Transcripts For CSPAN Truman Center Conference - Panel On Foreign Policy Campaign 2020 20240714

[applause] good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here. I will let you come on up and take a seat. I think we got the order right. Everyone comfortable . Good morning. We are here to talk about what a progressive vision reform policy and National Security looks like. , this isou guys know going to be a conversation. You guys can feel free to jump in if you have something to add or disagree with someone. I will tell you when we need to move on. Also, a programming note, you ay have seen the listing of lastminute issue. Someone from the Kamala Harris campaign was not able to make it. We have four wonderful analysts since that of analyst we have four wonderful panelists instead of five wonderful panelists. Lets jump in. Im going to start with the one this. This morning, we know the u. S. Says iran is to blame for the attack on to oil tankers in the gulf of oman. Knowing what we know now, what worn or besident rn or be saying to the American People about what we know . I would say obviously the news as concerning and something we need to is concerning an something when he to take seriously. But we need to know more. I think that we need a full and thorough and transparent investigation of what happened. Unbiased investigation of what happened, because at this point we dont know enough to really say. The United States should defend their interest and radome of navigation, but it is important not to rush to conclusions and important to take steps that would not otherwise escalate what is already an inflammatory situation. Does everyone else feel the same way, patience is the best guide right now . Exactly right. There are a couple of things going on here we have to be concerned about. ,irst is this, iran unfortunately, has a track record of reckless provocative actions that can make things worse. But, we are now in the context where we have a crisis created by the jump administration. The nuclear deal that we reached, was working, it was torn up, now we are in an environment heading toward some kind of escalation, where even if things are unintended, we may have consequences we regret. In dealing with this situation, i would hope the administration would do exactly what sasha said, get the facts. Lets make sure we preserve freedom of navigation. International waterway that is vital for commerce, but lets do it with others. Into a turns confrontation between the u. S. And iran, it will get worse, not better. We also have a crisis with credibility. The fact that we have to debate with the administration is saying about what is responsible is the truth up not tells you a lot about the credibility of this administration. When youre in a crisis, credibility cap lusted. They have lusted. They have lost it. I would point to the statement the eu made where they said that we need maximum that was a specific reference to the Trump Administration policy of maximum pressure. We dont want our european allies to have to hold the United States back. You want to be moving with them. [indiscernible] what i think is critical for americans is that there is an alternative to war here. We need to recommit. The only other point i would make is to go back to the dod statement yesterday and i wrote it down. They were very clear, and this was as of yesterday, we have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the middle east. We will defend our interests, but a war with iran is not in Strategic Interests were in the best interests of the International Community. That is coming from our own defense department. I wanted to broaden a little bit to set the table for how we are going to frame this discussion, the idea of a progressive Foreign Policy, what that looks like today. Of uncertainty from the American Public about what our foreignpolicy goal is as a nation. Decades after the cold war, 18 years after 9 11. The top two values when it comes to Foreign Policy shows that terrorism and a Strong Economy ranked at the top of that list. As the singly as you can, what would be a President Bidens Foreign Policy goal . Im going to let him speak for himself and he will be addressing these issues. [laughter] agree about the basic principles that we need to be looking to. Had a very fundamental level, it is pretty simple. We need to defend our country if it is under threat. We need to create rising and shared prosperity within the United States. And we need to do what we can to defend and advance our values. Those of the foundational building blocks. From there, a few things. Basic objectives moving forward. First, defend the country. Protect our security. Do it in a way that does not get us embroiled in endless wars wot with expensive deployment of forces. To dealmobilize others with a whole set of common challenges. Whether it is threats in the cyber domain. Terrorism. To your point, whether it is aggression from russia or others. Sure that we win the competition for the 21st century. That means investing in our own people in meaningful ways, so they can compete in a globalized world. We have different views and takes on globalization. All agree probably you cannot stop it, you may be able to shape it and move it. Amna there is growing support for this idea of that you have to be strong at home to be strong abroad. How would president sanders view that . Bei would not say it has to i would say both of these things have to go together. Economically, we want to make sure prosperity is shared, that we have a system that spreads the benefits around more equally. Economic inequality is something my boss focuses on a lot. I think that is something shared among a lot of candidates. I think it deeper part of that is not just economically, but politically, democratically, the Democratic Health of our institutions. That is something that matters for Foreign Policy. It matters for what we model to the rest of the world. When we talk about human rights and democracy and equality abroad, how much weight that has when it is or is not practiced in the United States. I think a president ial campaign is a uniquely valuable time to suss some of this out. Coming out of 2016, one of the things we saw on a range of issues, things that were seen as consensus turned out to not have a strong consensus. Betterming up with Foreign Policy ideas and initiatives and reversing some of the damage trump has done, what is just as important in terms of americas role in the world is to try to develop and forge a new and durable consensus around those policy ideas. That is the only way we are going to start to rebuild trust in americas word around the world. Amna there is an issue of priorities, of what a potential president would put first. That have been the studies reveal a generational divide when it comes to priorities. The focusericans want to be on domestic issues. Im curious how, as the end just candidate, how president duda judge wou president pete who judge what approach that here at home . Ete gave a major foreignpolicy address. He gave that in bloomington, indiana. This comes back to the question of how we get conversations in the beltway into the heart of the country so we can engage with voters where they are instead of separating them out. In that address, he was clear on two big points, one is that given the moment we are in historically and how much transformative changes taking place in the world, we need to go back to first principles. It comes down to American Values, american interests, americas relationships in the world. When it comes to priorities, we cant afford to choose one or the other. We