tv Sen. Josh Hawley Remarks on Foreign Policy CSPAN November 12, 2019 10:34am-11:37am EST
testified to regard to the military aid, there is always a review period by the national security council to certify that -- whether -- to make sure that foreign aid dollars are not going to corrupt interests in a foreign country. that is a normal process that has been described by these witnesses behind closed doors. what joe biden was doing at that council of foreign relations event was essentially saying that he was sort of telling people what the defense department and the state department do regardless, which is make sure to -- that there are no corrupt interests for u.s. dollars are sent there. host: the previous caller asked you the difference between what joe biden was doing and what the president was doing withholding military aid? guest: what democrats would say that the president was pushing investigations that suited his political interest. with joe biden he was trying to
root out corruption of a prosecutor that the entire western world wanted gone from ukraine because he was to there going live it center for the new american security. e will be hearing from hawley.josh >> and ask ourselves which assumptions hold. how will the future demand different things be done then we have been done in the past? to address these questions and other ones as well, we are very pleased to host senator josh has been missouri he thinking deeply about foreign policy, the assumptions behind
it and how it should and must change america's approach. he took office in january 2019 after serving as missouri's attorney general. he is the youngest senator in the united states senate and serves on the armed services committee, judiciary committee, and homeland security committee. in his time in congress, senator hawley has emerged as a major voice in the debates toward china, including on the issue of hong kong, on technology issues, and on an array of national security issues more broadly. join -- we are asking you to join us in welcoming senator hawley. [applause] sen. hawley: is great to be back and with you this morning. my theme is america's elation ship with the world. america'sdent --
relationship with the world. as any student knows, it has always been unusual because we are an unusual nation. we were the first to break from its parent country. we were the first republic of the modern era and in history to be governed by a middle-class. short, ain revolutionary nation and all these years later, we live by that revolution still. republicantionary heritage has shaped all of our dealings with the world beyond. for the first century, we ventured not abroad in search of , we venturedestroy not abroad much at all today, the american public is rightly skeptical of open-ended commitments and rightly tired of endless wars. have rarely been content as a status for power. we have long sought to make the road different, better, safer
for our republic and for our way of life. now we find ourselves at a new crossroads, to an uncertain future. the long twilight struggle that defined foreign policy for half a century has been over now for half as long. but the long-promised and of history has not yet arrived. almost 30 years ago, george h w bush spoke eloquently at a new world order in the aftermath of the cold war, a new era of universal liberal values. instead we find ourselves embroiled in the longest war in our nations history with no discernible -- nation's history with no discernible an insight, divided at home and searching for purpose abroad. all the while, the greatest threat to our nation poses security in decade -- nation's
security in decades rises as china. our president for policy consensus, the mind and expectations embraced by both major parties for the last 20 years is not adequate to our time, and it is not right for our future. this consensus has left us distracted from the dangers at hand, left us unprepared for challenges we face, and it has been rejected by the people of this country. i am talking about the consensus that i will call "progressive new world order." it is the goal of extending multilateral rules based patterns and cooperation to the entire international system. steady expansion of progressive ideas, progressive institutions, and progressive values worldwide.
