Skip to main content

tv   Sen. Jim Risch Remarks on Chinas Economy Political Influence  CSPAN  November 27, 2019 10:29am-11:38am EST

10:29 am
the president and his counsel to appear before the committee. read the letter to the president on our website, cspan.org/impeachment. follow the impeachment inquiry live on cspan 3, online at cspan.org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. the chair of the senate foreign relations committee spoke about china's economy and its political influences globally at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. thank you very much. we're delighted to have you here today. i'm the president of css. when we have events with outside groups like this, we start with a safety announcement. so i just want you to know -- wherever louie is, he's responsible for your safety. if something says we're going to have to evacuate, i'm not worried about the chairman. we're going to take care of him.
10:30 am
we know how to do that. for everybody else, these doors right behind me, they'll take us down to the first floor. take two left-hand turns, go to a right-hand turn, go across to national geographic. we'll meet there and i'll pay for everybody's ticket. we want you to know how to be prepared. delighted to have you here, but i'm even more pleased that we could welcome the chairman to be with us today. he's the force guy i've ever met who is by profession a forester. he went to undergraduate as a forester but quick found the calling and entered into politics, became a lawyer and entered into politics. i was talking with his wife, vicky, 34 elections they've been through together. i mean, i tell you that's for good or for worse, you know, for better or for poorer. that's what it means to be married for 51 years and to go through 34 elections. and to have triumphed all the
10:31 am
way. thank you for being here. great to have you here. it's a pleasure to have the chairman here today. some questions today are off the table. we're not going to talk about impeachment or any of that stuff. we're here to talk about foreign policy today. especially to talk about america's role in leading in a country where we've got a major challenge like china, the rise of china, and our important alliances. that's going to be the focus for the chairman's presentation. i'd ask you all to honor that as we go through the process of a question and answer dialogue with him. he is under a short time, so without taking anymore time, i would ask you with your warm applause to please welcome the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. [ applause ] >> thank you for that kind introduction there. i really appreciate that. say hello again -- i know former
10:32 am
first lady, vicky, stand up and say hello. forgot to tell me who is in charge of my safety. you talk about these people's safety, what about me? you are, okay, i'll take that. thanks so much for having me here today. gosh, this is a speech i've wanted to make for some time. i have prepared remarks. i got them prepared so they won't be misinterpreted as time goes on. i want to talk just briefly about the relationship between the united states and europe and i want to talk about our relationship as far as china is concerned. being in a position i'm in, i get lots and lots of visitors
10:33 am
every day from europe. and it's always an interesting experience. i view them as my cousins, my grandfather emigrated on the german side, on the irish side, it was myemigrated. i ask my german friends where they were from and if they knew my grandfather, which they didn't because it was 1898 when he came here. in any event, i guess i'm a little -- always -- i'm getting used to it. but i'm always concerned when they talk about our relationship. and i don't view us as having any kind of a difficult relationship with europe at all. certainly we have some differences. but i mean, as far as the basic relationship, our relationship is good. indeed, i'll give you an anecdote in that regard. i had some friends -- not
10:34 am
friends -- people from germany come that were public officials and wanted to talk about a number of things. the usual issues we talk about when we get together. and i asked them where they were from. they were from dortmund, which is as you know in the north, which happens to be where my grandfather emigrated from. we talked about soccer, they loved soccer, dortmund's got a pretty good team. we got down to talking about the issues. as we did talk about the issues, we had a robust debate on the northbou -- setting that aside, when we were all done, we were done talking about the issues. they said to me, well, are we okay. what do you mean are we okay? is our relationship okay. look, let me tell you something, we have a lot of friends who have been married for a lot of years. they've been through a lot of
10:35 am
troubles. let me tell you something, the relationship between the united states and germany and european countries for that matter is a whole lot better than a lot of these people's relationship is. yes, we're okay. so i do that frequently and like i said i'm always a little bit surprised the fact they think there are these overall relationship problems. sure we have differences, strong differences, really. that happens. it happens in all kinds of relationships where you have differences. that doesn't mean your relationship by any stretch should go away. a good share of it is it always comes back to the president. that president this and the president said that. i try to explain to them, of course, that the president is the president. there are three branches of government which are co-equal and then their eyes start to glaze over when you talk about the branches of government and
10:36 am
the fact that the branches are co-equal. we can all agree in this room and for that matter with my european friends that we have a president that's different. vicky and i have had the honor knowing every president starting with president reagan. we've gotten to know the presidents. this president is very different than any president that we've had in the past. he is substantially less stiff in one regard. and in another, he tells you what's on his mind. which presidents have not always been wont to do. with this president, and admittedly i've got a much different relationship with this president than i had with others. indeed, i didn't start out a trump person. i was a rubio guy in the
10:37 am
primary. which by the way the president reminds me of at every opportunity he gets that i was a rubio guy back in the day in the primary. in any event we get along well. this is a person you don't know because all you see is him on tv shouting back and forth with the media. he's a person that is fun to be around, that enjoys engagement. you can engage with. you can argue with. people say if you're friends with him you must agree with him on a lot of stuff. not at all. we have disagreements all the time. we exchange on them. he's never treated me with anything but total respect, even though we disagree. he is the president of the united states and i treat him with respect that the president of the united states deserves. having said that, he speaks
10:38 am
