We take you live now to a conversation with senator bob menendez. He is discussing a report put out by the committees democrats about the Trump Administrations Foreign Policy. I will be asking him some questions. The senator has a tight schedule and we may not have time at the end for audience questions. A number of you already sent me questions that you want asked. So lets begin. The virtual floor is yours. Thank you. Very much. Good to see you again. Thank you for joining us for the release of this online forum. Let he fell you why i thought undertaking this is right. Much has been written about his failed policy, but i thought it was important to assess the damage of the past four years from a congressional per sective and to look at the starkest examples of how he has engaged with the world. My staff interviewed dozens of former officials, many who served as senior officials in the Trump Administration. Speaking to people in more than 20 countries and what we found was troubling. His words and actions have been negative for the people and broad broader the country. We see the north Korean Nuclear missile programs larger and more capable than before. We see him inching closer to a nuclear weapon. Instead of coming up with a better deal, he alienated our partners and allies. Indeed he has bullied and threatened our closest friends. We need to address our most blessing challenges. Trump is not leading the global response, he is under mining it. His expectations, lack of attention, and inkent si left promises initiatives to wither on the vine. His attacks on Democratic Values have empowered autoterians to tighten their holds. Four years in, if youre still searching for the trump doctrine on Foreign Policy, you will find a warm embrace of autocratic leaders, the president has championed his policy as an America First approach, but in practice what we have is a trumpfirst approach. This report catalogs some of the most damaging aspects of what that means for americans. He has been marked by chaos, neglect, and National Security failures. Foreign officials recounted how they dont know who speaks for the patrick swayze, or whether or not a new policy announcement is real or will be abruptly reversed. It is no wound near partners are weary of coordinating with us. His attempts to engage on real crisis have resulted in diplom t diplomatic failure. When it became clear that a quick breakthrough with north korea was unrealistic he lost interest and called it solved. It is not solved. He me in grekted pressing challenges including nuclear proliferation, he has undermined efforts. He has refused to participate in global vaccine agreements, and he has criticized Foreign Policy by not advancing his own interesting calling on governments to aid hymn and work against his opponents. He has undermined our ability to promote values globally. He separated families at the border, turned away refugees, attacked a free press, teargassed citizens in a peaceful protest, and spouts rhetoric on race. He has given a green light to repressive regimes around the world. His attacks on the media are sided by foreign leaders. And according to a former u. S. Official, third, the abrupt and inconsistent decision makeen has taken close allies by surprise and thrown alliances into disarray. We heard from forth governments is frayed. And for good reason. We treated our allies not as trusted partners, but as the kid we can pick on in the schoolyard time and time again. From declaring canada a National Security threat to threatening germ any, to fleetenning and instulting mexico, our friends feel abused and alienated. Some have moved on looking to build alliances at the table. Fourth the president s os tillty has left the United States withdrawn and isolated from pressing global challenges and provided openings to our adversaries. Our go it alone approach shows that when the United States seeks to bargain with iron, only the Dominican Republic votes with us and our close allies vote against us. Not because they dont agree with the objective, but the u. S. Lofsz all credibility and on the issue. While we have a list of grievances, walking away takes away our ability to effectively Counter China and to improve these institutions. Fifth and perhaps most dangerously, the rhetoric and actions emboldened an authoritarian regime weakening rights and undermining values. He has made clear that the United States will not push back when leaders punish an academic institution. Carry out a power grab, or assassinate a journalist. Instead of holding them accountable, he went out of his way to definite the crown prince. Going so far as to defend him. It is not met with combination. Today, auto accurates and authoritarians know that donald trump has their back. Now americans might wonder what does this have to do with me . It is true. U. S. Foreign policy is often not on the forefront of most minds. For decades american leaders pursued a vision based on Democratic Values. Today that is hanging in doubt. If the United States is not standing up to regimes, if it does not Counter Chinas repression, if it allows a tax to go unanswered, it erodes all of our rights abroad and at home. And it under minds our authority. It sends a Ripple Effect around the world. If we do not ban together, we will be ill equipped to peach future challenges. So where do we go from here . We need to rebuild Foreign Policy institutions like the state department. Which has suffered the loss of extraordinary talent in the last four years. Restoring overseas confidence requires highly qualified diplomats that conduct themselves nin a reliable matte. It wont be easy, but it is absolutely necessary. Alliances are a foundational bedrock for protecting the