tv Sen. Josh Hawley Remarks on Foreign Policy CSPAN November 13, 2019 6:46am-7:47am EST
in the first and second world war the aims were similar. they were places far from home to stop imperial powers from seizing control in europe. in the same logic guided the hand through the cold war. across administrations this nation pursuit strategies in the alliance is to stop the soviet union from dominating europe asia and ultimately the globe and we succeeded. america pursued its own experience -- experiment. thankfully they rejected that policy.
imperial domination violates our principles and threatens our character our aim must be to prevent imperialism. to stop domination not foster it. and now we must guard ourselves for a new effort. it is here in asia. in the policies on american interest must focus. it's critical for our trade in our jobs in our national welfare. in today this is the region where the menace of hegemony
looms largest. it is evident to everyone in this room that the once free and open in the pacific is increasingly less so. in the critical region at this critical moment the people's republic of china gathers strength by the day. while giving as little as possible in return. is not just about trade and investment. it's not only about the belton road initiative. it is is far more than that. they bully our allies and partners aggressively militarize as rocks in the sea and openly seeks control of the entire region. we see this in hong kong, where promises are broken and violent escalates and basic liberties are restricted. or just brazenly ignored. we see in taiwan where free people stand fast against a power vent on erasing their
independent identity. we see it even in our own corporations like disney and the nba who threw overboard free speech at the first sign of beijing's commercial pressure. it is true china buys our products. it is also true that they have given us a degree of market access but for years this growing commercial relationship with china has concealed another an inconvenient truth are producers and our workers are increasingly at the mercy of the chinese communist party. china is building its own military and economic power on the backs of our working class. reality has been right in front of us for those who had cared to look over 3 million manufacturing jobs left our shores in the first dozen years of the century. devastating families and getting communities in places
far from this town. our workers had known for years what the city is only just beginning to discover. that the beijing regime will first take from you and then replacing the second gets a chance. the drive for regional kid jim eddy hegemony is a clear and present danger at every juncture that china has grown in strength is so so too has the willingness. china's bid for domination is the greatest security threat in this country in the century. around the globe must be oriented to this challenge and focused principally on this threat. our efforts to counter jihadists and to extend the proliferation. to protect valued partners. they are essential and they remain in america's interest. we must address them in the light of the challenge of the
bid for mastery in asia and beyond. for this is more than a contest. it's much more than a rivalry. this is a bid for mastery by an authoritarian in imperial state that we cannot trust in that we cannot ignore. and so we must adapt and change to answer this new reality. that means strength in the art ties. those maritime democracies that have kept the region open and free and even old foes like vietnam who share our needs. it means a robust physical presence in key strategic places. and it means countering the influence in other arenas from africa, to latin america to our colleges and universities at home.
evaluating our current range of commitments to ensure that this challenge has the attention and resources it needs at this crucial time. american might is not limitless. and nor are the lives of the treasure of the american people. let me be clear our task is not to remake china within. as to is to deny the inability to oppose its will without. whether it be on hong kong or taiwan or our allies and partners upon us. we cannot remake every nation in our image. what we can do is act in a manner that reflects the character by resisting the tyranny of domination by anyone state in any one region.
we improve the station of our friend. and we support freedom loving people everywhere. i tell you today our foreign policy can change and it must change. it is time we face the facts and address the world as it is and it's time we honor this unique history and reflected the unique character. to those who advocate for withdrawal and isolation i say that will not keep americans safe and prosperous. one honors our workers by protecting their livelihood. and respects our servicemembers by asking them to sacrifice only for a justified purpose and only with a reasonable plan. our purpose in the world is informed by our character at home. in by our enduring aspirations to be a free people.
now we must rise it to defend it again. by champion of free and open international system by striving for a world free from domination and imperialism. we do our part to carry forward our revolutionary inheritance. our nation will be safer for it our people will be more prosperous for it in the world will be better because of it. thank you so much for having me. >> senator thank you so much for your thoughtful and comprehensive comments at that one of the most interesting aspects of this was your connection between the middle class and what the people in missouri care about in terms of their physical protection. and what were trying to do in the rest of the world.
this is one of the over arching questions of our time about how do you orient a foreign policy towards that. maybe i ask you to start by spelling out a little bit about what you are worried about specifically with china. if asia is dominated by china we know that that does to the partners in the people. what does that world look like. i think a violent important one. what it does is the endo pacific was absolutely vital to us. we have to be able to trade in that region. we don't need to dominate that region. we didn't need to act as a hegemonic. but we do have to have access for the people in the basic character to continue. our middle class and working class is under very significant pressure.
