tv Truman Center Conference on U.S. Global Leadership Foreign Policy CSPAN June 14, 2019 9:05am-11:46am EDT
>> live coverage this morning here on c-span2. we're waiting for the start of a discussion on u.s. leadership and foreign policy hosted by the truman center for national policy. it's expected to begin in just a moment here live on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. please welcome to the stage president and ceo of truman center for national policy and truman national security project. [applause] >> good morning. good morning, everybody. wow, this is a good looking
room here. great to see so many members and sponsors and our board. thanks for joining us here and welcome to trucon 2019. [applause] >> i am so glad you're hear with us today and i am especially grateful to those of you who traveled a great distance to be here. thank you. before we get underway i want to take a moment to thank those who helped make this event and so much of this possible. we're fortunate to be supported by sponsors in the work we do and the world we seek a create. bob abernathy, carnegie corporation of new york, john d and kathyrn macarthur, and others, and with em to herb to
the truman for over a decade. mr. sandler passed away and i was happy to have met him a few weeks ago. we are not just grateful for their continued investment since 2008, but the willingness to lead by example in funding and guiding the full fight for like-mined organizations. i'd like to thank board members, alvin, steven bailey, jake sullivan, john finer, matt spence. franklin templeton investment. guide house and blue star strategies and all of you, our members, who continue to support us through your dues and your contributions to our community in so many ways. without your support and commitment to truman's mission, none of this would be possible, so, thank you. we're also joined today by a number of our board members, and friends from around the community. and finally, i'd like to ask our hardworking staff who have been pushing for months to make
this a success to please wave their hands. they're mostly at registration. we've got a few in the back, i think they're manning the space here. they've been working really hard and i really appreciate everything they've done. i'm so-- thank you. [applaus [applause] >> and especially for our new members. please take a minute to introduce yourself to our staff. they're really special folks and they're here working for you. and you know, i'm really just so excited to be here with all of you for what is my very furs trucon as the ceo just three months into my tenure. it's been a busy three months and we're really excited to have you here today. our theme today is american global leadership, the path forward. and as ambassador burns detailed so eloquently in his newly released book, the back channel, an american memoir of
sip mroemsy and the case for renewal, the last two years of u.s. foreign policy represent nothing short of what he calls unilateral diplomatic disarmament, born of ideological contempt and stubborn competence. we know when america's interests are being contested in real-time. we had adversaries aplenty without tying one hand behind our back. a new playbook when there are realities and fake ones faster than we can contemplate, legislate and regulate and still, still we know that we must chart a path forward. we must build the america and world in which we want to live, a just, secure, prosperous and inclusive world for all peoples. a world in which america defends its interests, but
doesn't act alone, an america in which we all start living up to the best version of ourselves. you know, our namesake, harry truman said men and women make history and not the other way around and periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better and that's why i'm honored and humbled to stand shoulder to shoulder with our incredible members. nearly 2000 men and women from all across the country, statesmen and airmen, business leaders and academics, legislators, members of congress and now two presidential candidates, pete buttigieg and seth moulton. folks, we are the leaders we have been waiting for. we are not the next generation anymore. we are the now generation. and it is our time. truman is training and supporter and giving voice to our incredible membership to craft the policies and
messaging, to advance the solutions we need to drive u.s. global leadership. our value is clear truman was built for this moment. this conference is one such reflection of our values. in addition to the conversations on the threat of white nationalism, hearing from foreign policy advisors from a number of our campaigns and a great panel on disinformation and military readiness. i hope you'll notice something else, throughout the course of the next three days, 54% of our speakers are women, 47% are people of color. [applaus [applause] >> we have provided pronoun stickers so you can if you choose let people know how you proof to be addressed and a complementary child care and
room for women nursing. and we deserve these ways, big and small. now, as we enter these three, what i hope will be challenging, invigorating, urgent and also really fun and exciting days, i can think of no better person to set the mood and help us understand not just what is at stake, but what we've lost, but also, to really build the case for renewal because this conference is about understanding the current moment, sure, but really, it's about what's to come. the future we imagined and how we build it. and that's why it's an honor and a real pleasure to welcome ambassador bill burns, my former boss, to trucon. [applaus [applause] >> ambassador burns is the chief of mission or the president of the carnegie endowment for international peace, a role that was preceded
by his 33 years of service to our nation as a diplomate. ambassador burns or p under political affairs as many of us know him, has played a central role in most of the major u.s. diplomatic efforts over the last three decades. among them, the end of the cold war, post 9/11 tumult and crafting the deal. among accomplishments he was ambassador of jordan, ambassador to russia. ambassador burns has received distinguished presidential service awards and multiple awards from the state department to include three secretaries distinguished service awards. he is without a doubt one of the great statesmen of the last half sentry and rather astonishingly an incredibly kind and decent man. i will never forget ambassador burns asking after my children as we sprinted through the
margins of the u.n. general assembly. folks, he coached his daughter's sports teams through the midst of this. i don't know what excuse the rest of us have. and the ambassador will reflect on his career and diplomacy and the path forward for u.s. policy. he will be joined by a voice we know well, but a face we don't, mary from national public radio. welcome. [applaus [applause] >> mary lou ise kelly, npr news she's kept that focus in her role as anchor, taking all things to r you shall shah, north korea and beyond including live from helsinki for the infamous trump-putin summit and tracking the cia, terrorism, wars and rising
nuclear powers. kelly's assignments have found her deep in interviews at the khyber path at mosques, and-- and she holds degrees from harvard and cambridge. we're fortunate to have ambassador burns and mary louise kelly here today. help me in extending a warm welcome. [applaus [applause] >> good morning, everybody. welcome ambassador burns. >> thanks, it's great to be with you, with all of you. >> yes, it's a weird task looking at american diplomacy and foreign policy, but i thought i might look backwards for a moment. how did you get started in this gig.
this was early '80s, you write in your book you were offered a princely salary $21,000. >> it seemed like a lot then. >> yeah, it was in washington. and what was the attraction. >> my dad was a career army officer so i learned to respect public service through his experience, as i was growing up. then when i was 18, just by serendipity, one of my best friends in high school's father was the ambassador of egypt so i spent time in cairo at an early age and that was my introduction and then i went to the old u.s. embassy on groves square and took the written exam for foreign service ironically the same week that our colleagues were taken hostage in tehran, should have been a signal to me, i suppose. but you know, i entered never expecting i'd do it for three and a half decades. i was very fortunate. >> i'm hoping i can get you to
tell a few stories of the some of the characters and crazy scenes that you encountered along the way before we get to where we are at this current moment and let me ask you to start with russia. you did a couple of postings there. >> i did, yeah. >> ended up as ambassador, 2005 you went in? >> i did. >> how does that work? you go in and you present your credentials. >> right. you went to the kremlin in this case? >> i did. >> and tell-- >> this is august of 2005, the newly arrived u.s. ambassador. i meet putin at the kremlin, which, as many of you know, is a place on a scale meant to intimidate visitors, especially newly arrived american ambassadors, you go down ornate halls and you go down a hall and two story bronze doors and you're kept waiting there a little and then the doors crack open a bit and here comes
vladimir putin, and despite the bare-chested pictures, he's about five-six with lifts in his shoes. before i got a word out of my mouth he says, you americans need to listen more, you can't have your own way, we can have effective relations and not just on your terms. >> and by the way, welcome to moscow. >> so it was in my experience, vintage vladimir putin, it was charmless, but a direct message and that's the putin with whom we've been wrestling for all of these years. >> one of the perks of being ambassador to moscow is you get to live in the house, and you in your book describe some entertaining dinner parties and guests who made their way through the house. describe the house. >> it's been the residence of the american ambassador since 1934, so george kennon, as a
young dep diplomate who helped move the first ambassador in there. i think there's so many layers of bugs in the walls that it probably confuses the russian security services as well. my wife and i to have anything like a personal conversation, you'd either have to turn the radio on really loud or go for a walk in the garden. but, no, it's a lovely place and the history is full of stories of the house when kennon was serving there in the mid 30's. there was a famous holiday or christmas party in which they brought not only the zoo keeper from the moscow zoo, but a bunch of the trained animals there and they -- one red army general managed to put basically like a, you know, a baby's bottle filled with champagne for one of the trained bears who then managed to get drunk and you know, fall all over the guests and everything else. so that was kind of a high bar
for subsequent entertainment. >> i hope you didn't replicate that in your tenure, but you did host a very young senator obama when he came to moscow? >> yeah, this is the week after i got there. so shortly after this meeting with putin i described. so then senator obama came with dick luger, you know the revered senator from indiana who recently passed away and he was clearly grooming barack obama to be his new sam nunn, you know, his new partner on a lot of arms control issues. and you know, i remember being struck first by senator obama's attentiveness to my daughters, you know, who were very young then, they were in middle school and his daughters were a little younger than that, but he knew very much the experience of taking young kids-- himself moving to new places around the world and he was totally unpretentious at that time. and i don't know if he thought of running for president at that time. >> were you struck by his