have to do both. I reject the premise that we can only decide to be strong domestically or to represent our values abroad. We can comes down to, only be successful abroad if we are revitalizing ourselves at home. That is his argument. Amna one writer called senator warren a leftwing America Firster. Is that fair . I dont think i would put it that way. [laughter] but just to agree with what you are hearing from the panel, i do think it is important for us to rethink how we talk about this divide between foreign and domestic policy. To talk to voters and to talk to americans about why these things are so intertwined and to do it in a way that is meaningful in their lives. Lots of polling shows Climate Change is an important issue among younger voters. We know if we are going to achieve the climate goals to bend the curve on the diderature, even if we everything domestically, we also need countries around the world to get in the game and reduce emissions. It is a domestic challenge and a foreignpolicy challenge. You think about Something Like the newsi has been in recently if we want to have an alternative to something we fear might have espionage implications for the chinese could have leverage, we have to offer an alternative. That takes investments in research and infrastructure. Those are domestic investments. We have to shift how we talk about these things. The hope is that americans around the country will see that these things are intertwined. Amna priorities, where the rubber meets road is spending, budget. Been ansanders has outspoken critic of the Defense Budget. The last budget passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. As president , would he veto a budget like that . Im not prepared to say that right now, but on the issue of ballooning Defense Budgets and how these are always passed with overwhelming bipartisan support for the Green New Deal or some new mastic benefit, they always ask you about how do you pay for it . He is trying to cultivate a new conversation to say helping our of their it is health care or college or other domestic issues, these things need to be seen as part of National Security in the same way we talk about Defense Budget. There are things he will cut. He is looking at that right now, looking at where we are actually looking to cut. Just as important is to look at these other things, these things matter just as much. Amna you would not say whether you would veto would or not . Matt not right now. Amna any candidate veto the Defense Budget . I think the question is that a friend about how we spend it, not how much we spend. Amna you are ok with an increasing budget as long as it goes to the priorities . It all depends. If we can agree on what we need to be doing and how we need to be doing it, than resources need to be applied. We may be spending less, the same, who knows . I think it is really putting the cart before the horse to have a notine number and addressing how we are spending the money. Think wed thing, i need a much broader definition of National Security. Have an imbalance in the pentagon is getting 20 to everyone dollar of the state department and you are , that is adiplomacy problem. That is Something Else we need to be rebalancing. Matt i agree with everything tony just said. If you are thinking about the wars of the future, they are not the ones we have been fighting. We recognize that the type of threats we face into cyber conflicts. There requires a much different composition of the defense spending budget. Fundamentally our domestic economic competitiveness, can we think about ai, machine learning, quantum computing, the money we are putting in right now is a tiny fraction of what some of our competitors around the globe are putting in. Inare thinking about this one or twoyear budget cycles and they are thinking about this in 1820 year Strategic Planning cycles. The investment in the domestic economy fundamentally prepares us to secure a National Security. If we are not thinking about that, we are not having the right conversations. Amna you mentioned the wars we have been fighting. Senator warren has called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from afghanistan. They control upwards of 63 of the population in afghanistan, they have gotten stronger. Is that an acceptable number for the u. S. To withdraw troops . Sasha we have to think about the question differently. How is the continuation of troops in afghanistan benefiting the situation. We have tried counter narcotics. We have tried 100,000 troops. A military solution to the problems that afghanistan faces because they are not all military in nature. When you have a population that has a deep mistrust of its own government, where there is poppytion, where production is rising across the country, it is not fair to ask of Service Members to solve problems that are fundamentally not military in nature. What senator warren would say is we need a responsible withdrawal, not precipitous but we do need to bring troops home because it is not clear they are the solution. What would a time i look like . Sasha that is the kind of thing you would determine as you go. It starts right away. That is where she is. We all agree that this has gone on way too long. Responsible is critical. President trump without consulting anyone says we are going to pull all of our forces out. He wants to get down to 7000. That may be the right objective, it may be correct intuitively that this has gone on too long, but to do that at the very time you are negotiating with the taliban, and your number one objective is to get American Forces out, use that as leverage. You might get a better deal. Amna matt, i want to ask you about something in 2009. You said that patients is a virtue . Is that we should wait before determining a path forward. There is another election. How would you argue now that a withdrawal is definitely the way to go when we do not know how that is going to turn out. Matt i would say at that point there was still in new president , there was a new policy, they were putting more troops in afghanistan to see if they could reproduce security gains. 10 years later, i think we have the answer. I think the verdict is kind of in of what we are able to do with our military. That is not to say we have other tools and we should use those tools, but i would also zoom out a little bit. Ledger remember why we got into afghanistan, under what authority. I think we need to look at the broader way we have approached and prioritized and emphasized terrorism as this dominant lens through which we see our security, not only in that region, but around the world. The way we started to see immigration as a possible source of terrorist threats has really corroded the way we talk about National Security. As we talk about afghanistan, we need to talk about repealing the 2001 authorizations to deal with the problems. Afghanistan is important having been the longest american war, that we need a more robust about the way we have wrongly elevated terrorism about our approach to the world. Amna mayor pete mentioned he wants to repeal the aumf. This doctrinened of responsibility to protect. I have not heard anyone address this. Yes, it is the longest war and billions of dollars have gone into a largely failed effort, but is there no responsibility to the population that we went in to help . Tarek you are referring to afghanistan specifically. I do not advise the campaign on afghanistan, but mayor pete has been very clear on this issue and i will try to answer your question. Was getting for the answer. We went into afghanistan for a specific reason. The 9 11 attacks. Our