what's on his mind. sometimes that rubs people the wrong way. a lot of times, just by what he says he'll upset people. a good example of that is nato. when he started talking about nato. i doubt there's many people in this room that wouldn't agree with me that nato is the strongest most successful military alliance in the history of just the world. nato is not going to go away. we are deeply committed to nato, the american people are deeply, deeply committed to nato. but the president of the united states was bothered by the fact that not all nato members were keeping the commitments that they'd made in fiscal ways. as a result of that, he raised that and that really caused a lot of anxiety on the part of the europeans. that's one of the first things they would ask me about. you know, the interesting thing
10:39 am
is i've been going over there for almost a dozen years, giving the same message. we'd talk and we'd have good points to talk about. look, you guys, ladies, have got to step up. you know, you committed to do this and particularly from a financial basis and you wouldn't do it. they would pat us on the head, don't worry we're committed, we're working on it, we'll get it done. president trump raised this question in a little different way than those of us who deal in diplomatic language raised it. all of a sudden they were very upset. most importantly, guess what? they're writing checks now. and so you got to give him credit for that. but they get concerned when the president says this that or the other thing. i tell them, well, take a deep breath. we're americans. okay? we were born in revolution. we were born in angst. we've been through a revolution, we've been through a civil war, two world wars, through a terrible depression. we're still standing.
10:40 am
we've had presidents just as some of your countries, european countries have had leaders that are different, but we americans will get through this. the strength of america does not lie with the president or any other single person here. it lies with us, the american people. and that's why we're going to be here for a long, long time. that's why we'll get over whatever these things are and we'll be able to get through them. enough of that. let's move to my prepared remarks where i talk about the relationship between us and europe and combined europe and the united states with china. let me say that for our european friends, there's nothing wrong with our relationship. just as president macron said recently, we need to do this together and he was particularly talking to his european brethren. we need to get together in
10:41 am
europe and with the united states when it comes to our relationship with china. i couldn't agree more with him in that regard. as far as china is concerned, i can tell you that as i travel around the united states, i look here and see a lot of people who were very focused on these kinds of issues, who educate themselves on these kind of issues. many, if not most people in the united states have no idea of the challenge that we are facing in many respects from china. we had the opportunity to travel in china in 1983. i walked around in china. i thought to myself, you know, this isn't going anywhere. they really had nothing there. didn't look like they were moving in any kind of a direction. it was communism at its finest. and i thought to myself, you know, i don't have to worry about this. what they've done is taken from us the best they could possibly take from us and have now set
10:42 am
themselves on a path that is a very different path. and is a challenge to us and virtually to all of the other 200 countries on the face of the planet. so we need to deal with that. we need to deal with it well. going to my prepared remarks. fostering stronger european and u.s. ties has been a significant interest of mine during the 11 years i've been in the senate. i have worked on numerous european related issues, including arms control, trade, eastern european democratization and intelligence matters. i'm on the intelligence committee. i'm strong supporter of nato, the greatest political military alliance in the history of the world. i'm proud of the close cooperation and ties between the united states and europe over the last seven decades. today the united states and europe face for the first time in generations a world that is
10:43 am
seeing the reeergence of competito competitors, russia, iran and of course china everywhere in the world. if you don't believe me, travel anywhere in the world and you'll see china's footprints everywhere. of these, china is the true global rival and represents the most consequential challenge to common american and european interests. we do have common interests. the united states and europe share a vital interest in addressing the challenges posed by china. we both recognize china is no longer a developing country. it is a global power. china is our economic competitor. we both rightly demand greater reciprocity and chinese adherence to the rule of law and international norms. the european union is correct to label china as a rival.
10:44 am
leaders have made clear that china must abide by its commitments and support an international system that is free, fair, and open. if china truly wants to be a global leader in the 21st century, china will find the united states ready and willing to cooperate. but until china pursues that path, the united states and europe must compete with china. we must do so with vigor. the united states and european union have improved foreign direct investment and have combined forces to expose the chinese government's horrifying oppression. these actions are an important start, but the challenges of china which are many and widespread will require the sustained commitment. this is and will be the
10:45 am
principle struggle of the rest of our lifetimes. the united states and europe have had, like friends, had differences. burt but it cannot distract us. we must insure the system we built together can withstand external pressures. ic it will help us to work through our differences. china is a communist party state. unfortunately, the party's values and interests dictate how china operates in the international system. thus, china's political economic goals are one and the same. chinese coniane chinese leaders consistently assert the primacy of state owned enterprises and party officials are increasingly
10:46 am
involved in the commercial decisions thinly disguised as private companies. governments, businesses and civil societies have been slow to recognize how connected chinese companies are to the chinese coniane chinese communist role in the government. china's intellectual property theft and cyber espionage gave washington a wakeup call and revealed the resources the chinese government uses to advance its economic goals. in my home state of idaho, the world's second largest memory chip maker, had its technology stolen by a chinese state owned company. this happened after government officials made acquiring the chinese government made acquiring that technology a
10:47 am
priority. they sued micron technology for patent infringement in chinese courts. such thefts are a common chinese practice. european countries have suffered similar experiences. china's overreaching foreign policy goal is to take what tit believes is its rightful place at the center of the international system by 2050 and to insure the system functions according to china's values and principles. to accomplish that, china is trying to displace the united states as a preeminent power in the endo pacific. china also wants to exert deep influence in every other region of the world to shape international perceptions and steer decision making in its favor. china always demands deference. meeting china's demands often requires other nations to see their sovereignty in order to accommodate china's interest.