american people. We need partnerships that pull power and resources to counter russia and china and tackle problems we cannot solve right now. Third, halting Global Freedom is a critical objective. Democracies improving u. S. Safety. Fourth, the United States is strongest international nainter were strong at home. The best way to communicate with other nations to drive for full equality is to embodiy iy yit ourselves. We need to undo the damage brought by this president. I hope it will serve as a roadmap for how we rebuild. And the reminder of the con consequences of incoherent chaotic Foreign Policy. For those of us that care about this country and the role we play in the world, there is a lot of work ahead. Thank you for tuning in and i look forward to your questions. Thank you so much, senator. I really appreciate that. I have a lot of questions for you and im hoping that we can tackle all of them. Your report was very interesting and i was particularly struck in a section you had about accountable. You said the Trump Administration needs to be held accountable. But you were somewhat vague about it in the report. What alleged misdeeds do you want to hold the Administration Accountable for, and what, exactly, would accountability look like . The accountability that im talking about is an assessment. We tried to lay a foundational element of that in this report where this Trump Administration has left us in the world into in knowing that assessment, and knowing where the shortcomings are, and where the consequences have been, then question begin to build upon it. For example what happened at the state department. We conducted a serious of informations and a question that ig reviews some of the politicalization at the state department. We need a robust vibrant state department with very capable people to promote American Values around the world. We need to make sure that congress is well respected and engaged. And that is something that the administration sought to trample on. So the accounting in that respect is understanding where the administration has taken us down the wrong path. The consequences that flow from it, and how do we correct it. But, i mean look, we recently just had stories about 545 children who dont, you know, they are still separated from their parents. And i guess what i want to know when it comes to situations like that. Migrant kids and others, or say the politicalization of the state department, its one thing to say we dont want to do these terrible things again, we want to move forward and do better. But what about the people who separated them. What about the individuals who retaliated against career officers at the state department. Things like that. Will they be held accountable or not. What will you do on that front . Look, i dont see the committee acting as the Investigative Authority on all of these issues, and i think there is so much work to do that lies ahead to promote the safety and security of the american people. When there are still those in positions of power that conducted themselves inappropriately, who created some of the consequences of the separation of children that have no parent linga alinkage at thi, of course that will be referred to by the Inspector General or we will look at it specifically. But my view that the committees work that could make america more secure and prosperous. You have the prour to name and shame, frankly, is that the latest that you could do . Could you say look i have not acetated to do that as the Ranking Member and i would do that as the jirm if i had the opportunity. The next question i have beened about 20 times. Do y you opposed the iron nuclear deal, i covered it, but joe biden wants to rejoin the deal. Does he have your support if he becomes president . Look, i think that a President Biden will also face the realities that the iron nuclear deal and the sunset questions are closer to an issue today than they were when the deal was entered into. The reality is that any administration that comes forward there is Ballistic Missiles and they are working to perfect it. I often refer to this as jcpoa plus. The reality is that we will need more than the jcpoa at the end of the deal. When the big mistake, the consequence as said, that the consequence of leading by the Trump Administration, without any effort in realizing our efforts, was a huge mistake. Even the french were talking to us about going beyond, recognizing the shortfalls, and also dealing with an arms continuing arms embargo with missile proliferation, and with other elements. We missed out on that opportunity. So i believe that im sure that vice President Biden, should he become president , will want to da with the totality of those issues and that suggests, to me, a jcpoa plus. So you would support a better deal but not necessarily going back to the old deal . As senator graham and i offered a idea. We auked to some of our european allies about it. Going back to the jcpoa but with a frame work understanding that iran would engage in other elements and Critical Issues that have to be dealt with like their weapons development, like their Ballistic Missile development. Like their proliferation continuing of terrorism as part of a more holistic deal. So the reality is that at the beginning okay, we go back to the jcpoa with an understanding that there is more to be built with. But you realize youre making the perfect enemy of the good here. Youre kind of hoping they will come along. And that sort of thing, and at the end of the day they might not be at all. You realize this, right . I realize that even our closest allies, those close with us at this time, understand that there is a need to build upon the jcpoa, but not to believe that it is the