goal should remain preventing afghanistan from being a base for terror attacks on the United States and around eyes. If we look to recent reporting about isis rising as a recent threat. We need to look at what responsibility means and the needs for a small, specialized presence during any transition. Otherwise, we are in a much more dangerous position overall. With respect to the responsibility to protect, that is an emerging norm in the International Community focused on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. I dont think that is what we talk about in afghanistan today. Does are two separate conversations. Amna sasha, i wanted to ask you toni, back to you for a second. This is a different time. The war was in a different place. Back in 2014, you did commit to completing the job we started their. At this point, is a withdrawal still in the plans for Vice President biden . Tony complete the job. The job that we started was to deal with a terrorist threat to the United States. That is why we were there. In an ideal world, would we like to remake afghanistan in a different way . Sure, but we cannot do it. We all agree that if we could do it, the verdict is in. We cant. The question is, what do we do at this point to protect our interests and the resurgence of these groups that does not require 14,000, 7000 American Forces . It does require some kind of follow on presence that focuses on counterterrorism to make sure that what we went therefore does not rise up again. Afghanistan, in 2016, Vice President biden said he expected Guantanamo Bay to be closed before president obama left office. That has not happened yet. Would that be a priority . Tony yes. Amna how quickly . Tony we found out the challenge of doing it. We had about 240 prisoners at guantanamo when he came to office. It is down to about 40 now. Unfortunately, congress repeatedly blocked efforts to tod ways, responsible ways, close guantanamo and deal with the remaining population. Im not saying it is going to be easy. We also know that through this time, it has become a symbol that has made it probably the most effective recruiting tool for extremists that exists. Traditionsour legal to keep it open and keep a group of people there who may be there under current circumstances for life without adjudication. That should be unacceptable to every american. Amna it was in 2013 senator warren voted against a bipartisan plan that would have made it easier for some of those prisoners to be allowed into the u. S. And close Guantanamo Bay. Where is her stance today . Sasha her stance is where it is always been. We do need to close guantanamos inner than later. Guantanamo sooner than later. There is a values argument. This is not something that represents who we are. It has been used as a recruiting tool around the world. There is also a pragmatic argument here. Since the years guantanamo has eight,ened, they have pleaded deals. We have had 600 terrorism convictions in civilian court. Prosecute people accused of these crimes. Can anyone appear committed to closing guantanamo within a first term of a presidency . [laughter] amna no one. I think we all know congress has a fundamental role to play. If congress is not prepared to do its job, how are we going to bring them back to actually serve . Amna you have someone sitting next to you this candidate voted bringing them back here. There seems to be some disagreement about how to even close it down. Tarek this goes back to the Central Point of what the campaign represents. For every member of congress to take the difficult vote, we need to get the conversation out of d. C. , into the heartland, and be engaging voters so that these votes are not as hard as they are right now. If were just having this conversation inside this room, if americans are not thinking about what the cost is, not just on a value spaces, but also to Strategic Interests, then we are not moving forward on this. It is not just about who sits in the white house. It is a whole government approach and the checks and balances in congress. Matt if i could help take some of the heat off sasha here [laughter] obviously, the location is important, but there was also the issue of the legal limbo. Guantanamo is a symbol, but also some of the legal issues. They are detained indefinitely under laws of war for a war which has no end by definition. I think that is something that in the mines. They will try to develop that political consensus. Tony i want to jump in on matts point. This is related to the point i just made. Stated a point that he stated on the campaign trail before that. We need to repeal and replace the 2001 aumf. We need to have a discussion about what that is going to look like. This is a task for congress. Congress has to take the difficult vote and not pass the buck. We are going to have to have some Core Principles about a new set of aumfs. There are concrete ideas that deserve discussion. Setting automatic sunsets if congress does not renew. Making sure they are all consistent with international law, including the basic American Value of not supporting torture. Going out of our way to ensure they apply to groups that are named, instead of groups that might not be named. We have to have that conversation, take that out of d. C. , and ensure voters are demanding that from members of congress, and make sure we have the pressure to get it passed in congress. Amna i do want to move on from this. I want to make sure we get to a lot more topics. Tarek mentioned the 2001 aumf. Does Vice President biden support being repealed . Tony we tried to get it repealed and replaced during the obamabiden administration. I suspect we would all say that our candidates would commit to close guantanamo as quickly as possible. But as has been said, it takes two to tango. A larger problem has been the abdication of responsibility by congress to playing its appropriate role in the Foreign Policy of our country, and particularly when it comes to matters of war and peace. The hard truth is i would hope that a new president exercising leadership would be able to move just washington , and the country in turn would move its members of congress. Day, ifnd of the congress is not going to play the role it is supposed to play, it is hard to get anything done. Matt i want to agree with that and referred to some of the work that is being done. Bipartisan majorities. Underneath that bipartisan majority was also a Strong Coalition and a transpartisan coalition. Conservative, progressive groups, groups that would probably not work with on other issues a lot, but there was a shared issue interest in congress reasserting its authority on these most important issues. 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. Mattsjust to pile on to point. Credit to senator sanders for helping lead this fight in congress, but i think there is a growing recognition amongst this isof congress that something that transcends politics. It is about what rights and Authorities Congress has in this role. You do see these strange bedfellows pop up, were both senator sanders and senator warren voted with rand paul, senator mike lee to repeal the 2001 aumf. That is not a grouping that you see every day. I think there is some hope there. It takes a little bit of political courage. Amna i want to ask you about syria. Everyone has agreed that the withdrawal of troops is the best option. Do i have that right . No. With regard to syria . I will put an asterisk on it. I think we have to be able to distinguish between two very different things. Of the am unlimited number and unlimited deployment of u. S. And endsound the world that we cannot achieve. Small,in syria, a discrete, focused force that is there to support and leverage a far greater indigenous force to deal with a very concrete problem we face, isis. When we left office, we had about 500 americans in syria. The Trump Administration pushed it to 2000. Becauseers are fuzzy, things dont get counted for public consumption, but lets go with the numbers in the press. President trump then decided, without discussion or consultation, to announce he was pulling all 2000 back. I think that was a mistake. 