knowledge of r you shall sh-- russia. >> no, we talked of other things, we -- moscow traffic was quite bad. he was interested in the george h.w. bush foreign policy and where we were with iraq, two years after the invasion. >> and if i had told you then, 2005, that we would be sitting here in 2019 and vladimir putin would still be the president of russia with several more years ahead of him in that role, what would you have thought? >> you know, it probably wouldn't have shocked me. >> really? >> putin had created a system, even this is a decade ago, with i centered so much on him, even if he changed roles as he did in 2008, you know, when he became prime minister, but he was still the ultimate decision making with deem industry m
medvedev. >> as you watched them play out with u.s.-russia relations and all of the many twists and turns we've witnessed, is the vladimir putin that we can glimpse today, those of us who haven't met him, does it team to track with the vladimir putin you met. you knew him before he was president? >> yeah, no, i met him when he was the deputy mayor of st. petersburg, i think 1994 and he was a very great figure and i was a great figure as the political chief at the embassy. i certainly never thought he was going to be president of the russia and he never thought that i was going to be the u.s. ambassador. putin, grievance and ambition and insecurity wrapped together. he prides himself on being able
to play a weak hand skillfully and he's a realist if not a s cyn cynic. he knows that russia has essentially weaker than the united states. and he says it's not my fault if people with a stronger hand, meaning us, plays them poorly. he has a deep mistrust of his political political elite and foreign leaders and i think he's convinced himself to chip away at an american-led order and he's been effective at parts of that especially over the last decade especially. >> you watched his appetite on taking risks grown? >> i have. i think he's become more reckless. in my earlier experience he was a much more calculated risk taker. i think you saw in ukraine, the appetite not just swallowing
crimea, but the push to the south of ukraine as well and i think his appetite for taking risk has grown and saw that most vividly in our election in 2016. it's not as if putin invented the dysfunction or polarization in our system. he saw it has an opportunity to take advantage and i've always thought in addition to his training in the kgb as a russian security officers, one thing to understand about him he's a judo expert. he's trained to use the strengths of stronger opponents against them. when he saw dysfunction in our system, he's to take advantage. i think he's as surprised as donald trump was that trump won, but i think he sought to accelerate the chaos in our system and put the thumb on the scale of hillary clinton. >> you were there for the famous meeting between putin and hillary clinton back when
he still kind of liked hillary clinton and she asked him about siberian tigers? >> yeah, the conversation had been desultry until then and president putin talking about-- and we talked about things to discuss. bearing in mind his bare-chested persona he sees himself as a great outdoorsman and he took interest in tagging siberian tigers as well as polar bears in the arctic north. with the conversation deteriorating she asked him about that and i've rarely seen putin more animated and he lit up talking about his plans that summer to go up to the russian arctic and tag polar bears. so he took us out of the meeting we were in, down to his private office and you saw all of these very surprise russian
staff and presidential security officers, and he had this big, you know, it occupied the whole wall of his private office this map of russia which is across 11 time zones needs the whole wall for the map and he was animated to places he wanted to go. the punch line is at the end of this if bill clinton, the former president might want to go with him and he said maybe you'd like to come hillary and she was very pligolite, but in e car ride back the last place she'd want to be. >> chasing tigers with putin. >> the last place they would be. >> let me take you to another part of the world, another moment, the arab spring. >> right. >> it strikes me as many of the days you watched history unfold real-time from the state department or from the situation room in that case, i
guess. and just those hours where obama was trying to persuade mubarak in egypt, game over. you're done. you were there? >> i was. and mubarak was convinced that americans by and large were naive about what it took to ensure political control in egypt. you could almost feel it in his voice as he was talking to president obama. with the president quite firmly, if diplomatically making clear to mubarak that the time had come. and you know, mubarak's experience since the revolution began in early 2011 was a classic instance of too little too late. steps he might have taken to open up the system a month earlier, by the time he did it, the street had moved past him and ultimately the egyps armed forces did, too. our friend in the gulf, saudis and others, still bear a grudge over this. their sense is that the obama
administration threw mubarak and the egyptian leadership upped the bus. my experience was the political bus was halfway across his prone political body before the united states pronounced itself on all of this. >> when did it start dawning on all of you, the president and hillary clinton was secretary of state then, that this wasn't restricted to one, two or three countries, this was a whole region. >> it was. i wish i could tell you we predicted the change after the first revolution began in tunisia. you could see the seeds of this for years and years, even from my early posting in jordan. the pace of it and the way in which it evolved in each of the arab societies was very hard to grasp and i'd be the first to acknowledge i think we some some things right and other things wrong, too. in egypt, the i think the president made about the only calls an american president
could on this given the limits of our agency. in libya, while again i think the president was right to act in the way that we did, we got a lot of our medium term assumptions among about how hard it would be to restore order post gadhafi. there was-- . >> you knew gadhafi? >> i did. and i first felt this was another back channel diplomacy in the george w. bush administration when i led secret talks with gadhafi to get out of tichl after lockerbie attack which killed 270 people on an airliner, and then to get out of what was a rudimentary nuclear weapons program and dealing with gadhafi in those years, 2003, 2003, 2004, was the single most peculiar i had as a diplomate. his favorite time for meeting was like 3:00 in the morning.
which was not my prime time. you'd meet him in the middle of the desert with a tent which was not ornate. it was this kind of canvas army tent filled with plastic white lawn furniture and gadhafi sitting there at 3:00 in the morning and he has this-- he had this very disconcerting habit, during the conversation pausing up at the ceiling for three or four minutes presumably gathering his thoughts. >> as a diplomate you carry on the conversation. the distraction for me he was a snappy dresser. and it looked like he was wearing a pajama top with dead dictators on it. >> custom-made. >> i don't think it was a designer item and i would spend three or four minutes trying to figure out how many i could identify. i got pretty good by the end of it, he paused a lot.
the other gadhafi story you may remember, the fall of 2009 he came to the u.n. assembly and speak, leaders are supposed to speak no more than seven or eight minutes. gadhafi spoke for 90 minutes. he didn't have a text in front of him, but little pieces of paper that kept falling off the podium. 70 into the 90 minute monologue shall the wonderful arabic language interpreter at the u.n., i was listening on my ear phones, you could hear him in arabic say, i can't take this anymore. he threw his head phones off and last 15 minutes anybody who didn't speak arabic, they didn't speak much, but the problem with gadhafi, once the revolution began, this was existential for him. he wasn't going to negotiate himself out of existence so however much we may have gotten wrong, some of the medium term
assumptions, you know, i still think the president's decision to act was almost unavoidable because here you had the u.n. security council legitimizing the use of force and at one time or another, everyone around the arab summit table, gadhafi tried to off. he was a unifying factor in the arab world and syria -- as you look at the arab spring tragedies, you know, syria is the most painful, not just because of its impact for syrians, but because of the, you know, really dangerous spillover in the region and outside the region as well. >> well, and i've interviewed many people who you would have been working closely with, veterans of obama's foreign policy team. >> yes. >> who describes syria as their greatest regret and specifically the failure to enforce the red line that obama
drew in 2012. >> yeah, it was a mistake that we all made. and i think there was probably an earlier mistake in the sense that in 2012, when you still had, you know, a pretty significant, if kind of unruly moderate opposition, there was a moment when even the russians, i remember at the time, were quite nervous about assad losing altitude. he was having a hard time recruiting people for the syrian military. he was losing ground in northwestern syria. you know, there was a moment if we could have telescoped the assistance that we provided to the moderate opposition, i'm not at all sure it would have turned the tide on the battlefield or caused the assad regime to collapse, it would have given us more leverage not only diplomatically with the russians and iranians. i think the classic problem in our diplomacy in syria in those years was an imbalance between ends and means. we're setting maximalist ends
outside of moscow, there's a red line with regard to the use of chemical weapons, we intend to apply our means grudgingly. contrast putin, with a military invention that was relatively modest, but he did it in a decisive fashion and that multiplied the political advantage. >> do you see syria and where we are now as an american policy failure? how much responsibility does the u.s. bear there? what's going on? >> it's hard for me having lived through this, having been responsible, scared responsibility, to see this as anything other than had an american policy failure. that doesn't mean it's exclusively an american policy failure. i mean, bashar assad himself has ruined the country.
assad it's accidental, but he was setting up ophthalmology in london when his brother who was an heir was killed in a car accident. he was assuming the family play book in bye brutishly is an article of faith and suspicious of everybody else and did he that in a ruthless fashion. it didn't have to end that way. the initial were peaceful, it was school kids in a small city in southern syria near the jordanian border, but assad reacted in the only way that that mafia clan, which is really what the assad family is, brutally. russians and iranians share a lot of responsibility. i think they saw this as the place where they were going to make their stand against regime change and almost anything the united states did, they were going to double down.
