tv Sen. Chris Coons on U.S.- China Relations CSPAN May 19, 2019 3:03am-4:09am EDT
fueled the desire to take the issue to capitol hill and demand reform. in the light enters," jill biden discusses her family and career. >> i was so nervous about getting up in front of a crowd, but when we were elected vice president, i thought, i have been given such a platform, and i can talk about all my passions, all of the things i love -- education, community colleges, military families. thought, i cannot waste this platform and i better get better at this. >> three new nonfiction books today starting at 6:20 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> democratic senator chris coons, a minute -- a member of
the senate foreign relations committee, talks about his trip to east asia. this is about an hour. post" and on behalf of the council, thank you all for coming and thank you to senator coons. as you all know, senator coons was elected mr. hiatt: good morning. i'm fred hiatt, editorial page editor at the "washington post"" on behalf of the council, thank you all for coming. thank you to senator coons. human rights caucus and for many years last time you came to the post you'd recently been to
africa. so, today we are here to talk about your turning a little bit of attention to east asia. we were there a couple weeks ago. since then, relations have gone downhill. what did you say while you are there? let's start with the news of the day. >> first, thank you to the council on foreign relations. you've helped make possible an excellent trip to east asia. we went to japan, south korea, taiwan, and its striking to me the ways in which the president's policies have strained some of the most
important alliances globally and directly challenged china. he's picked up a club of tariffs for the first time in decades we have a republican president who inks imposing tariffs is the best tool for foreign-policy. before hitting china with it, he swung it around he managed to hit most of the core allies. i do recognize it is long overdue that we challenge the theft of intellectual property. it's forced technology and policies. there's a range of behaviors over recent decades that needs to be addressed. we are celebrating 40 years of the u.s. china diplomatic relationship. there are lots of areas we could and should cooperate in areas we are competing but i think the stock market is unhappy.
that is sent with my broker would call for 640 billion-dollar dropped, but i would say there's lots of folks that have mutual funds that are very unhappy. i think the world is holding its breath to see what happens as the two largest economies in the world. it is yet to be seen how much the average american consumer, farmer, manufacture will respond to 25% on more than 500 billion in goods assuming that that is ultimately carried out. it is a tax. the president doesn't seem clear on this it does generate revenue to the treasury but it's a surcharge of attacks many of which we consume from china are steadily going up in price.
the it's a contest with having. without the understanding of what is the goal and without having engaged our allies, this may not end well. >> if we had a strategy what would the goal be is it that china has to take an economic model and with the reasonable objectives what do you think is achievable flex >> first would be to reset the u.s. china relationship. we have a long period of expectation as china developed it would inevitably verbalize. that seems to be an incorrect assumption. china has accomplished a singlee single greatest elevation out of poverty probably in human history something like
500 million in the 25 years since i last visited have emerged by global standards to something like the middle class and have produced a community of new consumers. that is a great accomplishment and it shouldn't be overlooked. there's a range of areas we should and could be cooperating. there is little focus on areas of cooperation in areas we can work on things from nuclear nonproliferation to combating pandemics. we should be clear eyed about it, but we don't have enough of a real conversation about the areas of competition. that is a conversation that will improve that was a first round
of a u.s.-china dialogue on local enforcement matters we should be continued into engage with them and there's areas like extradition where we have disagreements that are rooted in the differences of the legal and political systems that there's areas like fentanyl into the senator represents new hampshire which is one of the states heavily effected. china has listed fentanyl as a potentially controlled substance and there's a significant amount being exported in the united states, much of it through mexico that has a devastating impact on the communities and families. that's an area we ought to be recognizing what progress we've made and working closely with them so how would you change the relationship, first there are a few economic practices they have to change. it's unacceptable for the development to come at our expense. they are angry because they think they stole the middle
