tv Hudson Institute Discussion with Former Deputy Secretary of State Antony... CSPAN July 13, 2020 2:07am-3:10am EDT
every day, we are taking your calls on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, tax policy and economic recovery with the tax foundation's call smith. a look at the biotech industry and coronavirus with chair jeremy. watching c-span's washington journal at 7:00 eastern monday morning. and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪ discussion on foreign policy with former deputy secretary of state anthony lincoln. he is currently a chief foreign policy advisor to joe biden's presidential campaign. hudsoncussion with the institute was filmed by video conference. welcome to the hudson institute's dialogues on
foreign policy series. mead, senior fellow at hudson institute. it is my pleasure to be joined by antony blinken, the chief foreign policy advisor for the biden for president campaign and former deputy secretary of state and deputy of national secretary national security adviser. during his career, mr. antony blinken antony blinken -- mr. antony blinken has held a number of distinguished government positions. he was national security adviser to vice president biden during the administration but also served as the senate staff director for the senate foreign relations committee from 2002 to 2008 and the national security council staff during the clinton administration. during his time at the state department mr. blinken played an instrument to world the diplomatic effort to counter ice is pretty worked on the global refugee crisis and rebalance of asia. l role in the dipl efforts to counter and he rebounds
asia tony it's good to see u thank yo for joining us today think it's going to be an interesting conversn today, i hope we will be able to follow-up at various it's good to see you and thank you so much for joining me today. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> i think it's going to be an interesting conversation i hope will be able to follow-up at various times through the format for these conversations for regular viewers. we try to get people here a chance to say what's on their mind and really give us some detail about how they see the world with their parties are. this is not about being controversial. the viewers are smart enough to figure out whether they agree or disagree with what they are hearing but also they are people who want real information about what's going on in the world. as someone who is was an extremely close adviser to the vice president and head of the foreign-policy team of president biden's presidential campaign few people are in a better spot to talk about what is bided administration foreign-policy might look like then tony blinken and is more polls, the more people start thinking that a bided mistress and is not just a possibility but maybe even a livelihood and the interested but that policy in might look
like is going to intensify. few people w mighto form look lik tony. and as m out ands come more peo start thinking the biden administration is not just a p may beity but a likelihood. obviousl interesting with tha policy might look like maybe the best place to start wo take a you to look at the world would've foreign policy might look like. maybe the best place to start would be for me to ask you to take a look around the world and how would you characterize what a biden foreign-policy might look like? >> first might help to take a step back and think about the
role that president widens legacy would be inheriting and that is the direction of the foreign-policy and i think it's no less important to the evidence that there is a time of shifting alignments among nations. a huge diffusion of power away from states and the growing question of governance within states. a tremendous economic , demographic, technological, environmental, geopolitical change. in fact the rapidity of change is such that in a general sense we have lost our northstar. , people are increasingly . they feel a sense of chaos. they don't know which end is up. i think as a consequence of that as well as a tremendous inequality problem both within our own country and around the world, we are facing i think the most challenging and complex international landscape and international security landscape
, certainly in decades, if not longer. having said that, i think the vice president believes it's within our considerable capacity, america's considerable capacity, to keep things a lease -- at least on the margin a better or where our security, our values are enhanced, not diminished, so that is kind of the big picture that we are facing. change, il of this think there are certain constants. let me weekly mention those and then we can get into more specifics. first, whether we like it or not, the world tends not to organize itself, so there is a premium still, and in some ways, even more than before, on american engagement and american leadership because basically, we have a choice. if we are not doing a lot of that organizing in terms of
shaping the world to the norms and institutions through which countries relate to one another, then one or two things, either someone else is doing it, and probably not in the way that advances our own interests and values, or may be just as bad, no one is, and then you have chaos in a vacuum that may be filled by bad things. there is a premium. premium on leadership. second and again, no less important for being obvious, there's also a pmm on find -- premium on finding new ways to cooperate among nations and among different stakeholders because simply put, the big problems that we face as a country and as a planet, whether it is climate change, whether it is a pandemic, whether it is the none off bad weapons, these have unilateral solutions, even in countries like the united states.