10:48 am
the effects of china's influence are evident. one powerful example is the chinese communist pressure on the nba. in retribution for a single tweet by a u.s. team executive, supporting protesters in hong kong. what could be wrong with that you ask? many in the west actually woke to the threat of chinese political influence in 2010 when china punched norway. as its global and commercial and political interests grow, china will need military power to protect those interests. we see that in europe with increased chinese commercial and military presence in the mediterranean. china may seem to cooperate in today's international system, it's opposed to u.s. and european norms, values and institutions. chinese looters preach that
10:49 am
socialism with chinese characteristics is superior to the ideas advanced by western nations. they believe their philosophy is what makes china a truly global leader. china uses international organizations to shape favorable narratives and gain international recognition of its views. china has successfully pressured eastern european nations to vote against u.n. efforts to hold china accountable for china's own deplorable human rights violations. china advances languages on human rights and u.n. governance to justify the horrific treatment of its own people. going forward, china will not be satisfied to just shape narratives. china appears determined to set the standards by defining the meaning of human rights or how emerging technologies are used. our fundamental competition with china is two systems with
10:50 am
different visions of how the world should look. this competition touches on our political and cultural values a. led by the united states, and europe, much of the world has created an open system of rules, norms and institutions that upholds individual rights and freedoms, that advances market-based economic prosperity and that safeguards shared security interests. despite some differences, we have enjoyed enormous success in fostering and advancing that system. china's vision is vastly different. the rights of the individual are subordinate to the interest of the state. economic coercion for political ends is a legitimate form of state craft and makes right on
10:51 am
the high seas and in contract negotiations according to china. this is our shared challenge. in facing it we should be guided by three things, first, we must not put economic interests ahead of our political and security concerns. that's why the united states strongly opposes european nations allowing huawei to compete for building 5g networks. fortunately denmark and czech republic will chosen a better path and i am encouraged that the security community in germany especially is raising the alarm. but if enough allies allow huawei in, i fear intelligence sharing within nato could be negatively compromised and impacted. we do not gain by putting economic engagement with china ahead of our political principles and values. if we don't prioritize our core values, we cannot expect our own companies and citizens to stand up when confronted with chinese
10:52 am
government coercion. second, the united states and europe must regain the robust commitment to defend our interests. in 2014 nato was unequipped to deal with renewed russian aggression, clearly we cannot repeat that mistake. i agree with the nato secretary general, the nato needs to prepare for china coming closer to europe. addressing the china challenge will require strong consensus and collaboration within nato. next month nato is expected to release a new report on china. this report will demonstrate how strong this consensus really is on china. third, we must acknowledge this is an international competition past u.s./europe cooperation on china has focused on better treatment of our companies in the chinese market, however, u.s. and european companies are global players and they face
10:53 am
unfair chinese economic practices in markets around the world. economic competition with china is not just about the u.s. and european markets and our policies must reflect that. u.s. and european companies must be set up for success by advancing the rules and norms that allow them to compete fairly. addressing these challenges together will require balancing our long-term shared interest with our current irritants. there are some frustrations between the u.s., everything from tariffs to iran to defense spending and those are not fully in synch right now, but we have succeeded in overcoming our differences in the past, committing to each other to a system based in fair economic practices and political openness and to our collective security always has and always should override other issues. as china challenges us today,
10:54 am
that same commitment must be paramount. china is a long-term problem so we must focus on the future. here are a few areas where we can work better together. we must work together to fend off china's political influence and coercion. our issue is not with the chinese people. china is much more than the communist party and not all engagement is a bad thing, but a healthy awareness of the control exerted by the communist party and the communist party's widespread access to vast amounts of information which are held by the chinese people and just as importantly chinese companies must be recognized. most americans are not aware of a communist party's top-down control. private companies, universities and others are vulnerable. we must establish best practices and consider legislation to address this.