class and future, and in some way that's correct. there's been a globally significant generational transfer of intellectual property and invention and innovation from the united states to china that has fueled the rise and that is a problem that we should not expect that they are going to change. the real robust democracy is the best way to organize the society that we ought to act like it. you ought to be able to watch what's going on on capitol hill and say they are solving the problems facing we have a lot of bad days. >> i have had u.s. military leaders say to me china's
ultimate goal is to get the united states out of the western pacific altogether with the south china sea, and given that ultimately competition isn't acceptable to the united states and is ultimately cooperation is not an option. >> to paraphrase other speakers and publications that's been described meaning over a majority of instances where you have a rising power and established power it inevitably leads to conflict. it is appropriate for the military leaders to study and prepare for its planned for conflict. that is one of the core jobs in the mission, but i don't believe that it's inevitable that we will be any military conflict. one of the things that worries me is i believe we have a
president who sees the troop deployment to the korean peninsula and japan as a burden rather than something we've done in partnership over seven decades helped secure stability and prosperity for the region. if you think that there is an unpaid bar tab that nato and our east asian allies have kind of stuck it to us and we are the chumps of history, you have a different view of this and i am concerned president of trump might decide to withdraw from the peninsula i peninsula is a . i don't have a specific conversation tconversation to bn both the conversations about the military presence around the world are just concerning. i do think you are right it is a strategic goal to get us out of their immediate region and to press and push and marginalize our significance.
i don't think it is the strategic intent to the extent i have any insight in this two seat a military conflict. history suggests they would prefer to push and build relationships and ultimately end up in a place where conflict is unnecessary. i don't feel like in the congress or in the country we have had a real or meaningful conversation about what are the rest, what are the costs and burdens we are willing to undertake and there in order to maintain a global system of alliances particularly the idea is absolutely centraeyeview is o the role in the world did you take the 2016 election interactions as a proxy for that conversation, you could reach the conclusion that the american people are tired of being as the world calls it the worlds policeman and want to put down
the burden of leading a global alliance of open societies of developed democracies. i don't agree with that and i don't think that was the third complete conclusion of the majority of americans and that should be one of the core issues in the 2020 campaign. >> one could argue that you see the same strai strains presidena talked about it's time for nationbuilding at home. secretary clinton was against tcp so nobody in 2016 supported that kind of regional presence. who is going to speak up for the values that you just talked about. >> i am trying to do so. >> you are the only democratic senator not running for president. >> they had a great time at the caucus lunches.
relations really matters. our network of alliances really matters and i think that he is uniquely qualified among the candidates to step into the role of reasserting the center of the of the alliances to the security prosperity in a way unmatched. i know all the candidates it isn't any disrespect to their experience or strategic vision by 36 years in the committee eight years as the vice president of the united states has given him the opportunity to not just once or twice that of
the country and attend the hearing but to personally know virtually all the modern leaders of the world, and i cannot imagine an administration welcoming the prime minister of hungary with no comments on human rights and free press and the importance of an open democracy just to pick one example. >> on the subject of human rights to take it back to china, we are in a situation now where maybe a million people were more in camps in western china. there is an extradition treaty being considered that many people consider an existential threat to one's country systems and china is building this surveillance system with social
credit scores and there was a time when a lot of us thought ththoughtokay they've got hundrf millions of people out of poverty but when they get to a certain level if they want to keep growing they had opened up and they are going to need with law and media. they seem to have indifferent theory of the case now and so far it seems to be working. they are prospering and in fact they are claiming th going in te direction. so, one question is do you think it's possible that new technologies have created a world where totalitarianism is going to be compatible with some modern version of modern socialism and prosperity or is it still safe to say that eventually they are going to have to go the other way?