each for their own reasons because russian and iranian interests in syria are know the identical, but it's just an awfully sad episode. in terms of diplomacy for american foreign policy, the reminder of the importance of getting ends and means aligned. >> stay in the region and go to the situation that was leading the npr newscast as i walked in today, iran and what's happening in the gulf, two tankers attacked yesterday, tensions running high. how-- i mean, run us through the playbook of how you navigate that diplomacy when you're talking about two countries that don't have two diplomatic relations? >> right, well, i'd say several things. first, the if the iranians are responsible for the attacks on the two tankers yesterday, that's a reckless and dangerous act. i do this it's at least partly
a predicttable consequence of an american strategy in this administration which says it's about coercive diplomacy, but it's coercive diplomacy without the diplomacy part. which is a pretty big challenge. i've seen working on the iranian negotiations especially secret talks of 2013 how you can make coercive diplomacy works. it's not an accident that the iranians leader's moments were focused because of a broad and international sanctions effort by 2013, value of eye rain -- iranian currency dropped. and the danger which you're seeing unfold today, which all of you are, if you embark on a course of diplomacy, which is all coercion and no diplomacy,
you run the risk of inadvertent includingses and hardliners, there's no shortage either in this administration or in tehran today, become kind of mutual enablers going up an escalatory ladder and you have to remember in the middle east, you know, this is the land of unintended consequences and inadvertent collisions that escalate fast and that's a real danger. in my view, a totally unnecessary one. nobody needs to convince me that iranian actions and lots of different fronts threaten our interests and the interests of our friends, but it was a huge mistake to bail out of the iranian nuclear agreement, not because it was a perfect agreement. i've rarely seen perfect on the menu in diplomacy. it did limit what in my view the imminent risk posed in iran. we still had the challenge of pushing back against other, you know, iranian actions that were threatening and that remained threatening, but we were in a much better place to do it because we had put together a
very strong international coalition that isolated iran and now, i think what we're doing is actually isolating ourselves in some ways, too. >> do you believe this current administration is interested in walking back from the cliff and ratcheting things down? >> you know, it's hard because you see a lot of incoherence. the president's instincts are hard for me to figure. i think he meant what he said he'd be willing to talk to the iranian leadership. this is unburdened by what the comprehensive nuclear agreement is about or anything else, i think there are people around him, john bolton with whom i've worked with different administrations before is one of them who may say what they're interested in is a better nuclear deal with iran. but in fact, i think the real motive is heater capitulation of the iranian regime or the implosion of the iranian regime and i don't think either of those goals are reese realistic
in the near future. the regime is good at opposing its people. and particularly with the demand that secretary pompeo laid out. if the goals are unrealistic then you're left with, as i mentioned before, the dangers of collisions which can escalate and a lot of collateral damage, too, we're doing vladimir putin's work for him in a sense widening the fissure between us and our closest european allies. we're eroding the sanctions over time of the even the foreign minister of germany stood up a year ago and said in the face of reime position of unilateral sanctions in iran all of us need to reduce our vulnerability to the american financial system. this won't happen overnight or next year, but five or six years from now, find out that a tool which has been used or
misused and sometimes quite effective is no longer effective as it once was. >> one of the many points is that someone with your level of expertise experienced directly negotiating with iranian counterparts, it's not clear to you what the u.s. goal is vis-a-vis iran. >> which is always a dangerous thing in diplomacy. people tend to sense the worse for what you're doing, iranians, eye lies or others. the biggest mace-- mistake we're making at a time we're no longer the only big kid on the political block, the resurgence of russia, climate change and revolution and technology. at the moment where actually diplomacy and our capacity to draw on alliances and mobilize coalitions of countries matters more than ever. it matters a lot more in a way
than the unipolar than 20 years after the cold war. it's that capacity to draw in alliances and mobilize coalitions and it sets us apart from lonelier powers like china and russia. my worry we're squandering that at a moment when it matters most, not just on iran, but other issues. >> let's turn to a different situation, north korea. you're making the pitch for reenergized diplomacy going forwardment can diplomacy solve the problem and god knows many have stride. >> the policy the last 30 years is littered with examples where we weren't able to make diplomacy work for one reason or another. >> i never took issue with president trump's instinct to try to-- unorthodox to try diplomacy on
its head with kim jong-un, but it's not like i could point to a pristine record of diplomacy before that. i think the problem remains, you've got to connect that symmetry and personal relationships that do matter to the day in, day out hard work of diplomacy. after two summits with kim it's pretty obvious obvious to me in the near future that this north korea regime is going to completely denuclearize. are there ways to reduce the dangers in the meantime? and here, you know, if you set aside the irony of what i'm about to say in the trump era, i think you could actually learn a little from the experience of dealing with iran. you know, after the secret talks in 2013, which i led along with another truman
project alum, jake sullivan, you know, we helped put together an interim agreement, which froze the iranian nuclear program and rolled it back in some important respects, introduced intrusive verification and procedures, in return to very limited sanctions relief. we preserved the bulk of the sanctions for the late r later comprehensive talks. that's the kind of step i think would be a practical step forward dealing with north korea. it would be infinitely more difficult to do, it would be make you nostalgic for dealing with the tehranions. i think that north korea leadership is going to not go. and i think that the president is unarmored with letters at the top and if i were kim
jong-un that's the way i'd want it. >> and you're dealing with leaders on both sides who have not embraced delegating and allowing their staffs. >> has not been career enhancing for people who get delegated in north korea. >>? and how could you detail moving forward? that's not how either of them operate. >> i think it's a fanciful to think you could do that. if you ask about diplomacy, i don't see-- that's the way to maximize the interest and the leverage that all of our allies and partners and that the china give us because you know, they hold a lot of the cards on north korea as well. >> so what is the state of your u.s. diplomacy today, if i ask you for one word? >> well, hollow. i think it's being hollowed out is the two-word answer. you can measure that in
tangible and intangible ways. i would add it's not like donald trump and the people around invented the drift in diplomacy. since the end of the cold war, the era that i went through, we've had a hard time in dim mroel -- diplomacy. given our weight in the world, it didn't seem like we had that diplomacy. and then after 9/11, there was more in the intelligence tools. i think what president trump has done is accelerated it ap made it worse. >> you're saying the decline is inevitable no matter who won in 2016? >> i don't think that it's inevitable. if hillary clinton had won in 2016, we would have had to
recognize we're in a new era and it's more contested and crowded and matters more to the united states for cold-blooded reasons. looking at it to strengthen it as a tool of foreign policy along with the other national security tools. you never get far in diplomacy unless it's backed up with military knowledge as well. that's going to be the case in the post-trump in a year or five years. and we're digging ourselves a hole today in terms of our role and influence in the world. we'll eventually stop digging whenever that is, but it's not like the rest of the landscape is static. we're going to climb-- when we stop digging we'll climb to the top of the hole and look out on a landscape
that's hardened against our landscape and values. allies are starting to lose faith. adversaries are taking advantage, russia, or china, and in our enlightened self-interest we've worked so hard over decades to shape that we're starting to teeter. for those reasons, i worry and look at the practical measures in the state department today. you have a record number still almost three years into an administration of senior evacua vacancies and important ambassadorial approach. and over the last three or four decades when i was a diplomate to create a foreign service that looked more like our society. when i entered in 1982 most american diplomates looked like me, nine out of ten were white and only a quarter were women in that era.
by the time i left. the gender balance close to 50-50, but inadequate at-- those trend lines have been reversed. there's a pernicious aspect to go after career civil service officers just because they worked on controversial issues in the last administration. that's the way you corrode an institution in my experience and the last thing i'd say there are the intangible factors. president trump a year and a half ago wassed ask if he was worried about the senior diplomates and vacancy, he said not really because i'm the only one who matters. that's not diplomacy that i learned as working for jim bakker as secretary of state. >> let me challenge you though, because it sounds like you're describing, there's two tracks here. right? the there's the decline perhaps in american diplomacy.
>> yeah. >> and a decline perhaps in american influence overall. >> yes. >> which are related, but not the same thing. i'm raising it because i have a distinct memory of sitting at the state department well before trump, this is back to the run-up to the war in iraq. so 2002, early 2003. colin powell was secretary of state and i'm taking notes at the briefing and had a moment i'm not sure this is where the most impactful american foreign policy is being formulated. that's being done through military channels and done at langley and other placesment my point being, is it worth considering that perhaps america is conducting foreign policy with more clout and leverage through policies that are just not diplomatic? >> i think-- i mean, i disagree a little bit. i think you're right relatively speaking american influence in the world is not the same as it
was at the unipolar moment again when i was working with baker through the department. and the way the nnl system works, powers rise over time like china. that's begun to shift. unforced errors, the global financial crisis. the reality is, precisely we still have a better hand to play than anybody else. it's not the predominant one, it's an important instrument along with the other ones because to multiply in the world of you need allies and there's intelligence sharing and contributes enormously do that. president trump used to say if
everybody project looks like a nail and the military is your hammer then you're going to use the military all the time. as those of you who are veterans in the audience know. that creates an imbalance over a time. we end up expending blood and treasure in conflicts at least in some instances could be voided or mitigated and using that 0s or tool of first resort. that's the only thing that i think we've missed and again i'm not just hanging this on the trump era. we missed this in previous extent not as egregiously as it is now. that's the realization that american statesmen have to come to, in this era, diplomacy backed up by these other tools matters more than ever. >> there's a lovely closing thought in your book, you quote detookville, and his quotation that the greatness of america
lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but in her ability to prepare her faults. you do add, quote, the trump era poses a test for our capacity for self-prepared even beyond phil took's imagination". and the book offered a broad description of preparer. >> i wonder if that's a for dummies level. what advice would you give to the state department to navigate and the world they're wrestling with. >> there are at least three things as obvious to you as they are for many. for this, you need a political leadership that understands we've entered a different era. you can't turn the clock back. diplomacy does matter more than ever. second, we have to be honest with ourselves as professional
diplomates in the state department. you know, while individual american diplomates can be inbound credibly creative, innovative, as a institution, there's lots-- we tell ourselves we're gardeners, this was the george kennon, george schultz metaphor, sort of pruning problems around the world. we haven't done so great with the messy state department. the thing we could do would be to layer, too top heavy, the state department is. and then you have to add 21st century skills and you have to be creative. if you want to bring people in in the state department even a couple of years, experience in technology, you have to look at ways for people to come in temporarily at middle levels.
the same for climate issues and which the state department is suck in the 20th century by and large. and last but not least, we have to be honest about the reality there's a pretty big disconnect in our society between people like me, card carrying members of the washington establishment. when we preach the virtues of disciplined american leadership in the world. there are lots of americans who don't need to be persuaded about the importance of american engagement, but skeptical about the disciplined part. they've seen too much since the 9-11 era we haven't been especially disciplined. you've got to over time build more of a domestic compact, not just with the congress which they were going to determine appropriation and lots of other things. there are lots of people out there, many you know well, governors, mayors, who have a very practical stake in
engagement with the world with whom you can work. that needs to be a higher priority, i think. >> you would still advise today's teenagers and college students to go into the path that you chose? >> absolutely. >> if you want to serve your country and have an impact. >> part of the reason why i wrote this book, at a moment when not just diplomatic service in general has been so belittled and denigrated. i wouldn't have traded by experience with anything. i would have trade add few moments here and there. it was a wonderful experience and especially in this era for the united states, you can do a lot of good. not just for our interests, but for people around the world. i'm a passionate believer in public service and i know a lot of people are turned off today, you know, applications for the foreign service are off something like 30% after 20 years in which applications
rose, and that's had a really discouraging statistic. but it's actually a very good time in a way to get in. you know, people who come in as junior diplomates or at career civil servants can be part of a renewal phase in an effort not just to renovate the state department, but america's role in the world. that's an exciting possibility. >> you may have just answered my question, here it is. we interviewed you on npr a few weeks ago. and one of the questions we asked was whether you felt in your time at the state department that broadly speaking, america had been a force for good in the world and you said yes. but it occurs to me we frame that as during your time at the statement department. you left in 2014. years later do you feel that america is a force for good in the world? >> i think there's a lot more
room for doubt in the last three years. i think we're doing a lot of things around the world that are damaging to our own interest. squandering the access that provides. and we're walking away and climate issues being the best example of that, at a time when the challenge is only bigger and we're missing opportunities there and we're missing an opportunity to help begin to shape workable rules of the road and a lot of the challenges posted by the revolution and technology is not going to come through some grand convention, it's from like-minded companies working together to basic worlds that shape the incentives or disincentives and russia over time. i worry about the missed students now. i think we're checking our values at the door in too many relationships with authoritarian leadership and saudi arabia being a classic
example today which is not a service to the long-term future of those societies either because if they don't come to grips with some of the problems they're going to become more britt tal over time and they're going to about many less reliable partners over time, too. you know, the last thing i'd say i've been a big believers in the years i've spent serving the united states overseas in the power of our example more than the power of our preaching and i think we're setting up a pretty lousy example today and that spills over into how people look not just at the american government, but at what we think we embody at our best. we're not always at our best, but at our best, i think, we embody a sense of openness and respect for the dignity of human beings and without that there's a consequence not just for american interests, but for the way international order evolves, too. >> ambassador burns, thank you. [applause]. >> thank you.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this form on global leadership from the treatment center is taking a brief break. we will continue our live coverage in just a couple of minutes. we just heard from former deputy secretary of state william burns who served in the bush and obama administration's. he talked about russian president vladimir putin.
