at classified information that had taken place, would that not be a war crime? mr. tillerson: yes. >> thank you. >> does the president-elect agree with you? we have not had the opportunity to discuss this specific issue or this specific area. >> in the statement on page three, you say, in his campaign, president-elect opposed a bold new commitment to banning issues in foreign policy. i hope to explain what this means and how to influence policy if i am confirmed as secretary of state. i assume to some degree you have had it is a show about what it is that worldview will be and whether to understand you are willing to ask you that on behalf of person you will work for. mr. tillerson: in a broad construct and in terms of principles that will guide that, yes.
i would have thought russia would be at the top of that. that has not happened? mr. tillerson: not yet. >> pretty amazing. you builds on a career with exxon mobil that afforded you the opportunity to engage regularly with foreign leaders including vladimir putin of russia. awarded you with the order of friendship award aired in our conversations, you had direct and personal access to the russian president over the course of your tenure there. in 10 -- in 2014, exxon mobil lobbied aggressively against russia after the invasion of ukraine. i should use the senate last year. you employed well known lobbyists to support these efforts and personally visited the white house and reported you were engaged at the highest levels of government. exxon became the in-house lobbyist for russia against these sanctions. sanctions are one of the most
effective diplomatic tools in the arsenal, one we rely on to avoid putting american lives at traditionalging in warfare. today, in response to a previous question, you said sanctions are a powerful tool. you have made statements and given speeches where you said you do not believe sanctions are a useful tool. if sanctions are not a useful tool, have you changed your view? what are the tools of peaceful diplomacy you will use to get --ntries to return and asked what will you say to vladimir putin when he says he said sanctions were bad? mr. tillerson: it is important to acknowledgment sanctions are imposed, by their design, they will harm american business. that is the idea. to disrupt america's business engagement in whatever country
is being targeted by the sanctions. distract the economies of those countries. americans may or may not be affected to some degree. if america will have an influence on disrupting those economies, the intent behind the sanctions is to disrupt backcountry passes access to american business investment, money flows, technology, or the financial sectors. i am only stating a fact. i am not debating it. sanctions in order to be implemented do impact american business interests. in protecting america's's interest, and this is where the president-elect will see the argument as well, sanctions are a powerful tool. let's design them well, let's target them well, and then let's enforce them fully and to the extent we can, if we could have
other countries join us, or if we are designing sanctions in concert, let's ensure those sanctions apply equally everywhere. remarks,ou made your you did not differentiate that way. you basically made a broad case that sanctions are not an effective tool. i heard your response now. statement, opening you said america must continue to display a movement to personal liberty in the foreign policy, and we are the only global superpower with the means of moral compass capable shaping the world for good. i agree with you. the community on sanctions against adversaries like iran and north korea represent exactly that. leadership, and a moral compass. it is not about disadvantaging american businesses. it is about putting patriotism over profit.
diplomacy is not the same as steelmaking. it requires getting countries to do things they may not always want to do. there is not necessarily something to trade. this is how we were able to build an extensive and effective sanctions network against iran, through legislation with congress and diplomatic pressure with secretaries of state across different administrations, we were able to build a framework of primary and secondary action which ultimately crippled iran's economy. you lobbied against the comprehensive iran sanctions and he asked i was the author of your under exxon mobil, you reportedly wanted to eliminate secondary sanctions that would prevent joint ventures. it makes sense as in 2003 and 2000 or and 2005, you were engaged to a subsidiary country in businesses with countries with whom the united states
listed as state sponsors of terrorism, including iran, syria, and the sudan. , except for the maneuver of your subsidiary, exxon mobil could not have been dealing with. exxon mobil is listed as a coalition member of u.s. a engage, an advocacy group that lobbies against sanctions. this group lobbied against sanctions including against iran and employed a passage of a joint comprehensive plan of action. my question is, with the -- with that history, the work you did in spring of 2011, where he oversaw the exxon mobil deal with the kurdish iraq, after the united states government expressly did not want to see that had and, thinking a deal would undermine the u.s. all the of one iraq and leave the country closer to a civil war, what message will you now be able to send to american businesses intent on pursuing their own interest at the
expense of u.s. policies and potential for political stability in foreign countries? how will you recalibrate your priorities as secretary of state ? your shareholders are the american people and their security and interests. mr. tillerson: there was a lot in that question. could respond. i have never lobbied against sanctions personally. >> the company you directed did, -- >> to my knowledge, exxon never directly lobbied against sanctions, not to my knowledge. in terms of the other actions mentioned, they were all undertaken with a great deal of transparency and openness and engagement and input to the process. that is the beauty of the american process. expressre invited to their view and inform the process.