>> there've been very concerning developments in the united states and europe and asia in response to globalization and the pressures they enjoy the benefits of global development and prosperity that has led to political movements in countries liklike usa never thought we wod see in some of our scandinavian allies for examples of anti-immigrant parties winning seats in parliament, taking roles in government obviously hungary, poland other and othern eastern europe have taken a turn. in china to point you raised that is the most important and pressing concern is whether or not the state surveillance system is going to allow the intersection and incredibly high-quality surveillance systems with bulk storage all of
that in combination may make it possible where every citizen knows they are either actively being surveilled or capable of. what you say at home and in your phone which is always on and everywhere, what you say in private conversations and post on the internet, what you search for has an impact on whether your child gets into a better school, a better job, move into an apartment and all of that has a dampening impact on any individual expression and debate or discussion and what we consider the most fundamental aspects of a free society. you said that one of the assumptions we have is they would need media. they've got a lot of media. i watched a fair amount of television when i was about three or four in the morning. they've got 50 channels. the channel devoted to every
promise. promise. if of interesting content. the idf of the free media is that it is to question and push the boundaries and authority and offer narratives and scenarios that is not on the menu. the different issues that you raised, hong kong and the challenge of the treatment are i think just examples of ways in which china's approach puts stability, security and privacy of the party at the head and puts questions of individual self-expression at the very bottom. i am greatly concerned that the belt road initiative may become a build of the cell phone initiative that is designed to propagate the instrumentality of five g.. i go from here to the hearing on the senate judiciarofthe senatee
about the intelligence implications of five g.. i don't think the united states has really grasped the extent to which even our core allies like italy and like the united kingdom are differing from us and our assessment of the intelligence threat integrated into the communication systems in the coming decades and i think we have a challenge on our hands both technologically in terms of deploying rapidly and communications technology having any affordable which is an issue of state subsidy to those who have ahave been approached athar allies. australia and new zealand have joined our assessment that some of our core allies are questioning it. if it is a big challenge. >> the possibility 1984 they work and then they may be able to export tools.
if we have a president who believed in american values i will say would it be part of the talk on trade and in addition to show that it works at home, how would president joe biden responded to a situation like this is there anything that they can do about it? >> absolutely. first you would heal some of the divisions and challenges we had with core allies that were caused by an abrupt withdrawal from virtually every multilateral agreement crafted in the last couple of years whether it is leaving paris with the jcp over a. of withdrawal from all of these agreements and insist on trying to replace them with america
perce opursue america only bilal deals on everything but i suspect largely be reversed and a lot of those relationships invested in hand he held a second. absolutely. the only way we have a deployable secure system is with no pr for a combination of american telecom companies will play a central role in the deployment of the united states and globally but in terms of developing affordable and deployable equipment, we've got to work closely with trusted allies. third, human rights would be on the agenda of every single conversation. at the end of the day, one of the places i most notice in its absence is john mccain. i was just at the retreat in sedona and i'm working with my cochair of the human rights caucus to try to rename the
human rights caucus in the senate for mccain. i think far from a perfect human that remarkable patriot and someone who dedicated his life to public service and really so human rights has not one of many interests to discuss. we can talk about trade and economic interest and human rights, but peaceful things that distinguish us as a democracy, commitment to an open society, free press as the distinguishing feature. the reason why china doesn't have a global network of genuine allies, they've got client states, customers, nervous neighbors, but they have a very different security architecture globally than we do because we have a very different values architecture. i think our model is what people all over the world to fight for and hope for to meet with a
group and hear their conversations about why they risked their lives to get out of north korea and get to a free society. it's a reminder of just how fundamental this is. i think the shocking incident and the failure of the administration to hold the saudis accountable for the planned future in the murder of a u.s. journalist in their consulate is a shameful chapter we will not soon get past. there has been an effort in the senate to push for accountability to change the relationship but i'm afraid we will again see the so-called national security justifications trumped these values. i don't think that the values can be left on the side of the conversations about national security. i hope it is possible to have a vigorous debate and globally about the values and human rights without that inevitably leading to the conflict with