>> as you've watched these last i i guess three years now play out with u.s.-russia relations and all of -- [inaudible conversations] >> as you watched these of i ids three years now play out with u.s.-russia relations and all of the many twists and turns we've witnessed, is the vladimir putin that we can glimpse today, those of us who haven't met him, doesn't seem to attract vladimir putin, you knew him before he was president. >> i first met him when he was the deputy mayor of st. petersburg, i think thinking that for and he was a very great figure. i was a very great figure as the political chief at the u.s.
embassy. i certainly never thought he was going to be president of russia. i admit indigent he never thought i would be the u.s. ambassador. putin in my experience is very combustible combination of grievance and ambition and insecurity all wrapped together, and i think he prides himself in being able to play a week and skillfully. he's a realist if not a cynic turkey understands that russia has a much weaker hand than the united states. remember him saying publicly about a year ago that eventually it's not my fault if i play a weekend well and people with stronger hands, many others, play it poorly. he has a deep mistrust of his own political elite than most other foreign leaders and think he's convinced himself that the way to create space for russia as as a major power in the world is to chip away at an american-led order. and he's been quite effective at that in different parts of the world over the last decade especially. >> you've watched his appetite
for confidence in taking risks grow. >> i have. i think he's become a little more reckless over time. in my earlier experience he was much more tact weighted risk taker. i you saw in ukraine and appetite not just crimea but the push and the rest of southeast ukraine, and i think his appetite for taking risk has grown and, of course, we all saw that most vividly in our election in 2016 where it's not as if putin invented the dysfunction or polarization in our system. he saw it as an opportunity to take advantage and a postdoc in addition to the string and the kgb as a russian security officer the other thing to understand about it, one of the other things is he's a judo expert and so he's trained any sense to use the strengths of stronger opponents against them. so when he saw the dysfunction in our system, it was an opportunity to take advantage. i think he was as a prize that
donald trump was that trump one, i think he saw an opportunity to accelerate a chaos in her system and put his thumb on the scale against hillary clinton. >> before we leave putin tell us the story, because you were actually there, the famous meeting between putin and hillary clinton back when you still kind of like hillary clinton and she asked him about siberian tigers. >> yeah. the conversation had been pretty, kind of putin complaining about american policy and secretary clinton on the car ride out to putin's, we talk talked with other things to discuss amna said, again bearing in mind is bare chested persona he seasons up as a great outdoorsman and he taken this particular interest in tagging siberian tigers as well as polar bears in the russian far east and we in the arctic north. as the conversation was kind of deteriorating, she asked him about this. i have rarely seen putin more
animated. he literally sort of lit up talking about his plans that summer to go up to the russian arctic and tagged polar bears. so we took us out of the meeting we were in, down to his private office, and you saw these very surprised russian staff and presidential security officers. andy had this big, it occupied the whole wall of his private office, this map of russia which of course 11 time zones needs a whole wall for its met. and he was very animated as his pointed to places he would go pick anyway, the punchline is at the end of this he asked if first bill clinton the former president but want to go with them. then he said maybe you'd like to come, hillary. and she was very polite. i remember in the car but coming back make clear if that's the last place she or her husband wanted to sit in their summer vacation. that was the high point. >> tigers and putin.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are in the midst of a brief break your in this discussion on u.s. global leadership and foreign policy. up next a discussion on the progressive vision for foreign policy and national security as we had up to the 2020 the 2020 presidential election. this is hosted on the treatment center for national policy. it should resume here in just a couple minutes. live coverage on c-span2.
[inaudible conversations] >> live coverage here from this event with the truman center for national policy hosting a discussion on u.s. global leadership and foreign policy. they are in the midst of a brief coffee break, expected to start in just a moment or two. up next will be a look at progressive vision for foreign policy, national security, leading up to the 2020 presidential election. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> once again we are live here at the truman center for national policy. they are hosting a discussion on u.s. global leadership and foreign policy. a look at the progressive vision for foreign policy and national security as we head into the 2020 presidential election. that will be the topic of the next discussion here. it should start in just a moment. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to get started again.
there's plenty of room up at the front if you want to scoot forward and make a little more room for people and back. please welcome to the stage john driscoll, chairman of the truman project board of directors. [applause] [inaudible] i'm chairman of the truman national committee -- [inaudible] i am absolutely thrilled to have you here. [inaudible]
-- what we needed to push out there, ideas. we are now in a position of aggressive defense for the idea, the ideal of america -- [inaudible] will talk about how they are helping our candidates, all of these candidates are our candidates, form a more progressive vision for america and american foreign policy in a way that can touch the hearts and minds of the voters. we need to win. over the next hour we are going to hear from many different perspectives, let me just be very clear that we are all aligned in a truman vision of an america that is empowered and principled. moderating our panel this morning is amna nawaz. it is a major new but she just
one at peabody so let's have a round of applause for that. [applause] >> she's a national correspondent for pbs "newshour." joining her wilby tony blinken with you as a senior foreign policy advisor for vice president joe biden. tony previously served as a former deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser. we also have matt duss, foreignn policy advisor for senator bernie sanders. prior to joining senator sanders, matt was a national security and international policy analyst for the senate for american progress and the president of the foundation for middle east peace. also on stage is sasha baker who serves as a policy advisor for elizabeth warns presidential campaign. sasha served in a similar role for senator warren senate office and as deputy chief of staff to former secretary of defense ash carter. and finally, tarek ghani who co-leads foreign policy team for former truman fellow mayor pete
buttigieg pic is also an assistant professor strategy at washington universities business school. i will now have the floor over to amna. -- hand. [applause] >> hi, good morning, everybody. can you hear me okay? actually. thank you for being here. why don't you come on up and take a seat? i think we got the order right. i'm going to swing lectures i can see you guys. good morning. we her to talk about what a progressive vision for foreign policy national security looks like. just a you guys know and for you as well, this is going to be a conversation. you guys can feel free to jump in the fifth something to add or disagree with someone for something that was just said. i will tell you when we need to move on. also one program you know, may
have seen matt spence was listed as potential participant from the, o'hare skipping. because of a scheduling conflict and some last-minute issues, he was not able to make it. they really wanted to. we have four wonderful panelists instead of five wonderful panelists this morning. one more thing. at the end of my susa questions will open it up to the router i think you have no card you can buy two questions that an occupant heads up towards end of the conversation when there's a last call system can come around and collect those. let's jump in. i'm a choice i like the news. sawchuk am i will start with you on this. this morning we now know the u.s. says iran is to blame for the attack on two oil tankers in the hope of oman. knowing what we know now and i know they're trying to declassify more information, what would a president warren b singh today to the american people about what we know? >> will look, i mean, i think obviously the news is concernin
concerning, and it's something we need to take seriously but i think we need to know more. i think that we need a full and thorough and transparent investigation of what happened, and unbiased investigation of what happened. because i think at this point we just don't know enough to really say. of course the united states should defend its interests, defend freedom of navigation, but important not to rush to conclusions and important not to take steps that would otherwise escalate what is already a fairly inflammatory situation. >> desert would feel the same way? patience is the best guide right now? no strong disagreement? >> there's a couple things going on that we have to be concerned about. first is this. i iran unfortunately has track record of reckless provocative actions i can make things worse. but we are now operating in the context where we have a crisis that is basically self-created
by the trump administration. the nuclear deal that we reached was working. that was torn up and we are now in an environment where we're heading inexorably towards some kind of escalation or were evef things are an intended we may have consequences that we regret. so in dealing with the situation i would hope that the administration would do exactly as sasha said, which is let's get the facts, find out what happened. let's make sure though that we preserve freedom of navigation on vital national waterway that is vital to global commerce. if this turns into a confrontation between the united states and him and things will get worse not better. last thing i want to put on the table. we also have a crisis of credibility. the fact that we have to debate whether what the administration is saying about who's responsible is the truth or not tells you all but about the credibility of this administration. when you're in a crisis, credibility is your most important currency. they lost it. they forfeited it.
>> i would have to do, we need to be moving into situations like this with strong relationship with the partners, particularly in europe. i would point to the statement the eu made when they said we need maximum restraint. that was a specific reference to the trump top administration pf maximum pressure we don't want our european allies to have to hold the united states back. we want to be booked with them and we're in that situation right now. >> what i think is critical is there is an alternative to war. [inaudible] -- so i wouldn't miss quarter, they were very clear and this was as of yesterday so just to be transparent, we have no interest in engaging in new conflict in the middle east. we will defend our interests that a war with iran is not in her a strategic interest nor in the best interest of the international community. that is coming from own defense department.