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 had,ase of the 500 that we better leveraging 70,000 were 80,000 indigenous forces who are doing the hard work of keeping the pressure on and defeating isis, i think that is a reasonable investment. Amna is removing Bashar Alassad part of the mission . Tony at this point, realistically, no. The Larger Mission in syria, much as we would all like to see him go, i dont think that is a realistic proposition soon. Particular, i want to emphasize a couple points. When our Intelligence Community leaders tell us that the threat from isis in syria is not resolved, we should believe them. It challenges so many of our core fundamental beliefs about the specialization and professionalism of of our communities to ignore them like this president has done. There are three categories of security risks that interrelate with the rapid and irresponsible drawdown in syria. One is the threat from isis andy al qaeda affiliates. One is the kurdish forces. If we cannot keep our word in terms of protection commitments to our allies, that will adversely affect our alliances in the future. The third is increasing the danger that are longtime ally israel faces in the region from the destabilization of syria. All of those reinforced the idea of small, specialized, counterterrorism focus of the troops and that is where we need to be at the moment. Amna this is going to be a last call for any questions in the room. Write those down. Someone will collect those shortly. Matt, i want to ask you about another high interest area in saudi arabia. I wonder if senator sanders were elected, what would he do to hold accountable mohammad bin salman on for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi . Matt he has been pretty explicit in his criticism of the saudi government and mohammad bin salman in particular. He would be continued he would continue to be clear that we need to have a Public Accounting of the regimes role in the murder of jamaal showed khashoggi, but also some of these other human rights activists being detained and tortured, particularly womens rights activists. I think he is going to be realistic. We have a security relationship with saudi arabia that does provide some important intelligence. Todo have some serious tools kind of push saudi arabia in a better direction. They will be, prepared to look at some of the other options. Amna what are some of those tools . Matt we could slow the flow of weapons. People say they can buy from russia or china, but the interoperability question. They have people we provide to help them deal with the systems they have. There is also the political question. They rely on us politically and diplomatically. There are a lot of point of leverage we have. I think the important thing and he is already doing that is to make clear that this destabilizing behavior, this recklessness we see from mohammad bin salman on in yemen and elsewhere is undermining our security goals for the region. It is undermining stability in the region. What trump has done, simply aligning the United States unquestioningly with this regime at this time in what seems to be in preparation for a steadily escalating saudi versus iran regional conflict,s disaster is for American Security. I would make a reference to syria as well. In achieving what we have said with syria, the idea that we are not going to engage with iran is unsustainable. No question what they have done in syria in backing the assad regime is her run this, but iraq is a an interesting potential table to meet over. There are some echoes of what president obama was trying to achieve in the region. Tois not that we are going shift alliances, but we are going to use americas considerable influence to try to reach some sort of regional modee ending where where we are not simply assigned aligned with one regime or another. The Trump Administration has given the saudis a blank check and they have repeatedly filled in a large amount of cash and cash did. In this horrific murder, there was a moment after that when the administration could have and should have gone to the saudis and said, we are not going to tell you who your leader should be, but you have to rein this guy in. He is acting recklessly, impulsively, and horrifically unacceptably. Amna you have to rein in mbs . Tony correct. And the war in yemen. Ongoing atrocity when it comes to civilians. United states has its own reputation at risk because we havent part of that. Third, stop this crazy divide with qatar. Prisoners,itical human rights activists should not be in jail. They should be celebrated and released. And so on down the line. There was a moment of leverage. We did not use it. To the contrary, we basically gave them a sense of impunity that continues to this day. Amna how would a President Biden and for some of these things . Tony i think matt made the point and we did with precision guided munitions. Weaponry we were giving out keep in mind we have a partnership with saudi arabia we have said to them and we should continue to say that we will protect against but, when it comes to prosecuting the war in yemen, when it became clear that they were unable or unwilling to use the weapons in a responsible manner, we pulled the plug. Amna i want to take a 10,000 foot view now. There is a story that americans like to tell themselves about how we build a liberal, international order. It is a good story. It does not really exist. There has been a lot of realigning over recent years. As we are moving away from a u. S. Led rulesbased international order, what would president warren do in terms of Foreign Policy to establish americas place in the world . , there is no doubt that the United States played a in benefiting the United States. Two things. Terms to alltate of the other countries in the world that we might have been able to in the past. Recognize that our actions have not benefited countries we ostensibly our partners or our allies with. We need to have some humility about that. I think we can and we should do better and we still can do that in the world as we move forward. There is something that the United States has that no other potential rival can even come close to matching and that is her network of partners and allies around the world that share our partners and values and goals. Can is not something you buy or bully your way into. It is something that we can lose ourselves. Senator warren wants to reinvest in those partnerships so we can play a leading role in the world , what does not mean we dictate how things should be, but we work with partners to benefit ourselves and others. Notbelieves that we may have always lived up to our best instincts and best values, but we can play a role for good in the world. Amna i go back to the study i cited earlier. It is not even clear that most americans want the u. S. To act like that leader in the world anymore. How would president buttigieg prioritize whether or not it makes sense for the u. S. To reestablish itself in that role . Tarek putting survey data thee, it comes down to experiences we have all lived through. Since 9 11, there