china we have different views of the individual and the best way to organize society that we are in a contest of ideas and every bit as dynamic and demanding as we were in the cold war but this needs to be a debate and contest of ideas not of force. >> i think some people worry as you cite you are supporting joe biden both men of a generation who grew up one could say politically at a time it felt like america's existence was in question and something more important than party. >> we are back in that situation no doubt about it. >> but what is the sense with
buy-in of a certain ag certain e ea generation that feels that as you do? a lot of us don't see very much of it in the congress or on the campaign trail. >> one of the things i've done it fo three years to organize ad lead a delegation to africa which is a continent of enormous promise but where there is a challenge that's what is the right model for governance and development unfolding in front of us. us. both senator bennett and senator booker we made trips to places that are relatively mature emerging countries and we also went to countries that are on the verge of becoming failed states under enormous pressure and i think that was an eye-opening experience for both in terms of the pressures on
dozens of countries in the developing world. the significance in every one of the countries i've been to in the continent which is now i think 30 and the way in which china proceeds africa as one of the most important places of opportunity for this century and the united states, a long and a significant partner is seemingly withdrawing. we have done transformative and wonderful things in public health. president bush deserves a lot of credit for the pep fo pit for am that changed the trajectory of a nearly common to think of continent wide pandemic and the challenge cooperation for how to do development of metrics and partnership in another country in a way that produces the kind of results americans hope to see with our dollars. in the last congress i worked with bob corker in both chambers and with the trump trump administration to get the act
signed into law to double in size and give us the tools to really reengage in the financing of infrastructure with western standards. in this congress and working with lindsey graham on something called the fragile states act that would also have a ten-year strategy for the introspection f development diplomacy and defense in countries where we've got a lot of defense that ought to be matched with development and diplomacy and in particular putting democracy and governance at the front of the agenda and not at the back of the agenda. >> your question is whether there's an emerging generation that shares that view. sorry. [laughter] i don't want to leave the topic without saying that there are. there are younger republicans on
foreign relations, younger democrat on intelligence and armed services who see the world this way and the challenge into a working together to try to strengthen our progress on this and i should have cited them as cosponsors of the act. >> one hopeful note is the sense of the world i would also say one of the remarkable things john mccain did is try to get people to come with them on trips. he didn't care whether they were democrat or republican. let me ask one more thing before we open and come back to the alliances. you were in japan, korea and taiwan.
you refer to the doubts president trump has shown. how were japan and korea responding to that and did you sense that they were in any way preparing for the withdrawal were they making about at clark's >> from the leaders in th and t. forces in japan and south korea battles untouchables committee advisers and foreign ministers of defense. i got the sense that it's almost inconceivable that he would leave japan. there is some concern about north korea and south korea that the government and the trump administration have different initial responses that spends with a preset and recalibrated and i think that there is close coordination at this point.
i do think that there's a lot of anxiety or questioning of what does this mean. the tariffs are taken at the indication of watch and now a renegotiation of the cost-sharing in terms of contributions for the construction an of the support r the precipitation of the porridge u.s. presence and also suggests such a changed relationship. no one articulated to me that they think anything like this. no one breathed a word a of it t there is an underlining question about what is the trajectory, where are we headed here these are societies that don't think in terms of the next quarter and china's ascendancy from the security perspective as well as economically and politically is
evident whether or not we are still going to meet our current security commitment i think is openly being questioned. >> let's let people ask questions. when you do, please identify yourself and keep the question brief so everybody can get a chance. >> you are arguing that this view of the world 30 years in the foreign service makes us very sympathetic to that view. how would you tell that story if instead of being on the council of foreign relations you were somewhere in rural west virginia were agricultural heavy south dakota clark's >> doing a town hall in delaware