there is no wall high enough or thick enough to ward them off so we have to think of ways to cooperate more effectively, taking into account the fact that there are all sorts of groups and individuals empowered by technology and information that have greater veto authority than ever before on the decisions of traditional sources of authority decision-making like a national government or an international organization. after that, a crisis in the credibility of institutions, hyper partisanship, corruption permeating our systems in different ways, it makes for an incredibly challenging time. bighat is kind of the a newpe in which i think administration will have to engage. >> that's right. may be what we should do is talk about a few hotspots and then get back to these sort of overarching issues if that works.
and i think the first thing that would be on a lot of people's mind would be the u.s.-china relationship. where in some ways, oddly even though the u.s. political climate has become very polarized, we have seen, you know, a continuation of the obama administration, which began a rebalance towards asia. and today, you hear from many democrats as well as many republicans concerned about what is going on in china and the future of the relationship, so how do you see a biden administration setting itself up to deal with china? >> i think you're right. there is a growing consensus plays parties that china a series -- poses a series of new challenges and that the status quo was really not sustainable, particularly when it comes to china's commercial
and economic practices, the lack of reciprocity in the relationships was something that could not be sustained and needed to be and continued to be needed to be dealt with. take a step back. my concern now is that, in terms of china's strategic interests, and in terms of our own, china is a result of the last 3.5 is in a much stronger position and we are in a weaker position. and that is what the biden administration would have to build from. what do i mean by that. if you think about what china would hope to achieve strategically around the world, unfortunately, in my judgment, the trump administration has helped them advance their interests. weaker u.s. alliances, china sees alliances as a core source of strength for the united states, something they do not share or enjoy. unfortunately, the way trump has hasued his policies, that
wakened, not strengthened, china is trying to hours. assert its own leadership in international institutions at the expense of our own. our withdrawal, virtually in every institution that you can think of. when it comes to values, our abdication of standing up for our own values, in asia, and with regard to china's actions, as i think given the government in beijing a greater sense of impunity when it comes to cracking down on democracy in hong kong and when it comes to the human rights abuses of uighurs. and finally, our own democracy. when it looks like it's in disarray and seems not to be delivering its legitimacy, that is arguably good for china because our model looks less attractive than it otherwise would.
i think president trump unfortunately has led an assault on our own democracy. it's institutions, values, people, that has served to further delegitimize it, not just in the eyes of americans, but around the world. so in that sense, i am afraid, we are at a strategic disadvantage. china's at a strategic advantage at this particular moment. having said that, how would we approach things? a few things are worth underscoring. first, it is vital, because we are in a competition with china. and there's nothing wrong competition if it is fair. in fact, it hopefully brings out, in some ways, the best. we need in the first instance of -- to invest in our own competitiveness and that means making fundamental reorientation's of resources and priorities when it comes to health care system, our workers, and their competitiveness.