we cannot afford a world in which we are shut out we have to have access for that region. the criticism of private companies. and the response from corporations will be this is the biggest consumer market in the world there is a price to have access to that. apologizing for random tweet from the general manager of the houston rockets whatever it is. it just kind of goes with the
territory. what you want us to do. we are a corporation that is aimed at maximizing shareholder value. we get revenue from there. we are not politicians. how do you think that companies like that should deal with this. starting out there to continue into the indefinite future. what we have seen with the nba disney, and others as a preview of coming attractions. i think what we are seen as we have to realize that they have a piece to the desire. but they can and cannot say. together and much information and data as possible with companies like to talk torque core hearse are that our are companies to share data with them.
what beijing is aiming for. and they've been very clear about this is regional domination and beyond that access and influence. if not control of the international system. i would say to the american companies you have to draw the line. it's fine to do business with china. we need access to that region into their markets. but what you must not do is allow beijing to start make you an arm of their government. that's exactly what beijing has done with the corporate sector and their own country. and we cannot allow them to do that with that sector. there were some of us in kansas city a few months ago. and one of the things that i was struck by was when we met with the representatives of the farmers out there. they could not sell their soybeans to china. it was striking to me that they were not clamoring for
make all this trouble go away. it was a sense that this was a piece of a much bigger issue and they were to play their part and there may be some short-term pain associated with that. when you talk to your constituents in missouri. our people worried about china beyond economics are they worried about the liberalism or the g and demographics. how do they kind of a square this with their other concerns. this is an area where i think normal everyday working americans had had a sense of this and an understanding of this. i then gets ahead of where the chattering class has been. they get it you have to tell
the american people that they get that. we can liberalize them. they would never believe that. they have always thought that china has bad intentions. they are horrified that they are not surprised. we feel like that is the kind of intention that they had been exhibiting towards us and our workers in our property in a long time. they had been trying to buy up farmland. we don't need to seek conflict with china we don't necessarily even need to contain china we need to make sure that china does not
become an imperial power that dominates the region. it is good to be hard work and we are in for a long struggle. if they stay on their present course. just to connect this back. you are in the beginning of the speech. we are can help make the world and democracies everywhere. if you are middle-class americans and you had been very articulate and outspoken on what is going on. whether hong kong is democratic or not. does it affect the average
middle-class person in the united states. why should they care i think it is indicative of what beijing is capable of. this is what beijing has been doing. they want an international system that revolves around them. there can only be one sun in the sky. that is a problem. as a problem for our workers. in for our middle class. it's something we can't allow. >> meeting with protesters and wandering around a little bit. maybe you could just say a little bit about what your take away was from that things
seem to be going from bad to worse when you think all of this is going and hong kong. i have the chance to go last month and see for myself. i went out on the streets myself to be there with the protesters and see them and see what was going on with the police i applaud the news coverage. especially the really brave news coverage from reporters. let me take the opportunity to say thank you for the tremendous work. in bringing this to the attention of the world. i need to see it for myself. i spent an evening out on the street and then another day meeting with protest leaders and people from the cross-section of hong kong. it was really fascinating.
i just head to say that the sense in hong kong. it was urgent. the situation was urgent. and what i said which really infuriated hong kong government is that hong kong was becoming a police state. i sat with my own eyes. police violence that is not checked the has no oversight of the inability of course of the residents of hong kong to elect their chief executives. beijing has disqualified candidates for the council. and what we are seen with the latest incident at the university. i'm sure you've all see the news from hong kong in the last few hours about what's happening in their university. it's terrible. and as a sign. it's a demonstration of what beijing intends. that they take up and pass the hong kong communications act.
it's important that we send a signal to beijing. they want to say nothing about what's going on in hong kong. it's important we send a clear message and that the intentions are not get ago i noticed or unchecked. and hong kong officials have been saying privately for months now that that protest can't go on forever. university wants to go back to school. my impression was in meeting and seen the protests and talking to them on the streets. they feel this is an threat to the character of their city.
they are not the people who are the revisions us here. they just want the status quo. they want what they were promised in 1984. they want the terms. to be followed through. what they are trying to prevent is the study rolling back of those promises of those commitments. and again i think this is so indicative of the region. they're trying to alter the terms and balance of power. and ultimately the international system. and we have to do something about it. the idea of a u.s. senator in hong kong going out into the protests at night is the control officers worst nightmare.