something i recently did one of the reasons i do town halls in all three counties in the state is to be held accountable to my own people around the same questions. i had done an annual conference for the last eight years about our engagement with the world. bob corker came and was the keynote speaker alongside me to talk about the building. how do you make this case in a way that works, agricultural committees in particular get the value of exports and access to emerging markets better than anybody because they understand that agriculture remains vibrant in the united states only to the extent we get to export record amounts. it's all about chickens, that's true in delaware but not everywhere else. i am the cochair of the chicken caucus believe it or not which
you may laugh about but it's deadly serious work because we are only able to sustain to grow our export opportunities and i could give you a five-minute speech but i'm not going to do that. first com command that grows soybeans, wheat, corn, that is a lot of our country geographically and understands the importance of export markets and the importance of a free, fair and open global market. second disproportionately it's smaller towns and rural areas that have sent soldiers overseas for a what is now the teen years of conflict. some of you know that dover delaware is where every american involved in combat first returns to our soil. that is a solemn obligation to people of my state take very seriously and an increasing
reminder we had a young man who largely grew up in delaware killed in combat in afghanistan and a huge turnout for his memorial at the university of delaware. it's a reminder that we have borne a lot of cost them almost every conversation about but i say therefore to have been more than a thousand soldiers killed in combat in afghanistan and iraq. the little country of denmark wherwhere they visited two summs ago lost 54 soldiers in combat. 9/11 wasn't an attack on europe it was on the united states and it the next day nato for the first time developed article five and dozens of allies deployed their troops to fight alongside ours. we will have more wars in the future in the world. these allies will come to the fight with us? in terms of accessing the markets of the developing world we have allies who could work with us to make sure that
there's a fair trading system for exports from manufacturers and farmers. do you want allies working shoulder to shoulder with us opening up the markets, those two things require us to engage and respect our allies and that requires a role in the world. we don't have to be the policemen that respond to every conflict, and we don't have the last thing i often tell people that all americans the average american doesn't think that our foreign assistance makes a difference or is appreciated. i will often repeat the things i saw and heard from the president of the people on the street is a nation that deals that they were saved by america and there are many countries around the world that recognize our role in stabilizing the world and pushing back pandemics and poverty and hunger and they are eternally grateful to us and want to be our partners.
that got a lot of hands. >> knowing that you have a deeply personal interest in africa i have a question about china's strategy on the continent. how do you see a china's strategy evolving and how would you like to see the u.s. strategy told as well tax >> china is learning through painful experience that investing in infrastructure and bringing chinese workers and not doing any school training or technology transfer and then having extracting contracts ultimately doesn't work out well either for a part or country or their reputation on the continent. there've been some where they basically got thrown out and managed to figure that out and
then work back and engaged within a matter of months. i think china is changing some of its practices. in opening the conference this year answered the implicit criticisms of how the projects are being run and sent all such projects going forward will be transparent and have appropriate environmental standards and done to global standards. we met with a head in beijing tg and said the same thing. this is being run by world bank standards and labor and environment and that's great it will be interesting to see if the reality matches the talking point. a similar criticism could be leveled at us but a different type. they say we are not withdrawing and that we remain every bit as committed but yet the trade numbers are striking. striking. i chaired the committee may first four years since then the trade has more than quadrupled in dollars house dropped by more
than half. most african countries want and welcome american foreign direct investment and access to companies. when we do have business relationships with further development relationships we do it very differently in a way that promotes transparency and has a relatively white american footprint and fairly significant partnership and development footprint. what i hear from every head of state is the one for you and me need to deploy more private capital and resources and we need to build on those relationships that we have after decades of investing and combating tuberculosis, malaria and hiv aids. >> why he has trade dropped by half? >> partly because that opportunity has been filled by other. it's not just china but sees it
as an opportunity, it's brazil, russia, turkey and eu allies. the united states has stood still or has gone sideways while others have invested significantly in opening new embassies and sending trade missions and heads of state in convening conferences of the japanese doing as much if not more in terms of trade development. virtually every head of state in africa here in the four years since then china has had fun every year. we haven't had a comparable second one. we are i think asleep at the switch in one of the most important opportunities in history. africa is the only continent that by its demographics is positioned for success in this country where it is a majority country that has a dramatically and rapidly growing workforce