both major political parties embraced this vision, though in different guises. the american left emphasized the expansion of multilateral institutions and decision-making. they prioritize cooperative bodies like nato and the united nations and stress international norms and international law as the building blocks of a progressive local order. their version of a universalist project saw the united states as indispensable, but also regarding -- regarded american policy is a danger. they pushed to integrate the united states or deeply into multilateral bodies and patterns of cooperation. their aim has been to use american influence to expand a network of norms and rules-based partnerships around the globe. on this approach, the international system would come to look more like america and america would become inseparably
bound to the system. american conservatives, on the other hand, a somewhat different lesson from the end of the cold war. the left believed one shared same values around the world, and the right included that they should share our values and should. for many conservatives this meant building a world of democracies. this ambition required willingness to force changes in hostile regimes, to attempt to democratize regions and preserving the ability of our government. conservatives had not fundamentally disagreed with their counterparts on the left about the ultimate goal of creating a progressive international system, it is just that they doubted it could be realized to multilateral institutions. day,e end of the conservatives didn't trust anyone to get the job done but america. and for this reason, many
conservatives embraced unilateralism and defended the projection of american hard power. the difference between left and right and how precisely to achieve the universalist vision and how precisely to arrange it features have led to fights that are by now all too familiar, unilateral's him -- unilateralism versus multilateralism. in the decades since the cold war, right and left to have steadily expanded american commitments, steadily expanded america's military footprint, expanded america's military involvement in every theater of the globe in all manner of projects. from punitive airstrikes to humanitarian aid. it is this consensus of left and right together that deserves fresh scrutiny. more than that, it deserves replacement. the universal progressive
international order never fully arrived because it was never fully rooted in reality. andmoment at the cold war was bound to pass and it has. that moment was an aberration, a tramp at one, but one that offers -- a triumphant one, but one that offers no road forward for policy today. most didn't senate for the universalist project. russia nor china never agreed to play the part assigned to them. pursuit left the united states without clear focus with metastasizing focus has been paid for in the dollars --the american working clash working class and lives of american soldiers. as we honor our veterans one day after veterans day, let's not forget who they are. they are drawn overwhelmingly
from middle and working-class families and a family's -- and families with military histories. the wars have fallen on these americans in this country cannot continue to ask them to fight on without a clear purpose and without clear priorities. so it is time for a new departure. aced on america's needs in this new century, the point of american foreign policy should not be to remake the world to keep americans safe and prosperous. and those aims are in-service to a higher one, to preserve, to protect, to defend our unique american way of democracy. nation, theublican first of its kind in history. it is time we pursued a foreign policy in keeping with that national character and the national interest that character defines. so we should begin here with america's history and america's .haracter
we were the first republic in the world founded on the political power of the middle class. though the rights of suffrage or to narrow at our founding and the rights of citizenship were unjustly constricted, still the united states was never governed by an ancestral aristocracy. it was founded for the middle of society, by the class of independent workmen and artisans and farmers. they supported the revolution and sent their sons to die for it. they were the ones who ratified the constitution and that constitution was written with them in mind. since our founding, the citizenship class has only expanded, not without great struggle, and the character of our republic is only become more firmly entrenched. our culture, our economy, our theory of freedom, is premised on the dignity and power of the working man and woman. ours is a middle-class republic.
and to preserve the american nation needs to preserve the security and prosperity of this american middle. this forms the basis of our interest in the world. we seek an international order where we can practice our unique way of democracy. we seek an international order that will allow our working people to prosper and to maintain their political and economic independence. of course, we seek an order where the country our people call home is physically safe and physically secure. we are today a vast continental nation and our middle class is large and to enable its posterity, we manufacture and trade, not only among ourselves but others beyond our borders. our middle class character makes us a commercial nation, and for that reason, a trading nation. american interests are inseparably bound up with access to other regions of the world on
open and equal terms. american security requires that this nation be free to seek out commercial partners and free to negotiate with those partners for terms favorable to all sides. ifcan only pursue those ends no region of the world, if no key area vital to us is dominated or controlled by another power. as americans, have long defined political liberty at home as freedom from domination. that is the theory of our constitution, and it should be the keystone of our foreign policy abroad. we seek an international system that is free from hegemonic rule, free from control i anyone state. we seek -- by any one state. where they can meet on a level field and control their own destinies. this has long been our ambition
in the world. when this nation was still in its infancy, and the borders did not yet spanned the continent, the monroe doctrine announced our intention to prevent foreign power from exercising dominance in our hemisphere. this hemisphere was then the region of important to our security. in the first and second world wars, our aims were similar. this nation took up arms far from home to stop imperial powers from seizing control of europe and asia. and the same logic guided america's hand through the cold ,ar, across administrations this nation pursued strategies and alliances to stop the soviet union from dominating europe and asia and ultimately the globe. and we succeeded. amid this history, america pursued its own experiment with imperialism. thankfully, the american people rejected that policy and this nation has rightly renounced imperial ambitions.