10:55 am
these are very tough issues facing our free societies. we will come up with the best ideas if we put our heads together. we also need better coordination to shape the future of technology. we must ensure a level playing field in industry groups that set standards and norms for emerging technologies. chinese companies are playing a much more active role in these groups, but not always according to our values. to protect freedom and human rights, the united states and europe must be actively engaged in how new technologies will be used. we already know china is exporting the tools and techniques of its mass surveillance and we cannot allow those practices to become the norm. despite current frictions, there is ample room for us to cooperate on trade issues. a major priority for the u.s. and for european partners is wto reform, which we should all support. i'm encouraged that the united states, european union and japan
10:56 am
are cooperating to fight policies that undermine free markets. i support the administration's focus on reforming developing country status within the wto. the wto remains crucial to a functioning international trading system, but to compete with china we cannot put all our eggs in that basket. we must consider other forms of economic hardening such as more cooperation on investment screening and better alignment on export controls to safeguard critical technologies. we should also work to secure and strengthen critical infrastructure, particularly ports. china's presence is growing from rodder dam to pirayus. the u.s. department of defense accesses that china's greater access to foreign ports allows chinese military to pre-position necessary logistics, support to regular rise and sustain deployments in the far seas according to the defense department. these ports are used heavily by
10:57 am
the u.s. military to support our commitment to european security. we must also focus on the cybersecurity of our ports which increasingly rely on mechanized process and digital industrial infrastructure. understanding how china's access to european ports could threaten transatlantic security should be a top priority of nato. finally, there is a vast potential for greater collaboration between the united states and europe in both africa and the indo-pacific, both regions have growing economies and exploding populations as we know. china has already capitalized on africa's opportunities and is working to seal partnerships with the continent's 54 nations. china is making long-term debt deals through it's one belt one road initiative. china builds and controls key infrastructure, china acquires valuable resources and commodities and china exports its culture through no cost
10:58 am
media, mobile devices and educational initiatives. in the process china often also exports corruption. the united states and europe should reinvigorate our relationship with african nations, relationships we build over decades of active trade assistance and security partnerships. similar opportunities exist in the indo-pacific, especially the nations recognized down side of chinese engagement. china believes it is a global leader, but for that to be true it must act like one. china acted like one very well when it recently took steps to combat fentanyl, a real problem in the world. next month china will have to expel more than 10,000 north korean workers from its borders to comply with the u.n. security council resolution it voted for. china voted for. china must demonstrate what role it wants to play. the united states and europe
10:59 am
must ask ourselves how do we ensure the intentional -- the international system maintains its commitment to its values, even in the face of china's unfair trading, mrky and corrupt investment and political interference to advance its own authoritarian ends. this question affects the entire free world and the world that wants to become free. bipartisan consensus on capitol hill about the need for a new approach to china is strong. united states will work to identify the right policies to answer this question on a bipartisan basis. the united states and europe will have to have a stronger answer to this question if we stand together. the united states cannot respond to the chinese challenge alone, nor do we want to. china has already amassed enough economic and political might to coerce countries that do stand-alone. the only way we can defend the
11:00 am
system we built -- we built -- is by working together. the only way we can hope to challenge beijing's calculus is by acting in concert. transatlantic security and prosperity requires that we renew our commitment to each other and pledge to use all of our combined tools to succeed. i am confident that the united states and europe can overcome some of our current differences and find a shared vision to defend the system that we built. thank you again for your kind invitation to come here and share my thoughts and with that, i guess we will take some questions. so thank you very much. [ applause ] >> well, good afternoon, everyone. my name is heather conley, i
11:01 am
direct the europe program here at csis and i'm delighted to be joend by my colleague mike green the senior vice president for our asia team here and, senator, thank you so much. both for your -- oh, my goodness. that didn't sound good. >> if we had to have a casualty, it could have been worse. >> well, they say it's not -- do you know what, sir, why don't we just leave that and i think we will just leave that aside. thank you. i really appreciated your personal reflections as well as your remarks. what i thought we would do is mike and i are going to -- we jokingly said mike and i are where east and west meet and it meets right in the middle with the senator. we're going -- >> i've never been called a middle senator. >> welcome to the center, senator. then, colleagues, what we have placed are note cards on your chair. what we'd like you to do is jot down some questions as we're having our conversation and then
11:02 am
please pass them to sort of the sides of the room, colleagues will pick them up and then at the very end we're going to try to get as many of those questions as we can while the shart -- >> and, remember, no impeachment request he is. >> exactly. thank you. thank you for that reminder. so, senator, if i may, i'm going to jump right in here and if i may just offer a comment. it was on your personal reflection on the transatlantic are we okay? and i think i know our european colleagues spend a lot of time meeting with members of congress to get that reassurance. >> a lot of times. >> a lot. and i think that's important time spent. but they also hear when the president speaks his mind and when the president says the european union is worse than china, it is a foe to the united states and i think that does not help put them in a frame of mind of working together to meet this
11:03 am
growing challenge and i think that's sort of the -- in some ways the perception is the u.s. feels like it's intervening as much as china is sometimes and i know you're working hard to prevent that but it makes it challenging to meet that. i just want to offer that as a reflection. >> let me respond to that briefly. look, as i said, this president is unique and he does speak his mind. you know, i've been in politics all my adult life and the media used to get after me all the time, you politicians you never tell us what you're thinking. boy, they got a guy now that tells them what he's thinking all day long, all night long and they don't like that any better. look, he has a unique way of speaking and we've here in america watched this as we've gone along and i tell my european friends, look, you've got to take the whole thing together, don't take a sentence, don't take a word, don't take a thought. we all have thoughts that we
11:04 am
don't express. he expresses all his thoughts. >> i think he's encouraging french president macron to also speak his thoughts as well. in fact, today president macron at the paris peace forum said that perhaps europe could serve as a power broker between the united states and china. do you foresee that as a role for europe? >> you know, i think we would be much better off working together on this rather than them -- i know macron, you know, we all know macron has got a vision that he would like france to be the world leader on these various things and bless him for that thought. he's got to take that wherever he wants to take that, but i think we'd all be best off working together because, look, china is certainly going to do what it's going to do and it's going to take everybody working together. >> absolutely. mike. >> let me ask about impeachment -- >> another screen is going to fall and go crash.