let me turn to one thing that you mentioned in the speech about the trade-off association. and focusing on the whole rest of the world. president obama tried to pivot to a jet -- asia. that president obama ended up bombing more countries in the middle east than president bush did. for all of the attention to get out of the middle east. it has been a real challenge. and part of the reason is because we are worried about what the consequences of withdrawal should be. if we get out of afghanistan do they come back and use that. how do you think about this
balance between you want to end the forever war. but on the other hand we don't want to let it emerge. i think part of what we have to do in the middle east. his focus the first of those is to counterterrorism. and to prevent the formation and growth. very much i think our whole foreign policy should be geared around that.
that is what i think has been our historical practice and i think that is what we should return too. we've a strong interest to make sure that the middle east is not dominated by anyone power. i think iran would be the most dangerous threat there. those interests are very different. we had drifted in that region. will ask the american taxpayer to write a bigger check. we cannot afford to spend a trillion or $2 trillion a year on defense. american might and treasure are not limitless.
i think the previous administration cut back foolishly. there are limits. we cannot fund a 2 trillion-dollar dollars a year military. we are not the only superpower in the world. part of this means morgan at need more help from our allies. is it your sense that the counter terrorism mission in the middle east. that mission can be executed without an american military presence in those countries. first of all the joint forces are amazingly good.
but to counterterrorism the joint force has become very good. particularly using special forces. we will need to continue a presence in the region because we cannot afford to prevent terrorist cells that had international reach. that have have the ability to strike the american homeland or interest. does that mean that we need large numbers of ground troops. we are more troops now than we did just a few years ago. not just about troops but what kind of troops and what kind of platforms. we do think about that in the context of her overall needs.
the final one i will ask is russia. how does russia fit in to the foreign policy that you had sketched out. both as a direct threat to the united states or through the violation of regional rules. and also the connections with china. should we try to peel brush away. russia has its own aspirations. they are dangerous threat. it looms largest in the pacific. it looms in europe. if china is our pacing threat and fear then russia has got to be close by.
this is an area where we need our nato allies to do more this is in their backyard. we cannot simultaneously lead the charge against russia and chinese hegemony all in the same time. in pursuit counterterrorism. we need our allies to step up and spend more and do more in europe and the baltics in particular with russia i think it's the single security threat. our alliances do matter alliances are to be vitally important to us. especially as we go forward in the future.
between the russian threat and the chinese threat work and had to choose the endo pacific. that is much more pressing for us and for our interests. we did not want to see russia expand in europe that would be a disaster but if we are forced to choose we would have to choose the endo pacific. we should not be put to that choice. and we have to work with our allies to make sure that we are partner need together you rejected the consensus on the left and the right. and sketched out this new way forward. you are the youngest senator i think you're the newest senator does that consensus exist or do they feel and think like you. >> i think the consensus is still predominant everywhere.
i think part of it may be generational but i think in many ways we still live with the cold war hangover. at celebrated the furl of the berlin wall. i think there was such hope at the end of the cold war may be the world was gonna change fundamentally and that the great power politics would be gone forever we could completely rethink what the international system looks like. it turns out that that's not the case. it turns out that the balance of power is back it turns out that we are not the only powerful country in the world and nor do we need to be. the united states does not need to be the world test. pursuing that would be incredibly expensive and i think really detrimental to our values in the long run.
we do see to make sure that no imperial power comes to dominate any other region of the globe and i think that very much is in accord with who we are. >> please identify yourself as you do your question. senator, under your overarching foreign policy framework i just want to confirm america would not assume the role of the leader of the free world regarding china, president reagan said communism is like a virus i think we only had two ways to do with it. i think history has proven
that the market economy and the american values are vulnerable dealing with the communist party. it has not been immune to the corruption. how can you make sure that history won't repeat itself. i very much see the united states as a leader of the free world. i believe that it is to help make the world more free and open but the way that we do that is not necessarily by seeking polarity. is not by trying to create a world of democracy which we ultimately cannot do. the focus of our policy should be a little bit more realistic.
i think of this as a pro democracy foreign policy. in allowing other states in the international system to have the same sort of freedom that we do in terms of making their own choices. not being dominated by any regional power. this is part of the hope including them in the wto. and meshing them in the international system will lead it to to the liberalization of china. if anything we are importing. this is why i say we have to gird ourselves to a new era of competition. and we have to be ready to resist their attempts.