beginning and the end of what needs to be done. The reality is that there is a lot more. As i mentioned even the french were very much pursue a lot mo when we were in the deal. Anyone who believes that just going back to the jcpoa, including some of my strongest College Students who supported the jcpoa recognize that more has to be done than just the jcpoa. I understand your point. Speaking to the middle east, you have criticized saudi arabia and the United Arab Emirates for their conduct in the brutal yemen war, a war that doesnt get nearly the attention that it deserves. Now, the Biden Campaign has talked about prestricting u. S. Armed sales to the emirates. But i have to tell you, im a bit skeptical they will follow through on this for a noboumber reasons. Should i be skeptical, and if they dont follow through on restricting these arms sales, what do you think we do about it . I do believe when vice President Biden says they would restrict arms sales, they would restrict arms sales to ensure a result and diplomatic engagement with these countries to get them to stop what is happening in their engagements in these parts of the middle east, then that might not result in eliminating arms sales. But otherwise, i do believe they will follow through on it. And the reality is there is very strong support, certainly on the Democratic Caucus, as is exhibited by the votes that i led on, you know, defying the administration on saudi arms deals, and even the uae, which is a better partner than saudi has been. There is a strong appetite among the Democratic Caucus to see that through, and i believe that without President Trump, there would be several republicans who would join us in that effort. So i do take the biden view that they will follow through on it. Well, let me tell you one reason im a bit skeptical that the u. S. Is going to come down hard on the uae. There is some positive ties with them, especially when it comes to israel, one of our most important partners in the region. And the dynamics of the region seem to be changing. In fact, youre hearing even in saudi arabia, there are much fewer restrictions on socializing. Women are not allowed to drive, there is some positive development. How do you ensure that that sort of momentum continues while also holding these countries accountable for their military and human rightsrelated violations in places like yemen and beyond . How do you find that balance . Well, look, we applaud the uaes recognition and relationship with israel and bahrain. We applaud in saudi arabia the greater openings within Civil Society, especially for women. Thats all good. We also have something called the u. S. Law which says that israel must maintain its qualitative edge in the region. So as were looking at these new relationships, we also have an obligation to u. S. Law. So i just get concerned that we see a breakneck speed of sales, for example, being proposed to the uae without the appropriate deliberative process that goes through from the state department, the department of defense, and with our allies to understand the consequences of such sales. So it seems to me that this should be, you know, peace and normalization but not peace and normalization for weapons at the end of the day. So we can have a robust relationship. We can develop a Security Architecture that can include these countries, but u. S. Law says that the qualitative edge of israel needs to be preserved. My question was more about how do you hold these countries accountable for activities in places like yemen, while at the same time not wanting them to be aw backing away from these positive developments. What are some of the things you would do to try to make sure they get both of these messages, that we want the positive stuff but not so much the negative stuff . Listen, that first starts off with the president of the United States who makes it very clear that assassinating a journalist is not acceptable in our relationship, that our relationships dont go you know, totally okay for so long as you do certain things, then you can do anything you want. Thats the message that President Trump has sent. It starts with the president who upholds basic democratic principles, who insists in our relationships that people move toward a greater acceptance of it, that the country move to a greater acceptance of it, that leaders, you know, do not ultimately undermine a free press and descent when it is peaceful. That started with the president , and then its followed by a congress that i would hope in its legislations would promote that as a principle, be prepared to provide a benefit for those who actually follow those fundamental, you know, views of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and that creates consequences for those who dont. I guess, you know, a lot of it people say things all the time in washington, people put out press releases, and i think it just comes down to what actual the devil in the details of what youre actually prepared to do. But, anyway, moving on, although feel free to address that as well. Staying in the region, because we cant escape the middle east, if Benjamin Netanyahu were with us right now, what advice would you give him on how he should approach vice President Biden . Untarnished advice. First of all, i think he needs to understand that the u. S. Israel relationship has been rooted in strong bipartisan support because of our mutual interests. And he needs to understand that it is not good for israel and certainly not good for our relationship to root it in a partisan view, number one. Number two is that i think that moving forward with any forms of annexation is a real consequence in terms of u. S. Policy. I think that, you know, while they