we should be clear that imperial domination violates our principles and threatens our character. our aim must be to prevent imperialism not exercise it, to stop domination not foster it. aw we must gird ourselves for new effort because new aallenges new effort because new challenges await and new dangers arise. in the world's most critical of regions, and a pacific -- endopacific. it is here that we most focus. this region, the sprawling expanse with diverse peoples and cultures and natures is critical for our trade, critical for our jobs and critical for our national welfare. where the menace of hegemony looms. it is evident to everyone in this room that the wants free
pacific is less so. the people's republic of china gathers strength by the day, interfering in the affairs of neighbors, distorting and manipulate commerce while giving as little as possible in return. it is not just about trade and investment and programs like the belt and road initiative, which seek to bend the wealth of the world to the chinese communist party. china brazenly bullies allies and partners, aggressively militarize as the sea and openly seeks control of the entire region. we see this in hong kong, where promises were broken and violence escalates and basic liberties are restricted or just brazenly ignored. we see it in taiwan, where a free people stands fast against the power bent on erasing their independent identity.
we see it in our own corporations, like disney and the nba, who throw overboard free speech at the first sign of beijing's commercial pressure. when it comes to commerce, 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 inconvenient truth, our 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. this reality has been right in front of us for those who have cared to look. over 3 million manufacturing jobs left our shores in the first dozen years of this century due to china. devastating families and gutting communities in places far from this town. our workers known for years with
the city is only just beginning to discover -- that the beijing regime will first take from you and then replace you the second it gets a chance. china's drive for read your hegemony is a clear and present danger. at every juncture china has grown strength, so has its government's willingness to weaponize and leverage and project its power. china has been for domination and it is a security threat, the greatest to this country. foreign policy around the globe must be oriented to this challenge and focused principally on this threat our efforts to counter jihad is him jihad -- jihadism and others are essential and remain in america's interest. we must address them in light of the china bid for dominance.
this is more than a contest between economic competitors, much more than a rivalry. ins is a bid for mastery authoritarian and imperial state that we fundamentally cannot trust and cannot fundamentally ignore. change to adapt and answer this new reality. means strengthening ties with existing allies and partners in the reason -- in the region, those who have kept this region open and free. it means seeking out new partners, like india, and old foes like vietnam, who share our needs. it means a robust presence in key strategic presence to sustain deterrence and conquering maligned chinese influence in other arenas, from africa to latin america, to our colleges and universities here at home. it meanstantly,
evaluating our current range of commitments to ensure that this challenge has the attention and resources it needs at this crucial time to succeed. limitlessight is not and our other lives and treasure of the american people. and now we must make hard choices and articulate clear priorities in order to meet the challenge before us. -- our task is not to remake china from within. rather, it is to deny beijing's ability to impose its will without, whether it be upon hong kong or taiwan or allies and partners or upon us. we cannot remake every nation in our image, but what we can do is act in a manner that reflects america's character by resisting the tierney of domination by anyone state in anyone region, we protect our way of life and our friends in support
freedom loving people everywhere. our foreign policy can change and it must change. it is time we faced facts and address the world as it is. it is time our foreign honored this nations unique -- nation pose a unique history and character. for those who advocate for withdrawal and isolation, i say that will not keep americans safe and prosperous. ours must be a foreign policy for those who built this country, honors our workers and protecting their livelihood and way of life and respects our service members by asking them to sacrifice only for a justified purpose and only with a reasonable plan. world isse in the informed by our character at home and by our enduring aspiration to be a free people. our unique way of democracy is a gift to us and to the world. now we must rise to defend it
again in our day. by championing a free and open international system, by striving for 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, and the world be better because of it. thank you so much for having me. [applause] sen., thanks so much for your thoughtful and comprehensive comment. i thought when the most interesting aspects of this was your connection between the middle class and with the people in places like missouri care about in terms of their physical protection, prosperity, and basic freedoms and what we are trying to do in the rest of the world. this is when the overarching questions of our time about how
you orient a foreign policy toward that. i will 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, what it does to the allies and partners but what does it do to those living in the united states who do not want to think about china every day. what does that look like? it means that we cannot continue the prosperity of the middle and working class, period. endopacific is vital to us and we have to have access on free terms. we don't need to dominate that and we shouldn't and we don't need to act like a hegemon. we need to act for the basic character of this country to continue. our middle class and working class right now is under significant pressure and this is the theme of our domestic