there are obviously challenges and strains and issues in terms of access to infrastructure and capital and to the economy and stability that most americans and business leaders to realize the abundance of opportunity for meaningful investment. the chinese see it more clearly because the more recentl they hy come out of the states with development where the kind of challenges that are predominant in the rapidly growing economies or hearing and they can see it. we have a harder time seeing it. the lady all the pain at the back. >> hello, senator. china has opposed the assurance act. how would you respond to them in the participation in international organizations yet they are not able to attend this year. what else can the u.s. due to
support taiwan's participation tax >> they are subverting the 40th anniversary of two things this year, you just chin u.s. china c relations and the taiwan relations act and as i said both in my visits and meetings in beijing i support the current status quo. we have a strong and important relationship between the united states and taiwan. that's why i visited the institute planned no more than $250 million facility that will allow the director of the institute to advocate fo advocad represent american values and interests. there is a member of legislative vehicles moving forward but are not designed to encourage and support to say it's an important
relationship. the dynamism and of its economy and its people i think are well worth and continuing to invest in his ongoing relationship on the terms that it's prospered over many decades. >> thank you very much, senator. and your east asia focus, yet you are referencing a few other places you didn't mention what some have called the counterweight. could you comment on the role of south asia and the rivalry particularly india and china >> i'm meeting with the ambassador to the united states this week. i made a trip last year.
we have a nomenclature reframed as the indo pacific and it was interesting to me in every meeting to hear reference. our challenge moving back from rhetoric to reality. united states as i think a natural long-term close relationship with india. like the united states it's a multilingual vibrant democracy that has a wide-open press and political system that has significant developmental challenges but also has seen a significant rise in its prosperity security and diaspora to the united states. there are lots of reasons not which of these shared history, common law and the worlds and traditions in the system of open society and democracy that should make us very close
natural allies in the future in security and prosperity in the indo pacific. our challenge is in articulating and engaging in that. our security political and economic with india needs to be strengthened. it's been needlessly strained by some issues in the united states relating to immigration that i think the coat and showed resolve to hear from the business community regularly they would welcome an opportunity to resolve. we have in the universities unis fairly robust exchanges but they could be improved by almost an order of magnitude. the number of universities that would welcome americans studying and working as scholars and vice versa is almost an limit. there are lots of areas where they can and should not just partner and cooperate, but build a future that is i think
inclined more towards open society. i think that you will inevitably come and know not inevitably, that's the whole point. i think we will see a stronger and clearer strategy for how australia, new zealand, japan, south korea, india and the united states planned for a better decad decade in the centy ahead for the indo pacific. i haven't heard or seen a clearly articulated strategy and i appreciate you for reminding me we are so focused that i've neglected a broader aperture which would bring into it one of the most significant democracies in the world. >> do you see any possible path in the next two years to do anything on immigration? >> this is how you know i'm an optimist, i keep meeting regularly with some of my republican colleagues. there is a simple sticking point and we have had a number of
broad bipartisan efforts to put together immigration bills that were either quite large were quite narrow and in each instance the president initially says he welcomes it or is willing to work on it or wants to negotiate and get something done and then shoots it down. the last two i got to carry with senator mccain was the senate version of a bipartisan bill that had 54 cosponsors i and an equal number of republicans and democrats and the reaso reason s beaten on the floor was direct lobbying by the president and secretary of homeland security, so i think that you could get a deal through with a lot of hard work. but the absence of any real willingness by the president to enact something that would begin to address innovatio immigratioe single biggest beer year that we
face. >> from voice of america you are one of the founding members of the human rights caucus. i want to ask about iran in a similar country when it comes to the human rights violation and to capital punishment. we are witnessing a lot of developed and in the persian gulf and president trump has called on iran to call on him for a comprehensive agreement. what in your opinion can or should the senate and in general congress t do in this regard? >> of folks in the senate, myself included who have not been briefed on the most recent intelligence that is cited as the reason for the significant mobilization.