my pivot now, if confirmed to be secretary of state, will have one mission, to represent the interests of the american people. as i have stated multiple times, sections are an important and powerful tool, but designing for effectiveand having sanctions can have a worse effect than having no sessions at all, if they convey a weak response. it is important in designing sanctions that they are carefully crafted and targeted with the intended effect, and then enforced. to the extent american leadership can broaden participation in those sanctions, you are at record right the iran sanctions were extraordinarily effective because others joined in. >> thank you. senator menendez has laid an incredible role making sure sanctions on place and has done, let us all relative to iran, a longer interjection.
your time ran over to come -- to come it interjection i made earlier. my understanding, i think you called me during this time, that your concern with the sanctions that were in place relative to iran or not that they were put in place, but that the europeans had put them in a way that was different, and adverse situation for u.s. business relative to european businesses, is that correct? >> that is correct with sanctions for russia. >> let me go to sen. rubio:'s's questions. i understand how a nominee wishes to be careful how they answer, especially one who plans to do it they say. in the event where he was asking about war crimes, if you were able through your own
independent knowledge and working with classified agents is within the government, to determine that the types of activities he so well articulated took place, you would agree those in fact would be were crimes. mr. tillerson: yes. senator johnson: welcome. imagine you are having a good time already. i want to pick up on sanctions because i have had my concerns about sanctions and the double-edged sword nature of them. you are well aware of public opinion in russia. that noterned well-designed sanctions can solidify vladimir put putin's standing within russia. is that a concern? mr. tillerson: i think it is. sen. johnson: in your testimony,
you said russia is not unpredictable. saying russia is pretty predictable. dosia does not think like we . can you further expand on both comments? [woman yelling] >> that will ruin the climate and destroy the future for our children and grandchildren. please don't put exxon in charge of the state department. ourd-checked -- protect children and grandchildren. please don't put exxon in charge of the state department. >> i could easily add time myself but if we could stop the clock when interferences take place, it would be appreciated. with that said, senator johnson. explain your comments that russia is predictable, basically, and that
russians do not think like we do. expand on that. in my experience dealing with russia and representatives of russian government and russian entities, and the length of time i have spent as an observer, my experience with russians are that they are very calculated, very strategic in their thinking, and -- [woman yelling] collects expendable. in our home state of texas, people are resisting -- whether or not you become secretary of state, oil is dead and people will not stop. senators, stop this man! protect the vulnerable! senators, be brave! vulnerable!
>> answer the question on impeded. -- unimpeded. mr. tillerson: vulnerable! russians generally have a very clear plan they have laid before them. in terms of, when i make this statement, they are not unpredictable. andne is able to step back understand what their long-term motivation is, and you see they will chart a course, it is an understanding of how are they likely to carry that plan out and where are all the elements of the plan that are on the table? in my view, the leadership of russia has a plan. it is a geographic land that is in front of them, and they are taking actions to implement the plan. they are judging responses and making the next step in the plan based upon responses. they are not unpredictable.
if russia does not receive an adequate response to an action, they will execute the neck step of the plan. specific. russia wants to reestablish its role in the global world order. they have a view that following the breakup of the soviet union, they were mistreated in some respects in the transition time. they believe they deserve a rightful role because they are a nuclear power. they are searching as to how to establish that. the past 20 plus years since the demise of the soviet union, they were not in a position to assert that. they spent all of these years developing the capability to do that. areink that is now what we witnessing, an assertion on their part to were sick asian
about what is russia's role in the global order. steps being taken are simply to make that point, that russia is here, russia matters, and we are a force to be dealt with. that is a fairly creditable course of action they are taking. the important conversation to have with them is does russia want to now and forever be an adversary of the united states? do you want this to get worse, or does russia desire a different relationship? we are not likely to ever be friends. our value systems are start different. we do not hold the same values. russian i know the people, because of having spent so many years in russia. there is scope to define a different relationship that can bring down the temperature around conference we have today.
to,he secretary alluded both in their opening marks, dialogue is critical so these things do not spin out of control. we need to move russia from being an adverse area always, a partner at times, and at other issues, we will be adversaries. not unlike the comments i made on china. is friendly and at times, china is an adversary. with russia, engagement is necessary to define what is the relationship going to be and we will know how to chart our own plan of action to respond. >> the specialist met the's relation with different nations, you have friends and allies, friendly rivals, unfriendly adversaries, and enemies. you are basically putting russia in the unfriendly adversary category? mr. tillerson: i think at this
point, they are clearly in unfriendly adversary category. i hope they do not move to an amoebic as that would apply -- imply more direct conflict with one another. >> my troth that we can move them into the friendly rivalry category, maybe partners with a mutual interest? mr. tillerson: friends, partners, and adversaries. partners oniends or specific actions. adversaries from time to time can be partners. on other issues, we're just not going to agree, so we remain adversaries. an adversary at the ideological level is one thing. and adversary at the direct conflict level, that is very different. sen. johnson: i want to switch subjects a little bit. i agree with the senator that your business expense and
private sector background, your relationship to putin is an coming to this position. i come from the private sector and i that kind of perspective is needed. i do not think we have enough people from the private sector. i think economic strength is linked to national strength. your background traveling the world, i do not know if you ever did the calculation. how many different countries have you traveled to? >> i never counted them. 40 or 50? how many countries have you done deals with where you dealt with top leadership? mr. tillerson: i have never counted those, but it is certainly probably between 10 and 20, where i was directly engaged in a significant way.