politics. we cannot afford a world in which we are shut out of the world's largest, fastest markets where we are relegated to a status in which we cannot on free and equal terms trade and pursue commercial relationships. for the security and prosperity from our working and middle classes, we have to have access to that region. >> that brings me to your criticism of private companies , and theey and the nba response from corporations, at least some will be, hey, this is the biggest consumer market in the world. there is a price to have access to that self-censorship, apologizing for a random tweet from the general manager of the is,ton rockets, whatever goes with the territory. what do you want us to do? we are a corporation aimed at maximizing shareholder revenue. we are not politicians or
foreign policymakers. how do you think that the companies like that should deal because sen. hawley: what we have seen is i think a preview of coming attraction. what i want them to do is not become arms of the communist party propaganda machine. i think we have to realize that the desire of beijing to dominate the region is also with their desire to tell american companies what they can or cannot say and gather sensitive data on americans and foreign policy as they can with companies like tick-tock or to coerce our companies, like google and apple, to share data with them, with the commonest party and with beijing. what they are aiming for, and they have been clear about this, regional domination and beyond
that, access to influence if not control of the international system, so i would just say to the american companies, you will have to draw the line. it's fine to do business there eared we need that access, but what you must not do is allow beijing to make you an arm of their government. that's exactly what beijing has done with the corporate sector in their own country and we cannot allow that. curious what you are hearing from back home. there was some of us who were in kansas city a few months ago. we only stayed on the missouri side. we didn't even cross that line. one of the things that i was struck by was actually when we met with representatives of the farmers who could not sell their soybeans to china. this was a few months ago. it was striking to me that they were not clambering for just to
make all of this trouble go away. sense that this was a piece of a bigger issue and that they would play their part and there may be some short-term pain, and who knows how long that goes. but when you talk to your constituents they are people worried about china beyond economics, the geographics of domination? how did they square this with their other concerns like terrorism? is an area: this where i think normal everyday working americans have had an understanding of this that as i said is in many ways ahead i think of where the chattering class in this town have been. i've been hearing from people in missouri for years about the danger of china. they realize china has taken our jobs and engaged in unfair practices, they have stolen our property. you don't know --you don't have
to tell the americans that. it's in this town where people say it is complicated. the american people at least in missouri never believed that. they always thought china was a competitor. they believe that china is behaving unfairly and they have thought that they have bad intentions. when i go home and talk to people about my recent trip to hong kong and that situation, they are not surprised. they are horrified. they say that that does not surprise us at all, because that is the kind of contention that they have been exhibiting for a long time. they have been trying to buy up farmland for quite a long time. people are worried about the intentions of beijing. i go back to what i think is the fundamental point, we do not need to seek conflict with them. we don't even need to contain china. we need to make sure that china does not become a power that
dominates the region in the international system. achievableoable and goal and i think we should see it as part of a broader foreign policy that seeks to prevent hegemony. but it is hard work and we are in for a long struggle. >> i want to ask you about your trip and a minute, but to connect this back to the political resonance, in the beginning you critiqued the universalist project, we're going to help make the world, care about everything no matter where. american middle-class and you have been very articulate on what is going on in hong kong, why should we care about what is happening? whether they are democratic or not, does it affect the average middle-class person in the united states? sen. hawley: great question.
is indicativeong of what beijing is capable of and what they want to do to everybody if they have a chance. first hong kong and then the whole region and then we get to what beijing has been saying, they went to shut us out of the region. they want a region that revolves around them, that has the characteristics of their government and their regime, and what is the line that the leadership likes to quote, there can only be one son in the sky for that is a problem. and a problem for workers for our middle class and something that is a threat to our security and our prosperity. few weeks hong kong a ago meeting with protesters and wandering around a little bit. maybe you could say a little bit about your take away from that experience in particular given the news early this morning,
things seem to be going from bad the doesn'tterms of seem to be any resolution certainly. i had the chance to go last month, and i went out on the streets myself to be there with the protesters to see what was going on with the police, just to -- i applaud that news i went to say the opportunity to say thank you to all of the tremendous work that bringing to this world. i spent an evening out on the streets and then another date meeting with protest leaders and people across sections of hong kong and social workers, which was fascinating. i just have to say that the sense in hong kong, and this was
a month ago, the sense was that it was urgent. what i said which really infuriated hong kong, the government, is that they were becoming a police state. i saw it. police violence that is not checked, no oversight, the inability of course of the residents to elect chief executives. since i was there, beijing disqualified pro-democracy candidates for the elections. but we are seeing a think with the latest incident at the universities, i'm sure you have all seen the news from hong kong in the last few hours about what is happening, it is really remarkable. it's terrible. indication of what beijing intends and what they are capable of it this is important that the united states senate take up and pass the democracy act. we have delayed long enough.