have now said that they have suspended i think that term suspended needs to be pursued and understood what does suspended mean with the u. N. s recognition of israel. We need to work on making sure that that suspension is not a temporal thing. And lastly, i would make it very clear to the Prime Minister that we rejoice in israel not only being a jewish state, but being a democratic state. Israel cannot be jewish and democratic if, in fact, it is a onestate solution. It needs to be a twostate solution for those two elements of jewish identity to continue to be a reality. And so those are some of the things i would have vice President Biden say as president. Just to be clear, you want to make sure that annexation is permanently suspended, this idea of annexation, the disputed territories . I think if you pursue annexation, then you are eroding the possibility of a twostate solution. And what we must be robustly engaged in is going back to the drawing board, especially in the changing, evolving relationship that is taking place in the middle east in israel, that we maybe have a new dynamic as to how the Palestinian Authority deals with getting to a twostate solution. So you have to preserve that possibility. I think its almost impossible to preserve if you continue on with annexation. I wish mr. Netanyahu was here. It would be interesting to see what he would say. Were going to actually go somewhere else in the world now. You did not also support the Obama Administration opening cuba. President trump has largely reversed that opening to a degree that was even less open than when obama took over. Are you okay with this continual squeezing of havana . Do you think biden should continue pushing this, or if there is a President Biden and he wants to have an opening to cuba again, go back to a more normal relationship, would you support that . Well, look, as always, it depends upon how things are done. I think one of the things that we learned about the normalization was that the regime took full advantage of it. It did not reciprocate in any way. It did not release political prisoners. It did not permit for a more open Civil Society and descent, peaceful descent. It did not certainly permit any openings of the free press. It didnt do any of the things that one would aspire to see cuba do. And so, you know, if you want to engage with cuba, there can be conditionality, right . You can still engage but have conditionality. For example, when we had apartheid in south africa, we had the sullivan principles, which basically meant that an American Company doing business in south africa had to be able to hire directly workers, pay them directly and empower them directly, and this way would not discriminate against black south africans. The reality is that would be a powerful tool to, say, an American Company doing business in cuba has to hire workers directly, because workers cannot be hired directly by any foreign entity. You go to the government, the government sends you an employee, you pay the government a robust wage, they give the employee a fraction of their wages and you fire them at will because there is no labor rights. So thats an example of creating relationships with conditionality. You know, there could be a call for the release of political prisoners. I think that vice President Biden would have, having experience in both ends fortunate spectrum on u. S. Cuba policy, could find his own pathway to making it more constructive and more possible. It sounds to me, though, that you would offer potential support for a restoration of relations depending on the situation . It sounds like i would certainly look at what President Biden would be considering in terms of such openings but under what conditions. So china. Where do i begin . Your report, you know, talked a bit about china and the importance of dealing with that relationship, and especially the way the mixed messages that President Trump has given to china. If you are chairman, and even if youre not, you have a big microphone on what to do with beijing and the china communist party. What will be your top priority when it comes to that particular issue . I would direct you and our viewers to the legislation we put out, america leads act. It is allencompassing. It took all of the committee jurisdictions that have something to do with china, so finance committee on trade questions, of course, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on diplomacy and other elements. You know, the Appropriations Committee in terms of what we need to do to not only confront china but to compete with china. This is something i think the report drove very strongly. We need not only to confront china, for example, in its violation of human rights what it is doing in the South China Sea by way of example, but we must compete against it. If you want to tell allies dont use huawei because its 5g infrastructure can undermine your National Security interests, youve got to offer something in return. Thats one simple example. We must compete with china. We must join in alliances that help us compete with countries that need assistance and pool our resources so that we can ultimately help some of these countries instead of them becoming dependent upon china in a way that is, you know, per verse in ter perverse in terms of that countrys interest. This report talked about how do we deal with trade issues, how do we deal with democracy in human rights, how do we deal with competing in china. I think its comprehensive, very well thought out, and that would be our blueprint as it relates to china. Would you recommend, though, that a President Biden continue to add to or keep some of the sanctions that President Trump and restrictions President Trump