sen. johnson: as someone from the private sector being asked to serve your nation, understanding you will be in a process like this am a leader -- leaving a lifetime that i'm sure you value. sen. johnson:what was your great reservation saying yes? mr. tillerson: when i went through all of the analysis, the only reasons i had for saying no were all selfish reasons. i had no reason to say no. you obviously have a responsibility as the ceo of exxon mobil. your role will change. do you have any reservation? can you describe what your mindset is from making the transition? sen. johnson: i have no reservations about my clean break with my private sector life. it was a wonderful 41.5 year career. i am proud of it and i learned an awful lot. i am now moving to a completely different responsibility.
my love of country and my patriotism will dictate i serve no one's interests but that of the american people in advancing our own national security. sen. johnson: as you travel the mindset,th a business working at developing projects you arehe world, hearing from people around the world obviously. juner president carter in of 2014 was commenting on president obama's's foreign policy. he said he cannot think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over, president obama. the respect in the world is probably lower than six or seven years ago. is that your general sense as you travel around the world during the last eight years of the administration, that our influence and prestige and respect is lower, that we have not developed that are relations around the world? sen. johnson:
-- mr. tillerson: i know i shared it with others. i spent the last 10 years on an as iended listening tour traveled about the world conducting affairs in beijing with top leadership, heads of state in many of these countries. i have had the opportunity to listen to them express their frustrations and fears and withdrawal to the and stepping back of america's leadership, the lack of that engagement. their yearning and want american leadership reasserted. we were meeting about his ultimately asking me to do this. i indicated to him and said, mr. president, we have a tough hand of cards you have been dealt but i said there is no use in whining about it or pointing fingers. we will just play the handout. i know america still holds all
the aces p or we just need to draw that deck. leaders around the world want our engagement. i said you will be pushing on it opened door because people want to come back. >> in your opening statement, the number of times you used reality, clarity, moral leadership, moral clarity, facts, logic, clear priorities. those are the words of a business person and that is why i believe your prospective will be welcome in the state department. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being willing nomination which has been put forward, to be secretary of state. i agree with your opening statement that the united states has an important role to play in the world, not just standing up for our interests and values, but for democracy and human
rights and rule of law. you are not willing to agree with senator rubio's characterization of vladimir putin as a work of middle. -- a war criminal. you point out russia has disregarded american interests. i would suggest, as has been brought out, they not only disregarded american interest, but international norms and humanitarian interest. the state department described russia as having an authoritarian political system dominated by resident vladimir putin. meanwhile, russia is put in a category of countries like iran with restricted political rights ruled by military dictatorships, hierarchies, or autocrats. do you agree with that characterization of russia and vladimir putin? mr. tillerson: i would have no reason to take exception.
about theators talked people who have been victims of the putin authoritarian regime behind me is aat poster with a recent new york times story. i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the article into the record. worth aa picture is thousand words. when you put a face to surrogate this poster does, and you see two other victims of the authoritarian regime in russia, i think it speaks to what is happening there and how we should think about the country and dealing with president putin. understand what the senator , the former senator and
secretary gates said when they talked about the need to have dialogue with russia and continue in the two mill relationship. i also think it is important for us to understand who we are dealing with. in 2008, you notably said there is no respect for the rule of law in russia today. think that continues to be true? is tillerson: yes, that still the case. >> i think you can probably whyrstand, mr. tillerson, some of us are very concerned about the president-elect'statements praising vladimir putin's leadership, his intelligence, including after being reminded of his ruthless persecution of political enemies and after receiving compelling information that russia has interfered with our elections. do you think now is the right time to lift sanctions on russia? mr. tillerson: i think it is important we keep the status quo until we are able to develop what our approach is going to be
, that it will be all part of the approach. that is, part of the incentives on the one hand, or part of the greater pressure on the other, that will be an important element in developing that approach of that first conversation with russia. if confirmed, that is the foreign policy step i will be working through other agencies, again, in the national security council, with classified information as well as being informed by the views of others to i would leave things in the status quo so we are able to convey, things can go either way. your leadership exit mobile has invested more than $100 million in