we have waited long enough. that needs to come to the floor, and it is important that we send a signal to beijing and to the ourd, including some of reluctant allies who want to say nothing about what's going on. it is important we send a clear message that this is not acceptable and that the intentions of china are not going to go unnoticed. richard: and officials have been saying privately for months now that the protesters cannot go on forever. -- universityy students want to go back to school again, but it sounds to me like with your experience, that brought you the opposite view. my impression was, seeing the protesters on the streets and meeting with them, they feel that this is a threat to the character of their city. what person after person told me is they believe in one country,
two systems. the protesters are not the people who are the revisionists. they want to the status quo, they want what they were promised in 19 80 four and again in 19 87. they went the treaty to be followed through. what they are trying to prevent is the steady rolling back of those promises, those commitments, the violation of their basic law beijing. ishink this is why it happening in hong kong is indicative of the region. china is the revisionist power clearly. they are trained to alter the terms in the region and ultimately the international system. we have got to do something about that. of a u.s.he idea senator in hong kong going out into the protests at night is the control officer's worst nightmare. but good on you for that. let me turn to one thing that
--you mentioned about the trade-offs associated, and of course president obama tried to pivot to asia. trump has tried to edit us out of the forever wars could i think today there are more american troops in the greater middle east than they were at the beginning of the trump administration. so for all of the intentions to get out of the middle east and focus on the pacific, it's been a challenge part of the reason obviously is because we are worried about what the consequences of withdrawal should be. if we take the troops that remain in syria, does isis come back? if we get out of afghanistan, does al qaeda come back? thiso you think about
balance between we want to stop the forever wars and get out of these things, but we don't want to let terrorists sanctuaries emerge and then it comes back to haunt the kind of people that the foreign should protect. sen. hawley: i think part of morewe have to do is focus closely on our key priorities there and be more single-minded about pursuing them. i would say that the first of those is to counterterrorism and prevent the formation of networks and cells that could strike at the united states pose a direct threat to americans. counterterrorism is in our national interest. it is a key priority. fromnting anyone nation becoming a regional hegemon. i think foreign policy should be geared around preventing domination by any power.
is what i think has been our historical practice, and i think we should return to that. we have an interest in making sure that the cradle -- greater middle east is dominated by anyone power. differentrests are than acting as the general guarantor of regional stability. i think we have drifted in that region partly because we have not had a purpose globally for some time now could we have not had a clear sense of mission and also because i think we slipped into thinking we can do it all. we will just ask the taxpayers for more money. we cannot afford to spend a trillion or 2 trillion dollars a year on defense good we cannot. mightan
they need more support and part of giving them that support is for political leaders to give a direction and to quit asking them to do everything all the time. the joint force i think has become very good at counterterrorism particular using special forces. we will probably need to correct -- continue a presence there because we cannot afford to prevent terrorists cells that --reach.rnational rich we cannot permit those to reform. does that mean that we need large numbers of ground troops? we have more troops now then we did just a few years ago. i think we've got to think hard about that. we've got to think hard about the footprint and not just about troops but what kind, what kind of equipment. we have got to think about that in the context of our overall needs. richard: one more question and then we will go to the audience
to be thinking about questions. in thes russia fit foreign policy you sketched out both as a direct threat to the united states whether it is military or political meddling or the violation of regional rules, and then also the connections with china. should we worry about this russia-china access being formed? how do you think about that? sen. hawley: russia also has their own aspirations towards hegemony. they are a dangerous threat. looms say that threat largest in the pacific, but it looms in the baltics as well and in newly aggressive russia. ourhina and the pacific is pacing theater, russia has got to be close behind.