they are being deployed in the persian gulf and there's front-page news today about potential plans and is the pentagon's job to plan but potential plans for the truly significant deployment to the middle east in the absence of any articulated strategy or briefing and updates to members of both parties on committees other than intelligence it is hard to say exactly whether or not the next move is justified. i ultimately supported the jcp away nuclear dea deal although w some of its obvious flaws the most important of which could encompass ballistic missile programs and constrained the human rights behavior internally or regionally. i do think it's important for us to keep talking.
our european allies this is one of the sources of the distances just how hard the community worked in particularly the united states and our european allies to get iran to a place where its program became transparent to the world and was documented and put in a box for a decade. i think we should be re- engaging and i would urge the administration to work as hard diplomatically as they seem to be from the defense perspective in terms of planning and developing the strategy and communicating it to congress and to the world. >> and that o lot of the thingsu mentioned about africa and the approach are where we are trying or infrastructurour infrastruct, economic diplomacy. it's been a rich part of that so
thank you and i think we will see economics as a big focus at the east asia summit. my question for you how to strengthen our engagemendo westh the private sector who will be a key partner in this ad talk erak about promoting american values in asia and across the globe and a related question to the extent you see a disconnect between the objectives of our economic engagement versus our trade policy how do you talk to allies and part does about the different directions of those two things? >> first we have a lot of hard work between now and october to make sure that it actually rolls out appropriately. there was a decision in the house appropriations committee just last week to scale the investment that has to be reversed with just the senate current mark strikes me to be
putting into this new tool. i recognize over and he has a way of treating investments with great caution, but i think we are in a contest here and we ought to bring our best tools to connect and american private capital and the ability to put together the well structured deals particularly in infrastructure ought to be one of the things we put at the very forefront. as a relevant aside, the ambassador and i co-authored an editorial in the japanese newspaper about the importance of partnering virtually every one of our major allies has a development financing institutions of the idea that we would be financing development is something i try to push back on. this is a federal guarantee of new private capital investment and is syndicated and done in
partnership with the japanese and australians were south koreans or the norwegians and germans we could end up doing a lot of good in a lot of countries and to demonstrate what transparent development deals are positive for the partner country and meet the labor and environmental standards what they look like. we are not going to match the announced numbers, but we can certainly do our best foot put t forward. how do i explain the tension between some of the president's recent trade actions and how we talk or at least how i talk about multilateral issues and values it is a fundamental challenge. we have had decades where the idea is the principal tool of global economics have gone away. one of the concerns i have this has been picked up and swung the bat around and drove in a lot of china as its word, it's now
going to be very hard for us to criticize competitors who do the same thing. we will be back to an era of vigorous protectionism and content all over the world and we are already seeing that in some of our competitors and close allies and markets that were previously reducing speaking as a politician it's easy to say domestic and by american close our doors. i think we will end up ruling the day we picked up this particular tool and start using it quite so broadly and aggressively. but the question on tpp which
was created by the obama by an administration and it's not only a trade deal that has geostrategic implications particularly for china. after the u.s. pulled out which replaced it was constructed in such a way that the united states could rejoin, if there is a buy-in administration i know that this is a difficult political issue but could you see a way for the administration to rejoin? >> i don't speak for the campaign personally. i would advocate that more as a matter of geopolitical strategy. i do think it also has trade benefits for us. some of our core allies came to the table and made concessions to get the deal done. the europeans are now benefiting from and we are not in a cutting from and i think that there is a a lot of export areas
agriculture in particular and biopharmaceuticals, financial services, data services where we would see real growth and opportunity if we were to reenter. frankly what i thought tpp was trying to the fish is raising the standards of global commerce in a way with a threat of death china would inevitably give you a taste of the challenged to join the same standards. some characterized it as an attempt to prevent its rise. i would instead characterize it as trying to set a new global standard for what fair trade should look like. it will be debated if we considered in congress that we have to get to a place where the average american can see a positive future for them in an emerging and globalized economy. that is on us to do a better job of training and education and access to healthcare, affordable