that does not mean we need to shut them off from the world but it does mean that we cannot allow them to dominate the world or their region. thank you very much. i am a policy person. there has been a lot of talk about delinking our economy from that. there is a continuum between present configuration. mitigating some of the security dangers. maybe it intermediate form of interdependence. what might it look like. it's very much of the question of the day. i was hoping you were gonna
tell me. >> i think that as the outcome that we should be pursuing. for those who say with to end our current trade conflicts with china. we have to go back to full and total integration. beijing won't let it happen. it is for regional dominance. we will have to pursue some sort of a separation enough that we are not held hostage effectively. the commercial power is great. part of this is weird and had to pursue opening up other markets in the region. i talked about india for example. a large market. we are and had to with our partnerships and alliances we
will have to try to expand our access there. but ultimately pressure china for free and open terms. i think the full complement needs to be on the table. for those who hope for a date when were no longer in this in this economic stage with china i don't think we are going back. the question for all of you in the room who are experts in these fields what's her a policy tools are weak in a developed to consider her our interests which are to deter chinese aggression. in to make sure that we have the access we need to for for our workers. >> i am with you on the europeans and the germans need to do more. however there are those in
some comments i would like on turkey. what do you you make on this relationship. in the present of turkey. i worry about turkey and russia. we do need to be very concerned about any potential warm and growing partnership. i think that would be very bad. i worry about turkey moving towards russia's orbit and
that has to be for as a project of trying to prevent any further gravitational pull towards moscow. the situation recently in turkey was syria shows i think the need to call upon the alliances and friends. their view as to why the security zone in northern syria proved to be unstable and we were not able to hold it is a it was never actually political solution. it was a military one. the military tried to get the buy-in of the turkish military but there was never actually political buy-in. we had relied too much on military power. and the greater -- greater region as we train our military focus.
i think you have a lot of work to do. but getting our priorities clear is an important step. i working -- i worry about turkey and russia a lot. thank you senator. i had two questions. you mentioned about the hong kong human rights and democracy act. can you give us some insight while it still pending. the second question is a couple days ago. as a 30th anniversary the new berlin. they see it as a new potential
turning point. what is your take on that. and do you think that they have given enough support to hong kong. i do think that hong kong is the berlin of this generation in the sense that it captures and makes vivid the struggle that this generation is going to have which is with an expansionist china. and that is what we are seen play out in hong kong. china is not willing to allow the status quo to exist. it is trying to use hong kong to send a signal to the whole region you better get on board with beijing. look at what beijing is capable of. and certainly this is what they want to do with taiwan a taiwan and others. china doesn't want to have military conflict if they can avoid it.
i think that as part of what is happening in hong kong. i don't know why we are not voting on this act. i hope that we will vote this week. i had been calling for it for weeks. i've introduced my own bell to pose belt to pose the sanctions. which i think are called for an very much in order. i hope we will vote soon. we will give the last question to the gentleman in the first row here. >> think you senator. i'm very impressed by your visiting hong kong to get that situation there. regarding the intentions what
he think could be the most effective way to help with that expansion. i think that worked very well. what do you think about china. >> i think that is very much part of the day. i think if you look at the various military scenarios china does not want to have to fight a military kong plate. they are outstanding planners. they had been pursuing the plan for quite some time. what they want to do is convince everybody that they can exert their power and therefore everyone should count down to beijing. i think taiwan is likely to
become the flashpoint here. i think it's right in this reflecting. china has studied our way of war the american way of war from the last couple of decades. they know in the indo pacific we cannot surge troops in the theater. >> if china is able to seize taiwan. and were not there. we need our partners and allies in the regent. he needs to be clear to
beijing if they are going to attempt to strike in taiwan they will be resisted by the united states. they will force them. they will be in for a very big fight. the international community will not support them with. there is a lot of work to do. we have a lot of work to do and there is a second to waste. >> that as a good note to wrap this conversation up. with sharing your thoughts on these matters. [applause].
foreign government to investigate a potential opponent. did president trump seek to have that government advance the political interest. or an invitation to the white house. into the third question did president trump or his administration try to withhold information from congress. to read the full impeachment inquiry document go to our website. the chair of the senate foreign relations committee spoke about the economy and the political influences globally. >> we are delighted to have you here today.