11:05 am
>> well, according to the constitution -- >> i bet you our audience is thrilled to be the only audience not talking about that. senator, i thought your speech was fantastic and i think you captured accurately the trends in europe. i think that our friends in europe are awakening to some of the same problems we've felt with respect to intellectual property rights that have political inference. but the problem, as you said, it's too big for just the u.s., i would say it's too big for the transatlantic relationship alone. and if we're going to really get purchased on the problem we're going to have to get back to the tri-lateralism that frankly won the cold war, in other words, u.s., europe and asia, japan in particular and australia. the mechanisms we have had available to harness that tri-lateral cooperation is a little bit broken. a few years ago senator rubio and others would have supported
11:06 am
tpp, we would have moved towards t tip and wto reform is absolutely appropriate but those trade agreements across the pacific and across the atlantic would have given us real purchase, real leverage to demand changes from china. we also have the g7, the u.s. will host the g7 somewhere in the united states in the coming here. canada -- >> i know where it's not going to be. >> okay. so my question is how do we build our your speech, your ideas and really tri-lateral eyes this strategy, what are the mechanisms we can use? we've lost some along the way. >> i think that's a good observation. first of all, a lot of us supported tpp and we thought that was the way to go, but i will let you in on a little secret on the president, which isn't much of a secret, and that is he really like bilateral agreements as opposed to multi-lateral agreements. he and i have had some robust discussions on that and i have to say this, he has some very
11:07 am
legitimate reasons why he would much rather have a bilateral than a multi-lateral agreement. and i think his argument is a good argument. i think he overweights it. but nonetheless he is the president and according to the constitution he is the one that negotiates these and then we come on board. so in any event, keep that in mind, that he's much more attune to that. having said that, let's talk about asia for a minute. again, i meet with the asian countries just as much as i meet with the european countries and in many ways they are just as anxious if not more anxious than the europeans to join with us, to join with the united states of america to push back along the lines that i described in the speech that i just gave. they're anxious. they want to be partners to do this. i suppose it makes sense because they're right there on the doorstep and i think they see
11:08 am
these things even closer than we see them. look, i don't think the opportunity is lost, i think it's there. i think the president is going to view those probably much more in a bilateral than a multi-lateral way, but, again, he has had some real -- he's had some successes that you can't disagree with. look, we started out within he said he was going to redo the -- do nafta, a lot of us choked because nafta has been very good to america in a lot of ways. he said we can do it better. so we said, okay, show us, you know, and by golly he did. we helped encourage as we went down the road, but he's got us there. i hope the house does the right thing and votes -- votes for that before the first of the year. the usmca is a great agreement, it's better than nafta, it will serve us well with the two largest trading partners that we
11:09 am
have in the world and so we're encouraging that, but your point of bringing others on board other than europe and the united states is well taken. i spoke about europe today because, number one, that's what we're talking about, but secondly they are the most obvious partners of ours. they're cousins. i view them and most americans, i think, view europe as cousins. so they are the most obvious one. >> i think in tokyo and -- getting the transatlantic pieces of the relationship right is critical for them. >> i agree. >> so it's the right topic. >> couldn't agree more. >> senator, is there any part of europe that concerns you the most related to chinese sort of economic penetration. i want to read you a headline from yesterday. greece and china hail strategic partnership as u.s. and eu look on. this was the quote from greek prime minister, greece recognizes china not only as a great power but also a country that has won for itself not
11:10 am
without difficulty a leading geo strategic and plick role and they signed 16 memorandums of cooperation yesterday, one was on chinese energy investments in greece. are you worried about greece, the western balkans, central europe, the uk? we have a menu there. >> first of all, i read several stories along those lines. i think it was this morning i read them. let me tell you what went through my mind when i read them, or when i read that particular story. it didn't raise in my mind, gosh, are we more vulnerable in one country than another. what went through my mind is how vulnerable economically challenged countries are to the siren of china's money. money as we all know dictates lots and lots of stuff and what it harkened in my mind, but before i go off on a tan vent here, there are countries in
11:11 am
europe that are more challenged than others financially and certainly greece as we know has been through some very, very difficult times. i use greece as an example all the time when i tell people that we've got to hold america tight because you can take -- look at -- if you go back years, i mean, you look at egypt, you look at rome, greece, i mean, these were fantastic cultures and all three of them now have a tin cup. so can that happen in america? don't tell me it can't happen here. it's happened before and it can happen again. greece certainly is one of those challenges and money is something that is a -- people are tempted, greatly tempted when you hold out cash and what went through my mind when i read that story was also, gosh, you think it's bad in europe, you ought to go to africa. their handful of a little bit of money goes a long way for them in africa.