nato allies in this area to do more. we need them. this is in their backyard. we cannot --the united states cannot lead the charge against russia and the chinese hedge enemy at the same time and pursue counterterrorism. we need our nato allies to step up and spend more and do more in , and wend the baltics need them to do more. our alliances do matter. they will be important to us. in this new era because this is world anymore, but germany in particular has got to do more in europe. the truth is, if we are forced to choose between europe and choose thell have to
pacific. that is much more pressing for us and for our interests paired russiad not want to see expansion into europe, but if we are forced to choose, we would have to choose the indo pacific. we should not be put to that choice we have to work to make sure that we are partnering together so we can do what we need to do to maintain stability. question, youore rejected the prevailing consensus on both the left and the right and sketched out this new way forward. you are the youngest senator, i think the newest senator. does that consensus exist among your colleagues or do they think like you? sen. hawley: i would say it still predominates everywhere that i have seen. i think part of it may be generational. i think in many ways we still
live with a cold war hangover, hangover.st war i think there was such hope at thatnd of the cold war maybe the world was going to change fundamentally in that great power politics would be gone forever and that we could rethink what the international system looks like. it just turns out that that is not the case. it turned out that russia and china did not get the memo, that the balance of power is back, that we are not the only powerful country in the world. nor do we need to be. this is part of my message. we do not need to be paired the united states does not need to be the world hegemon. pursuing that would be expensive and i think detrimental to our values could we do that. we need to make sure that no hegemon or imperial power
dominates any of the region of the globe. we can do that and i think that's in accord with who we are. richard: let's go to the audience. raise your hand if you have a question. >> senator, under your foreign policy framework, i went to confirm america would not resume the role of the leader of the free world? and number two, regarding china, president reagan said communism is like a virus, and i think we only have two days to deal with that, either kill it or get away from it. proven thatory has
the market economy and american vulnerable,ind of like dealing with the chinese communist party. to thenot been immune commonest corruption. , the youage china think the history --how can you make sure history will not repeat itself? see theley: i very much united states as the leader of the free world. i believe our mission for the world is to help make the world more free and open, but i suggest the way we do that is unipolarity,g which we ultimately cannot do. we should hope for such a world, but the focus of our policy should be a little more realistic and that is prevent domination. i think at this as a
pro-democracy policy because it is built on allowing our democracy to thrive and allow other states in the system to have the same freedom that we do in terms of making their own choices, not being dominated by any regional power. as to china, i agree with you for this is part of the hope of the foreign policy consensus for decades, including them in the wto, in the international system, would lead to their liberalization. that has not happened. anything we are importing, they are exporting to us and we are importing their values on speech at least. that is the danger with likenies with companies disney or the nba. we have to be able to be ready to resist their attempts at regional hegemony. it does not mean that we need to
shut them off from the world, but it means that we cannot allow them to dominate the world or their region. there has been a lot of talk in washington and beijing about the linking our economy from that of china. vast continuing between the independence and full on decoupling. what steps the united states night take in this relationship to preserve some beneficial trade that mitigating some of whatangers that poses, so form of independence between the two countries, what that looks like. sen. hawley: that's very much the question of the day. i would hoping --i was hoping you would tell me. that is the outcome that we
should pursue. to those who say we have got stop the current trade complex -- conflicts with china, we've got to go back to full and total integration, that is just not going to happen because beijing will not let it happen. their desire is for regional dominance. sortll have to pursue some of separation enough that we are not held hostage by their commercial power. their commercial power is great and it will only grow. we will have to pursue opening up other markets with closer ties with other nations. i talked about indiana -- india, is a large market. , with ourve to partnerships with india, japan, and others, we will have to expand our access there and
ultimately pressure china to grant free and open terms, ones that are not coercive. does that look like? i don't know, but i think the tools need to be on the table. for those who hope for a day when we are not in this confrontational stage with china, i don't think we are going back. what sort ofis policy tools are we going to develop to continue to pursue our interests, to deter chinese aggression and also make sure that we have the access we need for our workers. i got a few ideas on that, so watch this space. >> i am a german, and i am with you on that european idea that they need to do more. there are those in this town who think that the e.u. is an
imperial power. do take that do? sen. hawley: no. is i would like the e.u., when it comes to trade disputes, and i am from a farming state, so we have some bones to pick without how the farmers are treated, so we hope for better terms. perspective,itical i do not see them as a threat. there is a threat to the balance of power, but it is not the e.u.. it's russia. we need our european allies to do more with us. we cannot come to a situation in which the united states is forced to choose. i think that would be bad. i am very much interested in
the middle east. there is one piece that i would like you to have some comments on, turkey. are they still essential in the nato, and what you make of that relationship between that administration and the president of turkey? sen. hawley: obviously they are still a part of nato. richard asked earlier, but you asked about russia and china, and i worry about turkey and russia, so the russia china friendship i think would be disastrous for us. we do need to be very concerned about any potential growing alliance there. i think that would be very bad. i worry about turkey also moving towards russia, and that has got to be for us a project of trying to prevent any further gravitational pull towards moscow.