[inaudible] >> i i want to brought out a little bit too sensitive for how we will find this discussion which is as idea of a progressive foreign policy, what that looks like today. some recent studies and surveys have shown a lot of uncertainty from the american public about what exactly our foreign policy is as a nation, right? decades after the cold war, 18 years after 9/11, the top two values according to center for american progress recent study when it comes to foreign policy shows that terrorism and a strong economy ranked at the top of that list. so tell you, as succinctly as you can, what would be a president biden foreign policy goal? >> first i'm going to let him speak for himself and he will be addressing these issues. never get ahead of your boss. i think it safe to say this. i suspect we all agree about the basic principles that we need to be looking to. at a very fundamental level it's pretty simple -- [inaudible] defend our country and its people that are under threat we
need great -- [inaudible] reising and should prospered in the united states and do what we can -- [inaudible] advance our values and those are kind the foundational building blocks. from there, very quickly a few things. important and basic object is moving forward. first, defend the country, protect our security but do it in a a way that doesn't get us embroiled in endless wars with expensive deployment of forces. [inaudible] second, mobilize others to deal with a whole set of common challenges, whether it is threats in the cyber domain, whether it's terrorism. to your point, whether it is aggression from russia or others. third, make sure that we win the competition for the 20% and that means investing in our own people in meaningful ways so that they can compete in a globalized world. we all have different use
different takes on globalization, i think we're probably all agree you can't stop. you may be able to shape it, may be implemented in different directions but it will not stop. we need to invest in them. >> let me ask you there is this growing support for the idea like you have to be strong at home to be strong abroad. how would a president sanders you that? >> i wouldn't say it has to be sequential. both of things have to go together. yes, economic want to make sure that's prosperity issued, that we have a system that spreads the benefits around more equally economic unequally. i think that is also something shared among a lot of the candidates. but i think a deeper part of that is not just economically but politically, democratically, our democratic health of the health of our constitutions. that is something that matters for our foreign policy. it matters for what we monitor
the rest of the world weather when we talk about human rights and democracy and equality abroad, how much weight that actually has when people see how it is and is not practiced here in the united states. this gets the more difficult problem but also think a presidential campaign is a uniquely kind of valuable time to get this effort, after 26 in one of the things we saw on whole range of policy issues things that were seen as consensus turned out not to have a very strong consensus. at least the contents is was weaker than many of us believed it to be. while coming up with better foreign policy ideas and initiatives and in many cases reversing some of the damage trump has done, it's important i think what is just as important in terms of america's role in the world is to try to develop and forge a new and durable consensus around those policy ideas because that's the only way we will start to rebuild trust in america's word around the world. >> there is this shia
priorities, of what a potential president would put first. tarek, there's in the study and the numbers revealed a generational divide when it comes to this priorities. younger americans gen x, james e and millennials what the focus on domestic issues. i'm curious how is the youngest candidate how a president pete would approach that. as a part had to be in focusing here at home? >> look, one thing that particularly is important is that pizzagate in major foreign policy address. he gave that address in bloomington, indiana, and this comes back to the question of how to get conversation that took happen here within the beltway out into the heart of the country so that we can actually engaging voters with our instead of separate out and having more dialogue. that address i think he was quite clear on to sort of big points. one is given the moment we are in, and given how much transformed the changes taking place in the world, we do need
to go back to first principles and building up with tony said, comes down to american values, american interest -- [inaudible] what comes to priorities specifically going back to question, we can't afford to choose one or the other. we have to do both. i reject the premise we can only decide to be strong domestically or to represent of as abroad. what it comes down to, we can only be successful abroad if we're revitalizing our stop at home. that's the essence of what he's arguing. >> sasha, one writer called senator warren and left wing american first are. is that there? >> i don't think i would put it that way. [laughing] but just to agree with what you're getting from the pelican i do think it's important for us to rethink how we talk about this divide between foreign and domestic policy.
and to talk to voters and to talk to americans about why these things are so intertwined, and to do a a way that meaningl in their lives. lots of polling shows climate change is important particularly to younger voters. we know that if were going to achieve the climate goals that the scientists are telling us we need to cheapen or to bend the curb on the temperature, even if we did everything in our power domestically, we also need countries around the world to get in the game and reduce emissions as well. that's a domestic challenge but it's also a foreign policy challenge. similarly think that something like 5g. while we has been in the news recently. if -- huawei -- if we want to have an alternative to something that we fear might have either espionage implications or the chinese could have some leverage over our systems can we have to offer an alternative. it takes investment in research
and infrastructure. those are domestic investments. they are cute foreign policy implications. we have to shift that we talk about these things and the hope is americans around the country will see these things are intertwined. >> there is when it comes to priorities where the rubber meets the road is the money and spending in the budget. matt, i want to ask you about that because senator sanders has been outspoken critic about increasing military budget. last year defense budget which i think was a new record passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. he did not vote for it. but as president we veto a budget like that? >> i don't know if i'm prepared to say that right now but the issue of ballooning defense budgets and how as you said these things are always passed overwhelming by partisan support, yes, when someone comes up with an idea like the green new deal or some new domestic benefit, they are always ask these questions, how will you pay for it? what he's hoping to do among the things he's hoping to do is try
to cultivate a new conversation to say listen, helping our people whether it's health care, whether it's college or any of these other domestic issues, these need to be seen as part of our national strength and our national security in very much the same way we talk about defense budget so there are certain things he will cut. he's looking at that right now, we'll have a plan putting out where we are looking to cut, but i think just as important is to elevate some of these other things when we are talk about our national security and our national strength and prosperity, these things matter just as much. >> but you are not prepared to say he would veto? >> not right now. >> dizzy when else know if the candidate would veto the budget? >> the question i think is almost better framed not how much we spend but how we spend it. that's what we need to be focusing on. >> you're okay with an increasing budget as long as -- >> it all depends. if we can agree on what we need to be doing and how we need to be doing it, then the resources
need to be applied. we may be spending less, windows, and may be spending more but i think it's putting the cart before the horse catsa topline number and the not the focus on how are we spending this money, are we addressing the threats we face. the second thing, i think we need a much broader definition of national security. for example, when you have an imbalance in the pentagon is getting $20 for every one dollar the sticky from the gets and you devalue diplomacy and preventing a competent taking place in the first place, instead of in all resources into thinking you're going to fight it, that's a problem. that's something else that a think we need to rebalance. >> i agree with everything tony to sit at a think to put even a sharp report on it, if you think about the words of the future, they're not the worst we've been fighting particularly talk about moving on to confront future threats. we recognize that the threats we face for example, in the technology domain as we move over to cyber conflicts, requiring much different
deposition of our domestic spending budget and that's tied completed to the point, fundamentally our domestic economic competitiveness, think about all the investments we could put into an eye, machine learning, to things on future rise like quantum computing. the money we're putting in now is a tiny fraction of what our competitors around the globe like china putting in and we think about this and what a two-year budget cycle and are thinking about this and 15 at 20 of strategic planning cycles. it were not prepared to take that on and think funny middle of investment in domestic economy fundamentally repairs us to secure our national security, then we're not having the right conversation. >> you mentioned the worst when fighting. i want to talk about those. sasha, senator warren has called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from afghanistan. today the most recent assessment shows i think they can to upwards of 4% of the population in afghanistan. they had gotten stronger. is that an acceptable number for
viewers to be withdrawing troops? >> i think we're to to think about that question differently, which is how is the continuation of our troops and afghanistan actually benefiting the situation? it's clear that after nearly two decades in that country can we tried counter-narcotics, we tried 10,000 10,000 troops cand 100,000 troops, that there isn't a military solution to the problems that afghanistan faces because they're not all military in nature. where you have population that has a deep mistrust of its own, but where there is corruption, where poppy production is rising across the country, it is not i think there ask our service members to solve problems that are fundamentally not military in nature. what senator warren would say if you hear is we need a responsible withdrawal, not precipitous we do need to bring our troops home to guess it's not clear their set solution. it's not fair for speedy what
would a timely look like? >> i think that's the kind of thing you determine as you go. it's not something i want to put a direct number on today, but it starts right away. i think that's where she is. >> i think saw she is right to put her finger on responsible withdrawal but i think we all agree this is -- [inaudible] and we need to get out for the reasons she very eloquently put. but responsible is critical. at the same time that the administration is appropriately negotiating with the taliban, president trump without a fairly consulting anyone in his voted administration nevermind the afghans says were going to pull all of our forces out, start have been out, he wants to get down to 7000. that might be the right objective and you may be correct intuitively that we all think this is going on too long and needs to end, but to do that at the very time you negotiate with the taliban and the number one objection is to get american forces out, use that as leverage. you might get a better deal.