11:12 am
>> when we ask a european nation in a has already purchased a lot of huawei equipment, it's in their core and we're saying remove it, does the u.s. have an imperative to offer an alternative? i feel like that's what's missing. where is the u.s. -- or a credible alternative to a huawei in europe. >> i guess as a general proposition whenever you tell somebody they thought to be doing something different you ought to give them an alternative. huawei those of us that are dialed in on the intelligence stuff have been worried about huawei long, long time ago as they were -- they were putting their stuff out into the various countries. what looked to us as a very cheap deal below cost so you wonder, now, why is china doing that. it's not because they feel good about another country. so we've always been worried about it. we warned everybody as 5g started that china was going to do what america really doesn't
11:13 am
do, china took all of its resources, all of its technologies to put into one basket to develop 5g. we have competing companies and it's not easy for us to do those kinds of things. you're right, i mean, there should be -- there should be alternatives put on the table, but what i would say is -- i've got to be careful how i say this from an intelligence standpoint, but to those of us who work in this the possible down sides from an intelligence standpoint of using huawei-type technology or equipment outweighs about everything. >> and that would be the view clearly articulated view in the u.s. and the countries you mentioned, in australia and japan and vietnam and mongolia. you add up all the market share of companies who say they don't want huawei it's 40 to 60 bearse of the telecommunications market. that's a basis for somebody to come together. >> no question about it, but, again, 5g has a real draw, too.
11:14 am
it's got that appeal. >> let me ask you, you know, i think the european views of china are converging largely with what you hear washington or in some of our allied capitals in asia, but the european statement you referenced in march which had that striking phrase europe is in systemic competition with china also had language about the need to cooperate more with china and my sense from talking to european friends is we have a chance to converged our strategies but part of the european ask to us is going to be, okay, where is the u.s. prepared to cooperate with china. i guess that would be my question for you. you mentioned fentanyl and north korea, but do you see areas where soon or maybe somewhere down the road we could make the case to our european friends that we also are prepared to cooperate with china? >> well, i think, first of all, look, as i said in my speech, not all engagement with china is bad. certainly china has got a long cultural history that people are
11:15 am
interested in and those kinds of things are important, but they've also got one and a third billion people and those people are consumers so as a result of that we have in the past done our best to try to cooperate on trade and i think that will happen going forward. look, what's holding up trade right now in my judgment is not so much the trade -- the numbers and the -- and the tariffs that are put on, but china has got to develop a rule of law when it comes to handling intellectual property. it must do that. not only must it develop a rule of law, it must commit that the en farcement of the rule of law and they've got to do it by embracing international norms in that regard. if they do not and if we don't insist that they do that, this is going to be a very long 21st
11:16 am
century, no the only for america, not only for europe, but for the entire world. you can't have a rogue nation out there that just takes what it wants without using fairness as a foundation for compensating people for intellectual property. intellectual property when it comes to value is no different than hard property, hard assets. it has the same value and indeed in many cases more value than hard property does. we wouldn't -- people wouldn't standstill if they went out and took something that was -- they went out and tried to take the mona lisa out of france, people would be up in arms, but when they come here and take microchip technology it doesn't have the same appeal, but it needs to have the same appeal because modern business, modern industry, modern going forward really relies on technology. so ip is extremely important.