have been a number of examples where we have fallen short of our values and engendered a certain sense of cynicism about what government might be capable of and how far it can go in living up to its values. Extremeyou see the version of that day by day in this administration, but then you come back to the fact that there is too much at stake in the world to say we cannot be engaged in it. There is fundamentally too much at stake to say america cannot be. It has to be. That is the central argument. When you think about where the rubber hits the road, there is lots we can do internationally, but it only comes to first doing it at home. When we are talking but immigration, we should not be talking about a border wall from sea to shining sea. We should be talking about humanely and effectively managing the border and welcoming refugees. When we talk about the rights of women or the lgb to lgbtq communities, we should be embracing diversity and celebrating it, not stifling it. Of thoseee some horrific hate crimes perpetrated mosques,il against synagogues, other places of community, we should be following the example of the Prime Minister of new zealand. We should be taking decisive words of action and having every effort to welcoming those communities back in. If we dont do those things at home, there is nothing for us to champion abroad. That is fundamentally where we get people back to saying the u. S. Has a role to play in the world. Amna i want to ask you something more specific. The former secretary of defense talked about Vice President biden and said, i think hes been wrong on every major foreignpolicy issue over the past four decades. Are there things that a besident biden would inconsistent with what progressive Foreign Policy would be today in terms of decisions in the past . Tony i want to step back for one second. A larger point. I think Vice President biden would saymp based on his many years of experience, the world does not organize itself. If we are not playing a part and hopefully a leading part in doing some of that organizing, than either someone else will do it and probably not the way that advances our interests and values, or no one does it and then you have chaos. Yearse saw over the eight of the Obama Biden Administration is that American Leadership applied in a responsible, thoughtful, reallysive way gets result that starts with american diplomacy. The paris climate agreement. The iran nuclear agreement. More than 65 of countries and organizations to take on isis and defeat it. Of countries that came together to combat ebola would not have happened without American Leadership in diplomacy. Ish of these things something that, explained the right way, talked about the right way, will resonate with the American People. If you take the United States out of the equation, then as problematic as things are, it will get even worse. Demonstratedthat repeatedly. Going back over the vice record, he is extremely proud of the role he played in kosovo, in arms control in the senate at a time when this was an existential matter for the United States and the soviet union. The countries that are in nato today, having not been the victims of direct russian alsossionm is is he is proud of the fact that he advocated strongly within the administration and afghanistan for a much more focused mission. In 2009,ook office there were about 150,000 americans in iraq. He was given responsibility on the political side for iraq. By the time we rolled around to 2011, under his watch, we actually ended the war in iraq. From 150,000 americans to virtually none. I will put that record up against anything. Amna would he support the escalation of the use of drone strikes abroad . Matt we had within the admin it tony we had within the administration, president obama felt very strongly about it, using this tool, using this weapon, we had to do it responsibly, with clear rules and as much transparency as possible. We put in place exactly that. Even if we was that believed in ourselves and acting responsibly and transparently as you could, you want to do make sure future administrations did the same thing, or have to explain why they work. Unfortunately, we are seeing that they are not, but they are also finding ways not to explain it. We need to come back to that kind of accountability and transparency, especially when it comes to lethal weaponry. Amna how would president sanders balance priorities at home i know it is not sequential i guess what we are not being clear about is where is the bar for intervention . Where is the responsibility to protect . Matt i think there are a couple things to look at. Does this rise to the level of an atrocity . Worldustifies the violating another countrys sovereignty. Amna some would argue that a leaders use of nerve gas would be that far. Matt i think that is right. Amna that would mean intervention in syria . Matt the second question is what are the means and ends that you have. What outcome could you produce . In my view, even though president obama considered a strike, i think the outcome they got at that time, which was an agreement to move chemical weapons out, i think that was very valuable. I know in fact that members of the israeli government, conservative members, saw that as an important agreement at the time. In their view, those chemical weapons were meant for them. I think there are certain things that rise to the level that justify intervention, but i think the question then becomes, with the tools that we have, do we have a likelihood, a reasonable likelihood, of creating a better outcome . I think that is where the question becomes tougher. Amna i have so many more questions. Lets open it up to the room for questions. Do we have a stack somewhere . Excellent. Thank you. Here we go. Ok. How about we just go down the line on this . Sasha, want to start . Sasha ok. Amna what is your candidates position on trade . Sasha she thinks that trade needs to work for workers over corporations. We are all answering . Amna lightning round. Tarek globalization is not going away. The problem is the policies we used to tackle globalization were insufficient. We did not invest in workers or the ratification and we kept trading away rights over and over again. Tony trade is good when it is fair. Matt right. Trade is good. The question is where are those benefits accruing . Our human rights being represented around those tables where these global trade agreements are being made . Amna lets talk about israel. This your candidate believe Benjamin Netanyahu is still a partner in working toward a peace deal . Matt no, he has been pretty explicit about that. I think netanyahu has been pretty explicit about that despite having committed and saying the word two state inution back in the speech 2009 in response to pressure from the obama administration. Policies his government have pursued all along have undermined that goal and now he is being much more explicit that he does not support that. Tony i think anyone who cares about israel cares about three things. Security. Israel remaining democratic and jewish in nature. Unfortunately, the policies of the Current Administration are going to make that impossible overtime. Jewish andot remain democratic in the absence of a two state solution. It would be good if the Prime Minister partnered in that effort. Based on the evidence we have at present he is not. Tarek im not going to speak to the Prime Minister in particular, but i think he has been very explicit about the need for a two state solution. There have been a series of destabilizing actions under this administration. Sasha i agree with matt. I think senator warren has said pretty clearly and if you look at Prime Minister netanyahus actions, they indicate to me that he is uninterested in moving forward in a productive way. Administrationmp has given him a green light to take actions not in the best interest of israels security or for the palestinian people, who have a right to selfdetermination, who have a right to live in dignity and with some respect and we dont see that happening. Amna heres another one. Weve heard a lot of agreement here today. What is one way you feel your candidates Foreign Policy vision differs from the others . Tarek sure. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but for a mayor, and millennial mayor from a small town in indiana, i think the central argument is that we need the conversation to be taking place outside of d. C. That is why his Foreign Policy address was in bloomington. That is why he is talking about Foreign Policy on the trail from the perspective about how this cashes out to them. Immigration, trade, sending sons and daughters to war,. Those are breadandbutter issues. How does it make them so . Amna how is that different from the other candidates . Tarek he listens. Messenger. I understand from my lived experience you feel left out of this conversation and any administration that is going to succeed has to build a deeper dialogue. Not thinking about this as an exercise in d. C. Amna he has also been clear about not going back to the policies of the previous administration, explicitly about Vice President biden. Is there a policy about ritchie disagree explicitly . Tarek a specific policy from the obama era . Amna that Vice President biden has articulated. Tarek i would have to go back and look. I think in general we are all looking for the future and thinking about what we have to do. You have heard a lot of agreement on the panel so far. Tony Vice President biden would hit the ground running from day one. He has been there and done it and knows all of the players. I think you would engender respect around the world from day one. Unfortunately, given the damage done by this administration, there is not a single minute or day to lose. So people can have great confidence that taking office, we would be reoriented in a different direction from the getgo. Amna matt . I would direct people to an interview he gave with the New York Times about some of his policies and views on Central America in the 1980s in particular, where he differed from a lot of the washington establishment and still does. He very correctly defended his views,s opposition to the Reagan Administration latin american policy, their support for rightwing dictatorships and death squads. In some ways, that has been forgotten as the Foreign Policy establishment, if i could use that term, has moved along and looked back on the reagan era in a much more positive sense. Reagan achieved certain things, but that was an extremely ugly era of policy, and he was challenged to account for that. I think you very correctly defended his view at that time is the right one and i think it was. I think that is consistent with some of the ways he has talked about his vision of american foreignpolicy, which is to say america has and will achieve great things, but we also need to understand that some of the ways we talk about foreign theyy dont reflect and need to reflect some of the views and things we have done in the past that arent so great. He has talked about the overthrow, he has talked about latin america, and that is not to say that we need to be bashing ourselves over the head, but we need to understand and try to cultivate a more realistic conversation about what American Power and leadership can actually produce. Amna sasha, what makes senator warren uniquely qualified . I thinkeah, listen, senator warren is uninterested in criticizing fellow democrats, but what she believes is that it wont be enough for us to just turn the clock back to pretrump and go about business as usual. She believes that we need to have fundamental shifts, not only in Foreign Policy, in our policies written large, but to use Foreign Policy is an example, so that our foreign policies are actually benefiting and resonating with working americans. And that is not nibbling around the edges. I think that is one of the things that makes are distinct. Amna a question about foreign aid now. Sasha, i will start with you. Someone is asking what is your vision for the u. S. s role in reforming our broken foreign aid system . Is that in solidarity with other nations or about promoting u. S. Interests . Sasha one thing that is important to keep in mind about foreign aid is that it is less than 1 of our overall budget. I think fundamentally americans are generous people, they want to help others in need. It is not wrong to say that we should do that in it with that is consistent with our interests and values. I think we can do that with other countries because we can leverage contributions and lead an effort, oftentimes that is bigger than the sum of its parts. I also think that it is fair to expect that our aid is databased and there are metrics involved, that when we give taxpayer dollars to others, we understand whether those dollars are having intended benefits. There is more that we can do. That foreign aid is a fundamental strategic tool in the toolkit. To suggest otherwise would be very dispiriting. If you look at what is happening in Central America as we are dialing down for an eight dollars when we should be dialing them up to deal with some of the root causes of the crises taking place. What can we do with it . Building on the work of many of the people in the room, we need to acknowledge the frontline civilian nature of the conduct of foreign aid. We put civilians in dangerous situations without the full spectrum of support they require, not treating them with the same respect and dignity of our men and women in uniform. Building on everything they need to get what they need for the job done is fundamental. The last piece of it is these createdions, they were in a world war ii post era. We have not updated them. We have not gone back to the drawing board and asked, what is the radical set of changes we need to solve the problems of today . That is something we are excited to rollout later. Tony im afraid we are in violent agreement. [laughter] this is about something we have lost sight of. This is about enlightened selfinterest. That hes to be the guiding foreign principle of our policy. Central america is a great example. At the end of the obamabiden administration, Vice President biden went to congress and got nearly 1 billion for the northern triangle countries. Dollars tied to concrete reforms and the judiciary, the police, combating corruption, economic reform, so that over time, it takes time, overtime, the conditions could be created that would give people an incentive to stay at home. The idea that people come to this country and just wake up one morning and say, you know what, im going to leave everything behind, my family, my language, my culture, and make the most hazardous journey possible to a place i dont know, that people just do that spontaneously is unlikely. We know that what drives this has to be so extreme that people are willing to make these lifeanddeath decisions. But an enlightened foreignpolicy, one based on enlightened selfinterest, could do exactly what they are talking about. Make these kind of investments that are going not only to benefit the people in question, but to benefit us. Matt i think this gets at one of the key differences between the kind of Foreign Policy that we are talking about that