>> that, i want to ask you something about 2009. 2009. you said patient and afghanistan is a virtue. back then you make the argument we should wait for the election results before determine any kind of path forward. there's another election looming now, probably in september, will see, but how would you argue now that it withdrawal is definitely the way to cope when we don't know how that election will turn out? >> i would say ten years after that, i think at that point there was still, it was a new president, a new policy. they were putting more troops in afghanistan to see if they could reproduce some security gains. i think ten years later i think we have the answer. so yeah, i think, you know, the verdict is in what we can do with the military. that's not to say we have other tools we should use those tools, but i would also kind and soon out a little bit more talk about afghanistan. let's remember what we got into
afghanistan, under what authorities. i think we need to look at the broader way we approach and prioritized and emphasize terrorism as this dominant lens through which we see our security not only in the region but around the world in this country, the weight we securitize a lot of his problems like immigration. i'm sure we'll get to that later, the way we started to see immigration as a possible source of terrorist threats i think is really corroded the way we talk about national security. as with talk about afghanistan,, we also need to talk about repealing the 2001 aumf, having a much more limited set of authorizations to deal with some of these problems. afghanistan is important in itself have been there the longest american war but i think we need a much bigger and robust conversation about the way we have wrongly elevated terrorism to this dominant theme of our approach to the world. >> i knew in that speech mayor
pete mitch and he wants to repeal the aumf but something you mentioned about this doctrine responsibility to protect and this is something haven't heard anyone yet addressed up your which is yes , it's the longest working yes billions of dollars have gone into an effort that most can agree has been largely failed but is there no responsibility to the pipe relation we went in with the intent to try and help? >> you are referring to afghanistan cynically? >> yes. [inaudible] mayor pete has been very clear on this particular issue and i can't answer your question as well. matt was given towards the answer which is weeping afghanistan for very specific very specific reason, the 9/11 attacks. articles should remain to been afghanistan for me of a certain attacks to be used under allies. as we look to the longer terms ways in which we achieve those goals, last couple weeks isis reising of the threat in eastern part of that country, so when you to talk about what responsibility actually means
and be honest with the american public about the means for a small specialized counterterrorism capacity during any transition period as that political process place out. otherwise we really in a much more dangerous position overall. now with respect to the responsibility for tech, that's a merging norm in the international community that is focused on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. i don't think that's necessarily what we would talk with in a context that afghanistan today. those are two separate conversations we can have. >> saw sure, want as something else. tony, back to you for a second. this is a different time, the war was sent to the place but you did commit back in 2014 to say we want to complete the job we started there. and afghanistan. and i guess at this point is a withdrawal still in the plan for vice president biden. >> is i come back to it tarek said. complete the job. the job was to deal with the
terrorist threat. yes in an ideal world we would like to remake afghanistan in a different way? sure but we can't do it. i think we all agree to the extent we believed believe we o it, the verdict is in your we can't. so the question is what do we do at this point to protect our foreign interest and to protect the resurgence from these groups that does not require 14,000, 7000 american forces there. it does require at least in my judgment some kind of follow-on presence that focuses on counterterrorism to make sure that to the extent possible what we went therefore doesn't rise up again. >> related to afghanistan, tony, in 2016 vice president biden said he expected guantánamo bay military prison to because before president obama left office. not happened yet. that the priority. >> was yes. >> quickly? >> we found out the challenge of doing it. i think we had about 240
prisoners at guantánamo when they came to office. think it's down to about 40 now but, unfortunately, congress repeatedly blocked efforts to find ways, responsible ways to close guantánamo and to do with the remaining population. i'm not saying it's going to be easy, but we also know that about this time guantánamo has become a symbol that has made it probably the most effective tool for extremist that exist. [inaudible] >> nevermind our legal traditions to keep it open and to keep a group of people there who may be there and to current circumstances for life without adjudication. that should be unacceptable to every american. >> sasha, tony mr. carper skin in the way of closing it down. senator warren voted against a bipartisan plan that would've made it easier for some of those prisoners to be allowed into the u.s. and eventually to close guantánamo bay. where is her stance today? >> i think her stance of what
always been which is we do need to close guantánamo and we need to do it sooner rather than later. there's, i agree with tony, there's i values argument that this is that something that represent who we are and that frankly is been used as a recruiting tool around the world. there's also a pragmatic argument here. in the years since guantánamo, i think give it eight military commissions. six of those were 3ds, three of them were over. >> translator: cost as $91 million a year. in that same time frame we've had 600 terrorism convictions in civilian courts so there's very clear evidence that we can prosecute people who are accused of these types of crimes. we have to do it in a way consistent with our values and that's something she would support. >> can anyone commit to closing guantánamo with a potential first term of presidency? [laughing] no one. >> i think we all know congress
has a fundamental role to play. if congress isn't prepared to do its job and to help us close guantánamo and how are we going to bring them back here to actually serve in article iii trials? >> you have sitting -- there seem to be some disagreement about how to even close about. >> this goes back to the center point of what the campaign represents, which is for every member of cards to take the difficult felt the need to take, we need to get the conversation out of d.c. into the heartland and the engaging voters. it were having this conversation inside the term, if it's not spilling over, if a contracting the what the cost is, not just on value spaces but also to her strategic interest, didn't you need to keep guantánamo open than we are not moving forward on this. it's not just about who sits in the widest it's the whole of government approach and particularly the checks and balances we haven't congress. >> if i could help take some of heat off the sauce you here, i think there was a -- [laughing]
>> obviously the location of where these people are in prison but there was the issue of his legal limbo. guantánamo itself is a symbol but also some of the legal issues tony talked about the fact they are detained indefinitely under laws of war for a work which hasn't in by definition that was very much in the minds of some the people what questions about the plant so yes, there is absolutely, i hope the next administration will have a lot of energy to developing that political consensus that this new solution will need but i think that is one of the life issues. >> no one is committed to closing to within a potential first of? >> i think this is critical because it's related to the point i just made about guantánamo. mayor pete stated a point he stated on the camping trip before that which is we need to repeal and replace the 2001 aumf. what it comes down to those having a really serious discussion of what it's going to
look like. this is a task for congress to call us has to take the difficult vote and not pass the buck and say we don't want to be here deciding when we send our sons and daughters to war which means we have to have core principles, what new aumf look like and anders ideas out there which deserve discussion. setting automatic sunsets maybe three years with a responsible drawdown built and if congress doesn't renew. making sure all aumfs are consistent with international law including the basic american values of not supporting torture. going out of way to make sure aumfs unamended only apply to groups that are named and so those that might not be named in the original in. we need that conversation, take that out of d.c. and ensure voters are demanding that from members of congress across the board and to make sure that the pressure to get that passed in the next congress. >> i do want to move on because of what to make sure we get a lot more topics, and to your questions out there.
tony, tarek mentioned the 2001 aumf. does vice president biden support getting the field. >> we try to get that repealed and replaced during the obama biden administration. i suspect we would all say that our candidates would commit to close guantánamo as quickly as possible. but as has been said it takes two to tango. the larger problem and i think unfortunately and abdication of responsibility by congress when it comes to blink to point itsl role in the foreign policy of our country, and particularly when it comes to matters of foreign peace. the hard truth is i would hope that a new president exercising leadership would be able to move the country and i think tarek is 100% 100% right, move the country, not just washington or los angeles on these issues, and the country in turn would move its members of coca. >> at the end of the date if congress is not going to play the role it's supposed to play
it's awful hard to get things done. >> i want to agree and also refer to some of the work that is being done. the yemen war powers resolution that senator sanders introduce and work closely with senator warren passing while not once but twice with high partisan majorities. underneath that bipartisan majority was also a really strong coalition at a trans-partisan coalition, conservative, progressive groups, groups i would probably not work with a lot of other issues but there was a shared interest in congress reasserting its authority over these most important issues. so again i think kind of cultivating this debate and getting congress to take ownership and do its job under article one of the constitution is a hugely important part of this. >> just to pile on to the point. credit senator sanders for leading this fight in congress, but i think there's a growing
recognition amongst members of congress that this is something that transcends politics. it's about what rights and authorities congress has in this role and you do see these sort of strange bedfellows pop up where both senator sanders and senator warren voted together with scented rand paul, senator mike lee to repeal the 2001 aumf. that's not a proving a proving that you see every day. i think there is some hope there. it takes a look at of political courage. >> want to ask you about syria. everyone is basically agreed that withdrawal of troops is the best option, correct? >> with regard -- i missed -- syria. i'll put an asterisk on that. i think we have to be able to distinguish between two very different things. the almost unlimited in number
and unlimited in time to plummet of around the world for ends we can't achieve, verses in the case of syria, a small discrete focused force that is there to support and leverage a far greater indigenous force to do with a very concrete problem we face in this case, , isis. when we left office, obama-biden, we about that we had about 500 505 nc. the trump pumped it up to about 2000. let's go with the numbers that are in the press. president trump then decided to again apparently without discussion, apparently without consultation, announced that he was pulling all 2000 back. i think that was a mistake. we can discuss and argue over the exact composition, but if we have something that is
sustainable that has a clear and achievable mission and that in the case of the 500 that we had and now roughly 1000 of the 2000 trump got up to, leveraging seven to 80,000 indigenous forces are doing the hard work of keeping the pressure on and defeating isis, i think that's a reasonable a reasonable investment to make. >> is removing a sharp allsop part of the nation? >> at this point realistically, no. part of the mission actually not but the larger mission in syria but as we would all like to see them go, i don't think that's a realistic opposition anytime soon. >> i agree with what tony said at particularly of what to emphasize a couple point. what when our intelligence community leaders tell us explicit the threat from isis in syria does not result, we should believe them. it challenges so many of our core fundamental beliefs about the specialization and professionalism of our communities to constantly ignore that as this president has done,
so i think that's fundamental. related to that, they're sort of three categories of security risk that all interrelate with a rapid and they're responsible drawdown in syria. when is the threat from isis and the al-qaeda affiliate. the second is what's happening with our kurdish allies, and when you be careful because all of our allies are watching closely at we can't keep our word in terms of protection commence we made to our allies around the world, that will adversely affect our ability to have light is in the future in any conflict. the third is increasing the danger that are longtime ally israel phase in the region from a rapidly destabilization in c. all of these combine for specialist characters and focus of our troops there and that's what we need to be for the month. >> just a note for the room this would be a last call for any questions you might have. go hit and write those den. someone will come around to collect of those shortly. matt, i want to ask you about another high interest area, that is saudi arabia. i wonder if senator sanders were elected what we do to hold
accountable -- [inaudible] for the murder of jamal khashoggi. >> he's been explicit about his criticism of the saudi government and mohammad bin salman in particular. i think he would be, continue to be clear when you told this government accountable. we need to have a public accounting of the regimes role and number of khashoggi, for instance, but also some of these other human rights activist that even arrested, being tortured, detained right now as i speak particularly women's rights activists. i think he's going to be realistic about the fact, listen, we have a security relationship with saudi arabia that does provide some important intelligence, but what tools do we have, we get some serious tools to kind of push saudi arabia in a better direction. and if they don't, it would be fair to look at some other options. >> what are some of those tools? >> we seldom lots of weapons.
we could slow the flow of weapons. people say they can buy weapons from russia or china but the interoperability question. they have people that we provide to help them do with the systems that they have but i think there's also the political question. they rely on us politically and diplomatic for a lot. i think there are points of leverage we have but i think the important thing and his opera doing that, continue to do that as president, is make clear that this destabilizing behavior, this recklessness that we see from mohammad bin salman in yemen and ulster is undermine our security goals for the region. it's undermining stability in the region and i think what trump has done something aligning the united states unquestionably with this regime at this time and it was seen to be a preparation for a steadily escalating saudi versus iran regional conflict is disastrous for american security. i would make a quick reference to syria as well.
in achieving what we set out to achieve in syria the idea we are not going to engage with iran is unsustainable. we out so we need to be find a way to talk with iran. no question but that than in syria in backing the assad regime is horrendous, but i think there are ways we could be engaging with them to come with iraq and iraq itself is a very interesting potential table for the united states and iran to meet over, the role that eastern iraq is playing a potential revitalization of isis. so again i think there some echoes of what president obama was trying to achieve in the region. ..