11:17 am
>> quick question. turning towards nato, nato leaders will gather in early december in london, as you mentioned in your speech, they will be issuing a report on china. do you believe it is safe for nato forces to go through chinese majority-owned ports? is that okay? >> well, i guess when you say safe, i don't know whether you're talking about kinetic safety or whether you're talking about theft of international property safety. >> surveillance safety. >> surveillance safety. look, militaries surveil other militaries. i don't think anybody is naive on that. having said that, i think worried about espionage that is not of the kind that is ordinarily practiced, one would want to be cautious of that. believe me, we've got 17 intelligence agencies that are very tuned into those, including all the defense intelligence
11:18 am
agencies. they're really good at taking care of themselves in that regard. so i don't have that -- i don't have that worry, but having said that i think everyone needs to be aware of what they're running into there. >> mike. >> you know, you mentioned shin jong in your speech. i was just in southeast asia. if you travel to pakistan you would have no idea, no idea the chinese were doing anything wrong in shin jong which probably makes it all the more important that free societies, u.s., europe in particular, are speaking out as you did about human rights and democracy. i wondering if you can expand on that. european governments are getting there, european parliaments, is there a legislative dimension to this across the atlantic or other ways we can -- you know, shine the spotlight even more than we have? >> i don't know about legislation, but i think probably what that tells us as
11:19 am
much as anything is the cultural divide between communism and our democra democracy. the chinese don't really believe they're doing anything wrong. they believe they're acting in the best interest of all society. that's not right. i mean, they don't have culturally on an individual basis having been brought up like we have through u.s. culture that the individual has rights. that the individual has rights that in many instances frequently overcome the rights of the -- of society. we charge a person with a crime that everybody in town knows committed the crime, but unless they can prove it, the person goes free. that doesn't happen in china. if everybody knows the guy committed the crime he's going to prison. the same is true with whether
11:20 am
it's speech, whether it's practice of religion, whether it's coming together to have meetings. it's just -- it's a different thought process. it really is. probably what goes -- what's going on there is probably underscores the size of the challenge that we face just because the cultures are so different. >> we both served in the bush administration and i had point on asia policy in the white house at the nsc and i could tell you at that point and i think it's still true when our chinese friends saw that the u.s., canada, europe, the eu were coming together around human rights issues, boy, did that get their attention. if it's just us or just japan or just britain or something they can sort of isolate it. when we all speak on this with one voice it's pretty powerful. maybe less than it was in xi jinping's day, but pretty powerful. >> you're absolutely right on that. as we lead the way, we the united states, europe, lead the way on this and the rest of the
11:21 am
world is coming along slower sometimes than what we want, but we're leading the way and not so much governments, but as populations see what we're doing and they come to buy on to this culture that will make it tougher and tougher and tougher on china to try to do that. so we need to stay the course in that regard. >> senator, we just got some great questions from our audience. >> any on impeachment? >> none. we've cleansed them, don't worry, you're good. one very specifically on the comments on human rights and i don't know if you know this information, when will the hong kong human rights and democracy act reach the senate floor? if you answer that question, have there been discussions on signals from the administration about whether the president will sign this into law and is it dependent on developments in the u.s./china economic talks, trade talks? >> the last -- in my mind the last question i'm going to say absolutely not. >> okay.
11:22 am
>> when is the bill going to get to the senate floor? we're having a very difficult time on the senate floor, as you know. our rules are not really modern rules, so things move slowly there. we have had a real tough time because of the confirmations primarily. so we have to pick and choose as to what we actually can run. as you know i'm a co-sponsor of that, a strong proponent of that legislation. i got a lot of staff here that have been actively involved in that and we want it moved. tomorrow we are actually having a meeting on trying to get some scheduling moved on that. the world needs to see that the united states will stand up and say, look, this is wrong. we stand with the people of hong kong and i don't care if we lose a few nba games over there. doesn't bother me in the least. we need to stand up on this one. >> thank you so much for your comments. another question it sort of pulls back on the larger question as you mentioned, you
11:23 am
know, this is the collective we, this is about american leadership ep gauging with our closest allies and partners to meet a growing challenge. the question is what is the impact of american international leadership withdrawal including from the paris climate accords, the military withdrawal in syria, does that broader american leadership picture impact and hinder what you've been arguing this afternoon which is we need to show leadership whether it's human rights and work against this common challenge? >> that's a really good question. sitting where i do i view it differently than a lot of people do and that question does. i take these transactionally on an individual basis. look, we -- and we are the 800-pound gorilla on this planet right now. how long that lasts, i don't know, but we are the 800-pound gorilla and we can do things that other people can't do and
11:24 am
maintain the power and the view of us that -- let me give you a good example. i was in the room when the president made the decision on the drone that iran took down. the president i have never been around a person who is more comfortable in their own skin when it comes to decision-making. when it came to that decision, he was somber as i've ever seen him, he gathered a small group of us there and wanted to get all of our thoughts on it, examined us closely, played devil's advocate as he asked the question and we gave our recommendation and then as you know he did not take a specific kinetic reaction to that. i think most other countries if that would have happened i think the iranians would have said, ah-ha, here is a guy who is weak, here is a country who is weak. i think that our status in the world still maintains us in that position that, boy, if you are going to push the envelope, be
11:25 am