we would like to see the Democratic Party talk about and what trump is talking about. This America First ideology. And that is that trump sees americas engagement in the world in zerosum terms. This is the way he approaches everything. If you are getting something, im obviously getting screwed. That is the gospel he preaches to his followers. You are getting screwed, im going to stop you from getting screwed. We need to do a better job, even during a campaign is a really important time to have and start this conversation. Upon taking office, to continue this conversation and find ways of communicating with the American People, that we are not doing this we benefit by investing in this system, you benefit, your children benefit, your communities benefit. Amna i want to go back to something sasha mentioned earlier. Someone is asking about Climate Change and where it fits in as a Foreign Policy issue for your candidate . Tony front and center, at the very top of the agenda. The Vice President put out a climate plan about 10 days ago. Im really proud of the fact that i think virtually every democratic candidate has put out a very 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 of this is critical. We are responsible for about 13 of emissions. Yes, we have to get our own house in order. By definition, even if we do, that is nowhere near enough. An administration that goes back, but also goes forward, in thinking about, and acting on its role in convening, leading, bringing countries together, and also in pushing and prodding them to keep raising their goals, raising their targets, and making good on them, that is exactly what the biden climate plan has in mind. If elected president , he would convene a summit very early in his first term and indeed in his first year. He would set enforceable goals and he would have those goals reviewed on a regular basis so that we get to the zero emissions world, in the country at least, by 2050. We are all pretty much on the same page and i suspect that if you dont do the international peace, you are only doing half. Amna is there Something Else you wanted to add, sasha . Sasha the only thing i would add to that is paris, i think everyone up here would agree that paris is an important first step, and that we should return to the framework of that agreement, but i think senator warren thinks we should go far beyond that because that is the only way we are going to get to the numbers the scientists are telling us that we need. There is Something Else about the primacy of climate as a security challenge. If were going to acknowledge about where we have fallen short domestically and with foreign partners, we need to look to the subnational level. Pete has medical for cities and states and provinces around the world to come together about what they can do when theres gridlock at the national level. For some reason, governments are not always moving on it. Amna in terms of Foreign Policy, what is the enforceability for the u. S. To hold accountable other high emitting nations . Matt 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 that very important point at the local el, i think this has been i would say this is one of the good things, even though trumps withdrawal from paris is a disaster, but to see the way these cities and towns are tapping stepping up as kind of doing the diplomacy trump has failed to do, to make clear that trump has made this decision, but america believes Climate Change is real and that these communities are committed to moving forward after trump. , americasg it relative share of powers shrinking, but we have an enormous amount of power to set these tables and set these marks and work with our allies to hold others accountable. Margins. And using our weight. We should be able to stop coalfired plants. That is something very can create that we could be doing concrete that we could be doing. [laughter] matt . By the way, we will let that answer for all of us. I have long believed 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 and the role it plays, keeping it free whetherle, is important we want to have a space force in the way trump seems to talk about it, i dont think so. What anybody else like to say anything about space force . I will close with this, which is a broad one. How do we join your team . Go to elizabeth warren. Com. I will say a little bit more. We had a very large volunteer team. Our volunteer director is here today. If you are interested, please contact her and i will stick around to talk to some folks. Joe biden. Com, come see me and i will give you information on our volunteer court. More questions came in. There is a panel later today about nationalism and the threat of White Supremacy how does it connect to Foreign Policy platforms and worldview . This came up in a speech. They have been particularly articulate on it and it is very from the administrations concert constant effort to gaslight the American Public about what is going on. More americans were killed in america by domestic extremists that were killed i any international terrorist. And yet every time there is an attack to we go through parsing of what is terrorism. Were getting into this mode of thinking terrorism can only be one thing. So i think we need to come back to a comprehensive idea and understanding of what the real risks are so that we can allocate resources to protect the homeland crowd. What would you say about that . I agree. What senator warren has said is that we needed to call out like nationalism and terrorism in the same way we talk about al qaeda. We need to do more than call it out need to prosecute. We need a department of justice that will take this seriously. In his announcement video, Vice President biden said clearly that 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 does precisely to this issue. Charlottesville being the most compelling example. When we have a president who says that there are quote very good people on both sides of what happened in charlottesville, then we know we in. A profound and. Ome ways existential problem i know we all share that perspective and that is why it is so important we have change in this country. How is this a foreignpolicy issue . For a couple of reasons. One is what we talked about about american Democratic Health and the role that plays in our ability to advance our interests so when people see these things rising and our ,ailure to address these issues we demonstrate an attack others, that hurts our ability to do that. And senator sanders has written and spoken about this a number of times. We see a Global Coalition of authoritarian, racist, rightwing leaders and movements. Whether it is in hungary, brazil, or others. In some cases, they are funded by the same pots of money. I also want to Say Something a little more personal and my boss has talking about this. As a jewishamerican, they take this very seriously. His father came to this country as a young man to escape and is an. Antisemitism. We see in rising again now and it is extremely important for us to take this very seriously. And for every later to be absolutely clear that this is not acceptable in the america that we want for ourselves. Made that wematt should make explicit these , these arevisions precisely the division that recommended within the past election and will seek to minute light in the coming election. That is why it is a National Security issue. It is fundamentally about being the best version of ourselves. Someone is asking about venezuela, which is something i wanted to ask about earlier i guess the starting point for that is does anyone hold fast to the idea that would euro has to go . Go . Aduro has to senator sanders has said that we need to have Fair Elections. He has been very critical of the repression and corruption. I think that was the right choice. In retrospect, it is clearly the right choice given that now even the Trump Administration recognizes that this opposition cant even seem to agree with itself. It was a mistake to put the United States at the head of this parade, but he has been. Onsistent maduro doeseuro not have to go in advance of these elctions . Even if he does go, whether it is tomorrow, next week, or next year, that is the beginning of the story. Is a country that is profoundly, disastrously divided. If there is no conference of plan with the international , tell venezuela get , we will be ont a rat for a long, long time. Meanwhile cut we have people thereed every single day are 2. 