savings as a mother's reasons why the trade deals have taken the head for what globalization has caused and is a failure of imagination and leadership on the part of those of us that were public servants and not having rolled out the ways in which middle america can both benefit from and be more secure in what seems like the wide-open world of the globalized economy that is the challenge for us and then in terms of the geopolitics of it i would advocate for the reentry. >> and what they welcome us back no hard feelings? >> i don't know about the no hard feelings. it would take a while. but in every meeting i had our allies won't suspect desperately. they are very eager for our active engagement. i want to ask about climate change. an area we are not leaving a lee
country into china is going to play an important role, how high a priority as it for you and your committee? >> absolutely it came up in my conversations. one of the things i remind you to send allies around the world as we have states and cities which in many cases were on their own the significant countries but just as committed to the goalies are still significantly investing in and moving towards a clean future. climate change is an access control threats. one of the things i find interesting is the number of leaders and the companies and the insurance industry that are very conservative but are now publicly saying we are seeing the cost and the challenges and we have to come up with a responsible and balanced approach to this because we are out of time. our challenge is going to be having one political party that wants us to race forward and do everything we can to de-
carbonized immediately and another that says there is no particular problem. i'm trying to craft a bipartisan solutions that are actually ann double because the reality of the system as we can ge can giva brave speech as we want to have the urgency of the climate threat and we've got folks that have been saying this is a problem for decades. i think joe biden's first climate change bill was introduced in 1986 if i'm not mistaken so we've have had leaders for decades saying this is a problem we have to legislate around it because both china and india have and use abundant coal and they are still developing, we have to invest in carbon natural technologies whether it is advanced modular nuclear or carvin sent her sequestration with both. they are and we should be as well. the one area where i think lamar alexander, senator alexander of tennessee has been a leader and we ought to take them up o him t and embrace it is significantly
increasing our investment in those technologies and deployment because frankly the whole of rest can meet the targets as india and china do not and everything we do makes no difference. we should be working very closely with them and racing to deploy those first. >> i wanted to ask one question about korea. did you get the sense that the scaling back of exercise was having any impact on the readiness and how worried are the people they're? >> the chief of staff said we are still able to achieve our readiness and training goals. the exercises are not as visible and large they were smaller in terms of scale and units that bt they are still as the debate ase could receive an readiness and goals. if this continues, then it is
exactly the complexity of the very large training expert says that contribute to readiness and i also think that there is a certain teaching value to being able to carry out large multiple niche and platform exercises. i recognize that it's entirely possible we could go for a few years without large-scale exercises without readiness, but i felt if we could continue for five years or decades without the significant impacts on the capacity to project force in the region. >> one more brief -- there are no easy questions from jeff pratt. did you get any impression as to what they are thinking about the progress and also it seems in the back of many peoples minds
the relationship in the north and any thoughts on that and second is about the inf treaty which is about to land-based missiles and the argument for the withdrawal is to gather china. we would have to base these like japan and i wonder if you cut any deals from the japanese that they were going to express their feelings about the end of the treaty. >> yes and no put into sentences the administration in south korea has a different orientation in terms of their relationship because they imagine a different future than much of the region in the world. reunification is a core issue and reestablishing a family to family contact ties i think many of the folks a have openness and sort of a welcoming foster will
accomplish more than to return to the competitive posture. we had a lot of conversations about the joint team for the upcoming olympics and the exchanges and optimism that will come forward and i push back on the lack of any substantive steps. in talking about the treaty, the stated justification for the withdrawal is the need to redo the treaty that includes china and its new caper movies. i need to see more efforts to eo negotiate that flyover we've got this trade conflict and we are trying to reset this would be the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the partnership around things like nonproliferation and arms control agreement is going to be a part of the relationship with
china. i do not get here that that is on the table and there are no offers from that japanese leaders to base the missiles that did not come up at all. >> i think we've made the senator covered a lot of ground geographically and otherwise, so please join me in thanking him. [applause] [inaudible conversations] like e