has put on china . Im not necessarily talking about tariffs, but im talking about, for instance, limiting the number of visas a Chinese Student can get, shutting down the institute, labeling proper outlets, that sort of thing. Do you support that kind of punishmentheavy approach, and do you believe President Biden should continue that as well as try to make america more competitive . I would think a President Biden would want to chart his own way with china and xi jinping. In charting that way forward, i think hell understand that we not only need to confront china, we need to compete with it. When he talks about building a better hallmark, that means competing with china broaabroad. I think as he develops his own way with xi jinping in china, he may have the use of both carrots and sticks. Some of those things he may find appropriate in the absence of chinese response in his initiatives andov overtures to them, and other ways he may chart a different path to see if theyre response siive to it. I wouldnt say Carte Blanche these are good, these are bad, but i would say he engages china and he engages our allies. This is a huge part. Its not just us visavis with china, its engaging our allies in the region and beyond with china. China challenges us politically, economically, militarily, even in some respects culturally as they try to influence us. They want to change the world order from that which was made after world war ii in a way that is actually very concerning because of their authoritarianism. We put out a report on digital authoritarianism, for example. Part of this is engaging the world to help us engage and deal with china and both confront it and compete with them. So my next question is about venezuela. I really tried hard to crop, like, a smart question about it, but honestly, it just seems like a giant mess. So im just going to ask you, venezuela. Whats to be done . Well, look, this is one of the few places that i do say that at the beginning, the Trump Administration did some good things. It got 50 major countries in the world to recognize juan gae lo as the interim president of venezuela, as head of the national assembly. It started doing some correct sanctioning. The biggest sanction madulo could have received was by 50 countries in the world. But he failed to bring that coalition together to bear in all of the elements of the policy we needed to get a diplomatic solution in venezuela. So it failed to internationalize beyond the recognition, for example, having sanctions directly focused on maduro and his cronies in a way that would send a message to maduro. Either make a deal, because if you dont, there is nowhere to go in the world. That failure another example of not willing to multilateralize our efforts, i think, is glaring as it relates to venezuela. Then we dont even show up at donor conferences or lower tier, something i had been advocating for some time, because we have spent nearly a billion dollars in humanitarian assistance to help countries like colombia, who has been a great neighbor to venezuelans, 500 venezuelans have left, but the reality is there is more to do in that regard. When you say we dont take refugees at home, its tough to tell countries, dont take a refugee. Should President Biden continue to recognize guantanamo and should he continue to build on what President Trump left behind, or should there be a wholesale rethinking of the policy . I think that he should recognize juan gaedo as the interim president of venezuela. I would hope he would say the Upcoming Elections are a farce and illegitimate. Its another attempt of gaedo to release a sentiment to venezuela. But then to harness our allies in a goal toward a diplomatic solution in venezuela. Okay. Now, coming back to capitol hill, its quite possible that you will have a number of new colleagues in the next term, and it seems like the progressive voice on capitol hill is going to be growing paramount. Ive talked to a lot of progressives in recent weeks, and theyre not your biggest fans. And they seem poised to have a lot of plans to say a lot of things in the coming months and years. How do you plan to deal with some of their demands and advice . Theyre not always going to be agreeing with you, so how do you expect youll deal with that . First of all, i have been in Public Service long enough to know that were not always going to get everybody to agree with us. We have a Strong Coalition on the democratic side of the aisle in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which includes several very strong progressives. We have fashioned legislation that has actually had their not only their voices but their initiatives included, you know, and so i think thats what we will continue to build upon that. The other reality is that when it comes to Foreign Policy, particularly Foreign Policy, we are stronger as a nation when we can have , when its possible, bipartisan chorus of voices saying, this is where the United States stand, so that our allies also understand that it wont shift from administration to administration. That may not always be possible, but that is certainly a Foreign Policy desirable. So there are some, you know, on the committee, more moderate voices that could be worked with in a common goal. Certainly i could point to a whole host of initiatives that i have sponsored that are very progressive, but of course sometimes my friends in the progressive community, unless its 100 , its not acceptable. We will continue to engage with everybody, including our progressive friends, and those voices will be heard on the committee, you know, very strongly as they have been over the last two years. Some progressives have asked joe biden to have 200 billion in the pentagons