5 million refugees in columbia. We have venezuelans under protected status but the menstruation is threatening to stand back. The last thing we will need is to go back to some kind of unilateral american action. It simply resurrects the ghost of the past. There is no doubt that he has lost his legitimacy and venezuela wont see stability until the point at which he is no longer leading the country. How we get there, and what that end game looks like, is the exact focus we need to have our attention on. Too many times, we have the use of unilateral force. Venezuela comes up over and over again. We just dont seem to be meeting at the core bar of what is our National Interest and whether we have an alternative. There are a large suite of alternatives that are only now being pursued. The last pieces critical and builds up on your point. When you look at the spread of refugees, the numbers are astronomical that are flooding over to that country. In columbia has a amount of a very difficult peace process. Need to be thinking very carefully about is how we partner with allies to get on. Op of this not until we see a legitimate election process, and i have a believing that it will happen intensive. Anytime soon. For us, it means free and Fair Elections sooner rather than later. It means you military and assistance, and not in the way looking at us, we are here at theyorder providing aid are addressing the refugee flows coming across their borders. Frankly, it means protecting venezuelans who are here in the United States right now. If the administration claimed about people in the way they claimed to, they would not be deporting venezuelans s back to chaos. Now a question about the teams you all work on. A question says National Security is not diverse at senior levels. What will you do to change that . First of all, that is absolutely right. National security, Foreign Policy work in washington is not diverse. Ims slowly Getting Better personally committed to changing that and after all of my colleagues are. Mostnk it is one of the diverse out there. In terms of the work being done. N foreignpolicy of advisersrcle that we have been working with is very diverse. , aboutin terms of gender 5050, about 5050. , we. N terms of nonwhites have to do their. Better. As someone who had the privilege for working for barack obama and susan rice, that is something we lived every day. But what the campaign is doing is pretty simple. Our campaign is extraordinarily diverse when you look at the ranks of Senior Leadership. We are establishing working groups on all of the issues we have discussed today. One of the working groups we are establishing is on the recipient foreignpolicy. We all recognize we have a lot to do. Do your is anyone else setting up a separate group to focus on that . I am a firstgeneration american pete firstgeneration american. Pete is a secondgeneration american. There are some that are visible and some that are less visible. Throughout all of our working groups, we have gender balance and representation from a diverse set of groups and identities. One that is worth pointing out is the lgbtq community. Unless you are openly gay and also explicit when interacting with people, people might not recognize the diversity that is represented if we are just doing superficial perceptions of peoples physicality. So this goes to a deeper question. Aw do we break out of paradigm for we are just interested in counting and mainstream as a form of inclusiveness. I would just say that this is something we as a Campaign Live every day. The fact that senator warren chose me to leave her foreignpolicy team shows everything you need to know. Are making a conscious effort to encourage diversity across our staff in every way. We have queers that in Senior Leadership positions. We are doing everything we can to make our campaign community. That includes our volunteers. Folks have joined communities in which they live to make it as a lucid and welcoming ass. Good question, thank you to whoever asked it. Thank you to our panelists. [applause] know him aof you lunch is outside no, my lunch is outside. My favorite question is we are sold, how do we sign up . That represents the best of truman. So please lean into these campaigns, the best is coming. Lunch is outside. [ambient sounds of chatter] at the pentagon today, acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan spoke to reporters about the escalating tensions between the u. S. And iran. Sorry i was late, i was on the phone. It is been a busy 24 hours, as you can imagine. Secretary pompeo and investor bolton have been very helpful. , we have anell International Situation in the middle east. It is not a u. S. Situation. And the focus for myself and ambassador golden everybody is to build international consensus. But the department of defense, one of our roles are set the conditions for diplomacy. They continue to have intelligence and continue to see work to do that as part of building the international consensus. General mackenzie and the has thecommand resources and support that they need to conduct their missions. Are you still working with . Ran how i look forward to running against that. Tuesday, Donald Trump Holds a rally in orlando, florida, launching his run for a second term. Watch at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan two, online and cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. This weekend, American History tv has live today coverage of the Gettysburg College Civil War Institute. Onference a look at net turners rebellion with Patrick Breen of providence college. The combat experience of civil war soldiers with Gettysburg College is peter carmichael. And then a Panel Discussion on artifacts of the civil war, moderated by brian muskie of West Virginia university. Live coverage continues at 8 30 a. M. Eastern with a discussion on preserving Gettysburg National Military Park with Jennifer Murray of Oklahoma State university. With ae in the civil war professor from Louisiana State university and then a look at the civil war and emancipation in the heart of america. Followed by a discussion on seeing the conflict through the eyes of leading historians. Watch the annual Gettysburg College Civil War Institute summer Conference Live this weekend. On American History tv on cspan3. The center for new American Security held a Panel Discussion on Intelligence Community oversight. Taking part in the conversation was the former House Intelligence Committee chair and in maryland congresswoman dutch ruppersberger. This is just over one hour. Welcome, i will start with our moderator from the washington post. If you can give ellen your attention, we will get started. Ellen thank you for joining us during your lunch hour. We will enjoy talking and watching you eat