really careful how far you push it because if you push it a skosh too far it's going to be a problem. on the paris climate accord i'm opposed to it, i encouraged the president to get out of t i would like to see such an accord, but as i told the obama administration, don't do this by yourself. we've got three branches of government here, engage us. if you're going to have an agreement with the united states, it's got to be the first and the second branch of government that agrees to it. i have this -- i have this discussion with my friends from europe all the time, they say you guys breached your agreement on the -- with iran. i said, no, we didn't. what are you talking we breached our agreement with riern? we had no agreement with iran. president obama had an agreement with iran. they said, well, that's -- no, it's not. our constitution is black and
11:26 am
white. the president can negotiate all these things he wants, you don't bind the united states until two-thirds of united states senators agree. they say that's kind of arrogant, isn't it? no, it isn't. what it does is it gives america the full power, the full buy-in of an agreement. that's how you do agreements. so when it came to gcpoa there was no agreement between iran and the united states. sometimes i convince the europeans of it sometimes they just kind of shake their heads and say i don't get t i say, look, if you don't get it let me ask you this, i have no idea how your country binds itself to another country, but, boy, i know how our country does and the jcpoa didn't do it. it takes a two-thirds vote on the floor of the senate. some of them buy off and some don't. look, i don't -- i'm not -- the situation in syria was a -- was another situation that the president did what he did. i think the thing was somewhat
11:27 am
misunderstood. i think that the fact that we are maintaining troops where we are maintaining troops on the eastern side of syria maintains what we need in order to respond to a terrorist activity within syria. i'm not uncomfortable with where we finally landed. i think, again, the way it was done, i can see where people are nervous about t i'm happy with where we are. >> we have about 30 more seconds, mike, i'm going to let you pick one great question out of your stack. >> it's got to be great. >> it's got to be great and we will let the senator close up and thank everyone. >> i have a request he from someone in the audience who asks -- the person says china sets 30 year goals and we think in four years presidential and six year senatorial terms. how do we articulate a vision that will get americans who are aged 15 to 35 invested in a long
11:28 am
term competition with china? how do you express that vision in a way where people are geared up for the long haul? >> no way i know of. we're americans, we do think in short term. it amazes me when kerry was negotiating with the iranians they were talking about this deal is going to be 10 or 15 years. you people are crazy. the iranians are persians, they are the remnants of the persian population. you are going to let them have a woman bomb in 15 years. this he would be happy to wait this 15 years. we are different here, we do think in short term. i don't have an answer for that. it's just not our culture. i mean, our entertainment industry in california thinks in terms of months, you know, let alone years or decades or centuries. i don't have an answer for that. i think that -- and a good
11:29 am
example of that is the whiplash we had of going from president obama to president trump, two very, very different ways of doing business and what have you, but, gosh, we've done really, really well thinking in short term over the last 242 years or whatever it's been. >> i was going to rephrase the question to say without worrying too much about our attention span, setting that aside for a moment and forgetting about it -- >> the nuns that taught me really worried about my attention span. i get that. >> you've won 34 elections. >> i didn't win 34, i won 32 of the 34. >> better than my record. >> she ran them, she did pretty well on 32 of them. >> i think you have a sense over the course of decades what the american people are up for. let me rephrase the question. do you think the american people are ready to compete with china? that's what a lot of our allies are wondering, do we have the stuff, whether we have a short attention span or a long term attention span. >> that's a better way i think of phrasing the question.
11:30 am
and i think the answer to that question is yes, but patience is not one of our strong suits here in america. i think they're going to want -- they're going to want much more short-term gratification than looking out like china did there, what, china 2025, anybody here in the room not read that, you need to read that. you know, america 2025 holy mackerel, people aren't thinking 2025. they're having trouble focusing on 2020 when we have another presidential election. but, look, we're americans. we live in the greatest country in the world for all the complaints we have and all the flaws that we have we as a people are living better and freer than any human beings in the history of our humanity which is only about 225,000 years. no one has come anywhere close to the way we're living. god bless america and god bless
11:31 am
the system that we have and the founding fathers put in place. thank you all for having me here. thank you. >> thank you so much. [ applause ]
11:32 am
11:33 am
[ indistinct conversation ]
11:34 am
[ indistinct conversation ]
11:35 am
frank, i wanted to tell you i hang my head in shame at the industry and particularly cronkite and the what i would say very unfair personalized reporting of these fellas and i think that you ought to know that opinion because you are going to be disappointed in me down the road if i didn't tell you that. i'm just telling you frankly that i think your industry is
11:36 am
wrecking all of us. >> well, that's pretty heavy handed and you can imagine what it was like for the journalist the next day, i'm sure he is not going to call on the journalist the next day that so offended him in the press conference and the fact that they are wrecking the country. very disturbing. we're hearing that today and the press is the enemy of the american people according to president trump. you know, the press is not the enemy of the american people, the press is out there doing work for the american people. >> sunday night on q & a patty rhule talks about the tension between american presidents and the press. watch c-span's q & a sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the impeachment inquiry hearings continue next week when house judiciary committee chairman jerrold nadler holds the first impeachment inquiry hearing into president trump focusing on the constitution and the history of impeachment. watch our live coverage
11:37 am
wednesday, december 4th, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. chairman nadler extended an invitation for the president and his counsel to appear before the committee. read the letter to the president on our website c-span.org/impeachment and follow the impeachment inquiry live on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span has brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

37 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on