budget. Do you support that . I have to see how were going to cut it, where were going to cut it from, what were going to use it for. Those things in the abstract are very nice, but what is the 200 billion going for . Where is it coming out of . I never support have never supported in congress, you know, just wholesale cuts without knowing all the other elements of it. So whether thats acrosstheboard cuts which i have proposed, or significant cuts that ultimately, unless i know where are you taking it from, how does that undermine National Security, who is it going to, for what purposes . Are those purposes i agreed to, are those of greater value in the budget . What advice would you give to the Biden Transition Team . They want to see their nominee move through the Senate Confirmation process quickly, especially if republicans keep ahold of the chamber. Could they nominate someone like susan rice . I will let the president a President Biden choose who he seeks to no, maminate for all critical positions. What i will say in a more broader term is that, look, send us quality people. One of the things that have been abhorrent under the Trump Administration is that we have had nominees that are woefully, woefully, incapable of performing the duties that they were nominated for, or inconsistent with the very mission that they were nominated for. And people who had deeply flawed backgrounds that should never have been nominated in the first place. I dont expect that from the biden administration. On the contrary. The one thing about joe biden is he did Foreign Policy for a long time. He did it as a United States senator, he did it as chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, which is why i believe hell have a great deal of respect for the committee and the senate. He did it as Vice President of the United States. This is a totally different person than donald trump. He will restore our standing in the world, build our alliances and rebuild institutions like the state department. So give us quality people, and i think quality people will withstand whatever onslaught that any partisan attempt is going to bring. Do you still expect an onslaught, even if they do send very high quality people . It depends if republicans want to continue in the donald trump mode or they want to go back to the Republican Party that was fiscally conservative, socially moderate and, you know, try to find common ground, particularly on Foreign Policy put the interests of the United States with the best foot forward. I dont know which Republican Party will show up after election day. Well see. You have friends in the gop. What have they told you they hope will happen . I think that if you see lately, all of a sudden, we have a public distancing of republican senators from the president. For a long time privately, they would grumble about much of the president s actions, including in Foreign Policy, turkey being a big example of that. But they have never been willing to publicly challenge the president. And this is something ive often said to them. Im an institutionalist. You talk about two different items i disagreed with president obama on. I dont believe that whether it be a republican chairman or democratic chairman, the role of congress is to rubberstamp everything an administration does. I believe that you work with an administration, you know, whether its of your party or not. When theyre right or what is in the National Interest to do so, and i believe you stand up to it when theyre wrong or when there is a strongly held different view. If not, then what is the purpose of, you know, the article i provision of the constitution, which is the congress of the United States . That was my reminder that were almost out of time. Im going to end this with an appeal to you, sir. If there is any possibility that you could change the rules so that during hearings, senators are only allowed to ask questions instead of pontific e pontificating on and on, i think there are a lot of people in all of humanity who would be really grateful for that. Is it possible that you could do that . Well, im loathe to undermine the prerogatives of any senator. I will just simply say that i certainly would inure to their best instincts that that would be the greatest desirable well get to the truth of the matter or the substance of the matter, understanding. For me questioning has always been to get to the heart of what not only is the truth on a given matter, but what is our best path forward to get the best out of peoples thinking and the intellect we have before us . I dont know that a rules change can actually make that happen or that it would pass, but certainly we would try to cajole our colleagues to use their time to question, pursue the truth, get the facts and get the great knowledge of people in our country willing to share it with the community. Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. We really appreciate this. And lets do this again sometime. All right. Thank you so much. Weeknights this month on American History tv, were featuring the contenders, our series who look at 14 president ial candidates who lost the election but had a lasting effect on u. S. Politics. Tonight we feature former u. S. Senator from south dakota, george mcgovern, who was a democratic president ial nominee in 1972. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. American history tv on cspan3. Exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. Coming up this weekend, saturday, at 6 00 p. M. On the civil war. A look at how historical interpretation has changed over the years at apamatics courthouse. And 10 00 p. M. Eastern, we will feature four films
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.