they should be celebrated. we didn't use it. to the contrary we gave them a sense of immunity and that continues to stay. >> how is but that was president biden for those things? >> we did. when we saw -- keep this in mind, that is the point too. we have a partnership with saudi arabia. we said to them and we should continue to say to them we will protect them against aggression including from the who these in yemen. when it comes to prosecuting the war effort, when it became clear that they were unable or unwilling to use the weapons we were providing in response to the matter we pulled the plug. >> i want to take a 10,000 foot view with you that senator warren wrote in november about
the international world order right now. the story americans like to tell ourselves about how we go from liberal international order to a -- it is a good story meaning it doesn't really exist. we can all agree there has been a lot of realigning in the last couple years. my question is how as we are moving away the us led rules-based international order what would president warren do in terms of foreign policy priority to establish america's place in the world? >> there is no doubt the united states played a role setting up the order as it exists in the united states and benefited the world. we are no longer a unitary power, we cannot dictate terms to other countries in the way we have been able to in the past. i think we need to recognize that in some cases our actions
around the world have not benefited countries we are partners or allies with and we need to have some humility about that. we can and should do better and we can still do that in the world as we move forward. something the united states has but no other potential rival can come close to matching and that is our network of partners and allies around the world that share our values and goals. that's not something you can buy, not something you can boule your way into. it is something we can lose ourselves and trump is doing his utmost to make that happen but that is something that is unique and precious so when senator warren talks about the world moving forward she wants to reinvest in those kinds of partnerships and allies so we can play a leading role in the
world this doesn't mean we dictate to the world how things ought to be but we work with our partners to shape what benefits others. we may not have always lived up to the best values. we can play a role for good or ill. >> the study i cited earlier, not even clear that most americans want the us to act like that leader in the world. how would president buttigieg prioritize whether it makes sense to reestablish that? >> putting survey data aside it comes down in part to experiences since 9/11. a number of examples falling short of values and at the core of that, cynicism about what government might be capable of and how far it can go with short-term interests.
the extreme version of that day by day and there is too much at stake in the world to say we can't be -- fundamentally too much at stake for us to say america can't be it's best. the central argument mayor pete is making. there's lots we can do internationally but only comes from first doing it at home. we shouldn't be talking aboard her wall from sea to shining sea and managing the border and welcoming refugees. these are deeply threatening to authoritarian regimes but we should be embracing our diversity in celebrating that. when we go out and see the most horrific hate crimes perpetrated on our soil against
synagogues, community and we should be following the example of the prime minister of new zealand and taking decisive action and having every effort to welcome them back in and let them know they are part of the community. if we don't do those things at home there's nothing to champion abroad. that is fundamentally where we get people back to saying the us has a role to play in the world. >> i want to ask you something more specific. former secretary of defense robert gates talked about joe biden, and over the past four decades, looking back now, are there things president biden would see is inconsistent with aggressive foreign-policy with decisions made in the past. >> the larger point is important and sergeant karas
addressed this very well. based on his many years of experience, like it or not, and and or just as bad no one does it and you have chaos. and we saw over the 8 years of the obama biden administration, american leadership applied in a thoughtful, progressive way actually gets real results and starts with american diplomacy, the paris climate court would not have happened without american diplomacy, the iran nuclear agreement would not have happened without that diplomacy and the coalition of 65 countries and organizations to take on isis would not have happened without american diplomacy. the large group of countries
became to contact ebola would not have happened without american leadership and diplomacy and each of these things is something that it explained the right way will resonate and supported each, if you take the united states out of the equation. as problematic as things are it gets even worse and we have seen that demonstrated repeatedly. it is fair to say going back over the vice president's record, he is extremely proud of the leadership role he plays in dealing with that cleansing in bosnia and kosovo, extremely proud of the leadership in arms control when this was an existential matter for the united states. and in large nato. the countries in nato today have not been victims of direct
russian aggression because they are in nato. the ones that are out have a larger problem. he strongly advocated within the administration and afghanistan and much more focused addition and counterterrorism. and he was given responsibility on the political side, we ended the war in iraq, 100,000 americans to virtually none. >> will this be the use of drones abroad. something president obama felt strongly about. using this weapon we had to do it responsibly.
and we put in place exactly that. he wanted to make sure future administrations did the same thing. and also have to explain and come to that transparency when it comes to use of lethal weaponry. >> how would president sanders balance priorities at home, not sequential but what we are not clear about is where is the bar for intervention. where can it be for your candidate? >> does this rise to the level of atrocity that justifies violating other country sovereignty.
>> use of nerve gas on its own population? >> that is right. >> that would mean intervention? >> second question is what are the means, what outcome can you produce? is in my view even though president obama considered intervention the outcome they got at that time which was an agreement to move chemical weapons out, in fact members of the israeli government, conservative members saw that as a valued important agreement the chemical weapons were meant for them. certain things rise to the level that justify intervention, with the tools we have, a likelihood of creating a better outcome. it becomes much tougher. >> i will bother you all after this.
do we have a sack somewhere? now? okay. how about we just go down the line on this? what is your candidate's position on trade? >> she thinks trade needs to work for workers over corporations. >> we are doing one -- >> this is a lightning round. >> the problem is the policies used that are totally insufficient. we didn't protect workers or invest in their adaptation and trading away their rights over and over again. trade is good when it is there. >> trade is good. the question is where are those benefits accruing.
and represented around those tables were global trade agreements. >> is benjamin netanyahu -- >> he is pretty express about that. saying the words two state solution in 2009 and respond to pressure from the obama administration, policies his government pursued all along have clearly undermined that goal in been more explicit that he does not support that. >> anyone who cares about israel cares about security and israel remaining democratic and jewish in nature. the policies is real is pursuing will make that possible over time. israel cannot remain jewish and democratic in the action of the
2 state solution. it would be good if the prime minister a partner in that effort based on the others we have. >> pete has been explicit about the need for a 2 state solution and particularly stabilizing actions under the administration. >> i agree with matt. senator warren -- when you look at prime minister netanyahu's actions they indicate he is uninterested in moving forward in a productive way. the trump administration has given the green light to take actions not in the interest of israel security and not good for the palestinian people who have a right to self-determination and a right to live in dignity with some respect and we don't see that happening. >> we heard a lot of agreement
here, your candidate foreign policy decisions differed from the others. >> sorry to sound like a broken record but for a millennial mayor, and the conversation taken out of dc. and in bloomington, indiana, with american viewers after this cash is out immigration, trade, sending sons and daughters to work, climate change, those are fundamentally bread-and-butter issues. his message, the messenger, i understand -- being left out of this conversation and any administration will build a much deeper dialogue, a handful of people making calls.
>> he was clear, and is there a specific policy on which you disagree? >> as president biden articulated. >> the specific one right now, reaching toward the future and what we did so far. >> hitting the ground running from day one. he has been there and done it and he knows all the players. he engendered respect around the world from day one and given the damage that has been done by this administration there is not a single minute to lose so people have great confidence that we would be reoriented in a different direction come the get-go. >> i would direct people to an interview with the new york
times about his policies in central america where he still does and very correctly defended his views and opposition to latin america policies, and death squads. in some ways that has been forgotten as i can use that term, it has moved along looking back on the reagan era with more positive sense but that was an extremely ugly area of policy and he was challenged to account for that, he defended his view at that time and that is consistent with the way he talked about his vision of american foreign policy which is to say america hasn't can and will achieve great things but he needs to understand some of the ways we talk about foreign-policy don't
reflect or need to reflect some of the things we have done in the past that are not so great like the overflow, in latin america and not to say we need to be bashing ourselves over the head but we need to understand and cultivate a more realistic conversation about what american power and leadership can produce. >> what makes senator warren uniquely qualified. >> he is uninterested in that. what she believes is it won't be enough to turn the clock back to pre-trump and go about business as usual. she believes we need to have fundamental shifts not only in foreign-policy but policy writ large, but to use foreign-policy as an example, they are benefiting and
resonating with working americans and that is not nibbling around this. that is one of the things we work through. >> the question about foreign aid. what is your vision, in reforming the broken aid system. is it solidarity with other nations or promoting us interest. >> less then 1% of our overall budget, americans are generous people who want to help others in need. it is not wrong to say we can't do that in a way that is consistent with interests and values. we can do that together with other countries, we can lead an effort. often times bigger the sum of its parts. they are databased and there are metrics involved.
when we give taxpayer dollars, we understand those dollars have been having the intended benefits and there is more we can do. >> foreign aid is a fundamental strategic tool. to suggest otherwise it would be very dispiriting. dialing down $8, we should be dialing them up to deal with root causes of the crisis taking place there it is very clear. what can we do about it? building on the work of many people in this room, something we to acknowledge is the civilian nature of the conduct, we put civilians in dangerous situations day after day without treating them with the same respect and dignity, taking that seriously, what they need is fundamental. talking about usaid, they were created in a world war ii in a
post era, haven't gone back to the drawing board, what is the radical debt of changes we need. >> what were the disparities? >> i'm in favor of an environment agreement but to the point the discussion made. this is about something we have lost sight of. this is about enlightened self-interest. that used to be the guiding principle of our foreign-policy and we got away with it. central america is a great example. at the end of the obama biden administration vice president biden went to congress and got nearly $1 billion for northern triangle countries, dollars tied to concrete reforms in the judiciary, in the police, combating corruption, economic reforms. so that over time, unfortunately it is not like the biggest which, it takes time, but over time, the conditions could be created that would give people an
incentive to stay at home. the idea that people come to this country, wake up one morning and say i'm going to leave everything behind, everything i know, my family, my leg which, my culture, and make the most hazardous journey possible to a place i don't know, people just do that spontaneously and lightly, we know what drives this has to be so extreme that people are willing to make these life-and-death decisions. but then enlightened foreign-policy based on enlightened self-interest would do exactly what you are talking about, making these investments that are not only going to benefit the people but benefit us. >> this get that one of the differences between the foreign-policy we are talking about in the democratic party is talking about, this america first ideology, trump sees america's engagement in 0-sum terms, this is the way he approaches everything from real estate deals, you're getting
something i am getting screwed and that is the gospel he preaches. you are getting screwed, i will stop from getting screwed. we need tojob, an important time to have and start this conversation, to continue this conversation and find ways of communicating with the american people, we are not doing this by investing in the system and your children benefit. >> someone asked about climate change and work climate change fits in as a foreign policy issue. >> front and center at the very top. the vice president put out a climate plan, i am proud of the fact, every democratic candidate put a strong climate plan to get us back to where we should be which is leading the
global effort to combat climate change. the international component, 13% of the missions. by definition even if we do that is nowhere near enough. and administration that goes back and also goes forward thinking about and acting on its role in convening and pushing to keep raising their goals, raising their targets and making good on them is exactly what the biden climate plan has in mind. if elected president he would convene a summit in his first term and his first year, he would set enforceable goals and he would have those goals reviewed on a regular basis so we can get to a net 0 emissions world by 2050.