the situation recently in turkey toh syria shows the need call upon --this is interesting, something our generals have reported is there view as to why the security zone in northern syria proved to be unstable and we were not able to hold it is that it was never actually political, it was a military solution. our military devised this area and try to get that turkish and kurdish military, but there was any political buy-in. we rely too much on the military power and not worked enough on the political side of things. we have to do more of that not less in the middle east as we train our military focus toward the indo pacific and then
towards the baltics. we've got a lot of work to do, but getting the priorities clear is the important step. i worry about turkey and rashi a lot --russia a lot. i have two questions. you mentioned about the hong kong human rights and democracy act. it on the house floor, but can you give us some insight as to why it is still pending, and not being voted on the floor. this isnd question is, the anniversary of the fall of the britton wall -- the berlin wall, and some of your colleagues call hong kong the new berlin because they see it as a potential and a turning point. i'm wondering what is your take on that and do you think the
western democracy has given enough support to hong kong? sen. hawley: to take the second one, i think hong kong is the berlin of this generation in the sense that it captures and makes vivid the struggle that this generation will have, which is with an increasingly martial and expansionist china. that is what we are seeing play out. allowis not willing to the status quo to exist in hong kong. china is trying to impose its power and its will and it is trying to use hong kong to send a signal to the region of what they will do and you better get on board with beijing because look at what beijing is capable of certainly we know that's what they want to do with taiwan and others. china does not want to have military conflict if they can avoid it. what they want is get everybody in the region afraid of them showing what they are capable of
pretty think that is part of what is happening which is why it is so important and why i call it the berlin of this generation. as to your first question, i do not know why we are not voting on that act. i would like to know. i hope that we will vote this week. i've been calling for for weeks. i introduced my own bill to impose some sanctions which i think are called for and very much in order. i hope we will vote soon. the lastl give question to this gentleman. am very impressed your visiting hong kong to get the situation firsthand. ambition china's -- hegemony,eny
,or example, president reagan his way to collapse the soviet union, i think that worked well. what do you think about china? sen. hawley: i think that's the question of the day. our military posture, we will have to adopt a posture forward in the region. i think if you look at the various scenarios, china does not want to have to fight a conflict. you can say whatever you want about beijing, they are sophisticated and they have been pursuing this plan for quite some time. what they want to do is convince everybody that they can exert their power and that everybody should kowtow to beijing. we need to focus on taiwan, i think they are likely to become
the focus of our military efforts as the strategy lays out . the focus of our planning efforts have to be to prevent this scenario in taiwan. wara has studied our way of , the american way for the last couple of decades. they know in the indo pacific because of the distances involved, we cannot surge troops in the theater quickly. taiwana is able to seize , we will have -- and we are not there to halt it, then it will be a fate to complete. that is the scenario that i think we have to prevent. i need to make it clear that we are able to prevent it. we will have to change our military posture in the rage and and build networks because it cannot be just us. we need our partners in the region to be a part of this. it needs to be clear to beijing
if they attempt to strike at taiwan, they will be resisted i the united states and by a network of allies --allies and they will be in for a very big fight that the international community will not support them with. i think that has got to be the focus of our planning efforts. thatof the rest flows from and the building out of our partnerships come and there is a lot of work there to do. it is doable. but we have a lot of work to do and there's not a second to waste. richard: that is a good note to wrap this up on. you have covered a lot of territory, very thoughtful comments. we appreciate you sharing your thoughts on all of these matters gnd please join me in thankin the senator. [applause]