i suspect we all agree if you don't do the international peace you are only doing halfway. >> is this something else you want to add about specific goals and timelines? >> the only thing i would add to that is everyone up here would agree paris is an important first step in we should return to the framework of that agreement but we need to go far beyond that because that's the only way to get to the numbers. >> >>, without international partners, and keeps me a specific call for cities and states and provinces around the world to see what they can do. citizens meet the urgency of this but the governments are not moving on it. >> in terms of foreign policy, what is the enforceability for
the us to hold accountable other countries? >> the first step is for the united states to hold itself accountable to have the credibility to set those marks and hold others to do it. going back to the very important point, this has been one of the good things even though trump's withdrawal from paris is a disaster but to see the way the cities and towns are stepping up, doing diplomacy to make clear, listen, trump has made this decision but america believes climate change is real and these communities are committed to moving forward after trump so prioritizing it, america's relative power is shrinking but we have a normative influence to set these tables and set these marks at work with our allies to hold those accountable. >> using our way we should be
able to stop financing of coal powered plants. that is something we can and should be doing with leverage of the united states. >> this is my favorite question. wtf? [applause] >> so matt? >> we are going to let matt answer for all of us. >> we need to build a death star. the death star jobs program. do we need a separate unit like a space force? probably not but certainly space in the role it is, free and usable is important, part
of national security, whether we need a space for the way trump seems to talk about it i don't think so. >> what anyone else like to say anything about the space force? i will close with this. okay, we are sold, says someone. how do we join your team? >> go to elizabethwarren.com. >> i will say elizabeth warren then. we have a large volunteer team including alumni, our volunteer director is here today. if you're interested contact her. i will stick around for a few minutes "after words". joebiden.com. i will give you the information on our ticket. >> berniesanders.com same thing. >> more questions came in. this is a good one. there is a panel later today about nationalism and the
threat of white supremacy. what are candidate saying about this? how does it connect to their foreign-policy platforms and worldview? >> this came up in a speech and people have been articulate and very moving. we see in incredible threat on the homefront today not just from physical manifestation of these attacks which are unacceptable but the administration's constant effort to gaslight the american public about what is going on. why is this a foreign-policy challenge? more americans were killed in america by domestic extremists than any international terrorism and every time there is an attack we parse whether it was terrorism or wasn't but we are getting into this mode of this only one thing, the other coming into our country. we need to come back to an understanding with the american public so we can allocate resources to protect the homeland completely. >> i agree with all of that. what senator warren said in the
past, too, white nationalism, and need to do more than clear it out. >> in his announcement video vice president biden said clearly the reason, the driving reason he is in this campaign is because in his judgment we are in a fight for the soul of this country and it goes precisely to this issue. charlottesville being the most compelling example. there are, quote, very good people on both sides of what happened in charlottesville, and an existential problem, this goes to the heart of why joe biden is running for president but we all share
profoundly that perspective, that we have change in this country. >> how does the foreign policy issue? >> foreign-policy issue for a couple reasons. what we talked about about america's democratic health and to advance interests and values. when people see these things rising in the united states and our failure to address these issues, white nationalists, white supremacists, these attacks heard our ability to do that. i also think and senator sanders has written and spoken about this in a speech at johns hopkins, it is not the united states alone. we see a global coalition of authoritarian racist right-wing leaders and movements whether in hungary or brazil or others and they are working together and in some cases funded by the
same pot of money, steve bannon promoting himself as a global advisor to some of these movements. i also want to say something more personal. my boss has been talking about this more. as a jewish american he take this very seriously, to escape poverty and anti-semitism in poland, this is something many of us believe we had moved past and we see this anti-semitism rising now and it is extremely important to take this seriously and for every leader to be absolutely clear this is not acceptable in the america we want for ourselves and our grandchildren. >> we should make it explicit. these domestic divisions at every level, extreme forms of the insidious small-scale that plays out in our lives,
precisely the divisions russia manipulated in the past election so that is the security issue. this is about our competition in the global sphere to be the best version of ourselves as security priorities. >> someone is asking about venezuela which i wanted to ask about earlier and the starting point is does anyone hold fast to the idea that maduro has to go? >> i would like -- senator sanders said we need to have elections, fair elections, the most recent elections were not. he has been very critical of maduro's repression and corruption, he was not one who stepped out to recognize guido. i think that was the right choice. in retrospect it is clear the right choice given even the trump administration recognizes the opposition can't even seem
to agree with it self. it was a mistake to put the united states at the head of this parade but pretty consistent what we need to see is support for negotiations between iodo opposition and monitor free and fair election. >> maduro does not have to go? >> not in advance of that. >> he forfeited whatever legitimacy he had. even if he does go whether it is tomorrow or next week or next year that is not the end of the story, it is the beginning of the story. venezuela is a country that is profoundly disastrously divided politically and economically. if there is no comprehensive plan with the international community, hopefully led by the united states but including all the affected countries and beyond, to help venezuela get back on its feet if and when there's a proper transition, we will be on the rack for a long time to come. we also have people affected
every single day by what is going on in venezuela not only in venezuela but in neighboring countries, 1,000,0001/2 to 2 million refugees in colombia, we have people here who have protected status the administration is threatening to send back. we need to stand for them as well. i hope whatever we do is grounded in working with other countries. last thing we need is to go back to a unilateral american action that resurrects ghosts of the past. >> no doubt maduro has lost his legitimacy and venezuela won't see stability until the point he is no longer leading that country. how we get there and what the end game looks like is the focus we need to have our attention on. too many times we flashed unilateral force under this administration and it comes up over and over, iran is another one where we are not meeting
the core bar of thinking about what is in our core national interested if we have any alternatives. there are alternatives being pursued as the administration has come late to begin to realize how irresponsible their actions were. the last piece of this is critical and built on your point about working with allies across latin america. particularly colombia when you look at the spread of refugees the numbers are astronomical that are flooding into the country and colombia has come out of a different peace process, destabilization to their country. what we need to be thinking carefully about partnering allies to get on top of this and have a comprehensive solution. >> you don't believe there can be stability with maduro in charge? >> not a legitimate election process and i have a hard time believing any legitimate election will put maduro in charge. >> i think it is important to center the venezuelan people how we talk about this was for
us it means free and fair elections sooner rather than later, international monitors everyone can feel comfortable in the choice of the venezuelan people going forward, it had means humanitarian assistance, not in the way of look at us, we are at the border providing aid in whatever way it can effectively get into the country, dealing with flows of refugees and supporting countries in the region that are trying to make sure they are addressing the refugee flows that are coming across the border and it means protecting venezuelans in the united states right now and if this administration cared about the venezuelan people they would not be deporting venezuelans. >> question about what you work on with the campaign. someone asking national security is not diverse at senior levels, what will you do to change that? i will start with you. >> first of all that is
absolutely right. national security, foreign policy is not diverse, it is slowly getting better. i'm committed to helping change that. i'm sure all my campaigns are. the leadership of our campaign is one of the most diverse out there. currently the -- of the campaign itself. the work being done on foreign-policy given i am working as a volunteer, the broad circle of advisor, over the last 21/2 years i have been working for him is very diverse in terms of gender. it is 50/50. we need to do better but it is something we are committed to. >> what would you say to that? >> as someone who had the honor and privilege of working for
president obama, susan rice was my boss for two years, one of the greatest leaders in foreign-policy, that is something we lived every day. what the campaign is doing is pretty simple. our campaign is extraordinarily diverse when you look at ranks of senior leadership. we are establishing working groups on all of the issues we discussed whether it is geographic challenges or functional ones. one of the groups we are establishing is not diversity in policy but we want to make sure the administration reflects america and that includes the national security side. something we worked hard on the last administration, we can do more, we can do better. >> is everyone setting up a separate task force to focus on
that? >> absolutely a central issue. i'm a first-generation american. pete is on one side of the family and think about all the different representations that are critical here. some are more visible and some are less visible. throughout our working groups particularly on the foreign-policy side we have gender balance but we also have representation from diverse groups of identities. one that is often invisible is the lgbt queue community, in that context, explicit, it is represented when doing superficial perceptions of people's physicality. and just interested in counting and a form of inclusiveness. that is how we are doing it.
>> we at the campaign live everyday and senator warren chose me as a woman, everything we need to know about how much she prioritizes that. we are making a conscious effort to encourage diversity in every way. we are majority female campaign, we have people of color and senior leadership positions, staff in senior leadership positions, doing everything we can to make our campaign, and folks, and interest community and support the senator, to make that is inclusive and welcoming as possible, in the disability community. >> thank you to all of you, thank you.
starts at 12:15 eastern. you can watch online, c-span.org, or listen with a free c-span radio apps. >> i look forward to running against him. >> tuesday donald trump holds a rally in orlando, florida launching his run for a second term. watch live at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span2, live on c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio apps. >> a number of trump administration officials spoke at the wall street journal annual meeting for chief financial officers this week. national security adviser john bolton talks about china, russia, mexico, and north korea and we will hear from education secretary betsy divos. [applause] >> thanks for joining us.