one of the things that i think second, has been a deficiency in the trump administration's approach to dealing with china is it has done so not with our allies and partners but without them. indeed while alienating them. allies and rally our partners instead of alienating them to deal with some of the challenges that china poses. for example, on trade, as you know, we are about 25% of world gdp alone. when we are working with allies and partners, depending on who we bring into the mix, and is 50 % or 60% of gdp. that is a lot more weight and a lot harder for china to ignore. third, we need to be standing up for our values and put them back at the center of our foreign policy, not walk away from them. we obviously need to be in a place to effectively deter aggression if china pursues it. and finally, i think you see the biden administration having reestablished our relative strength in the relationship then be able to engage china and
work with china in areas where our interests clearly overlap, whether it is contending with climate change, dealing with global health and pandemics, dealing with the spread of dangerous weapons. we are much better off finding ways to cooperate when we are acting from a position of strength than from a position of weakness. >> i hear what you are saying. on the question of values in democracy, i have not been to asia in the last few months, obviously, but i spent some time there last year. and i was hearing from a number of people in a number of countries that democracy promotion is not as popular among a lot of our potential asian allies as it was in europe during the cold war, so you know, if we want thailand and burma and vietnam and a number of other countries to work with us, and even india to a certain extent, which is a democracy,
but has a somewhat different view of what that might mean than we do, that is kind of the ideological component while providing certain advantages, or i could add the philippians. it also complicates the task of alliance building in asia. how would you respond to that? >> you know, a couple of things. first, this is not about some know, aabout, you bayonet, part of building world democracies. i think we have to start from at least would see it, basic premise, which is when we are thinking about -- and then i will get to the asia peace more specifically -- but look, if joe biden is elected president, he is going to inherit some things. a divided country and a world increasingly in disarray. and he would argue, i think, the
best answer, the best initial foundational answer to this challenge is in fact democracy. because it is, when it is functioning, it is the foundation of our strength at home but also abroad. it should reflect who we are. certainly, it is how we see ourselves. and at least until recently, it is also i think how the world tends to cs. but that democracy is obviously under challenge in ways that are -- -- arguably it has not been before, and that matters as a foundation for our foreign policy. first, when you think about it, the strength of our democracy at home is directly tied to our ability to be a force for progress, to mobilize collective action around the world, and here again, my concern is that we have seen a daily assault on democracy under this administration, which has tarnished our own ability to lead. as joe biden likes to say, we get a lot of mileage out of
leading by the power of our example, not just the example of our power. and then abroad, other democracies tend to be a source of strength for us if we are acting together, but here again, we have got a problem. as you know very well, we have seen a retreat when it comes to democracy over the last eight or so. freedom house, which tracks this stuff, it ranks countries, of the 40 or so countries ranked free in the 1980's, 1990's, early to thousands, fully half have fallen backwards on their metrics. and there is what people call a democratic recession. autocracies from russia to china are trying to exploit that. to add fuel to our own troubles, and so, at the very moment that democracies most need leadership, and i would argue leadership from the united states, playing the role that has been played -- it has played before as the leader of the free
world, unfortunately, we have a president who, by embracing autocrats and dismissing democrats, seems to many to have suited up for the other side. so it is a long way of saying that if we know our democracy at home, if we revitalize our alliances with democracies in the first instance around the world, that creates a foundation for us to act, i believe, more effectively in dealing with lots of challenges. now, i do not think it is one-size-fits-all. and there are countries that we need to work with, clearly, including in asia, that may not fit the jeffersonian democracy ideal that we may have. obviously, we do not either at this point. but when you shore up your democratic base, when you get democracies working together, that creates a foundation in which -- upon which to bring others on different issues. asia, you know,
in particular, look, i think we did the rebalance under the obama and biden administration, and it was an effective vehicle. redirecting our time, energy, and resources to a part of the world arguably matters more than any other. -- other to our future, but that entails working with countries that certainly were not fully democratic under the measures you and i would consider. we obviously need to pursue that and hopefully, as our models become once again attractive and effective at dealing with problems and helping people advance in their own lives, then you will have an incentive for countries to continue to democratize themselves. let's jump from asia to the middle east. and here, i guess i would start by asking, there has been some
discussion that may be the middle east does not matter as much to the united states now as it did at a time, say, when we were importing oil and oil was kind of seen as the key to everything around the world. has the place -- and then the rise of china -- has the place of the middle east writ large changed in america's foreign policy? >> i think in short, yes. it has, and again as we are , looking at things, already in the obama/biden administration, with the so-called pivot to asia, the rebalance of asia, that was simply a recognition of what we saw -- when we considered where are our interests? where our interests seemed most acute, where our future seemed to be emerging in terms of our interest, we were under resourced in asia and arguably
over resourced in other areas. and i think that remains the presumably, in a biden administration, where we would see more emphasis in the endo's pacific and more on our own hemisphere. as well as i would hope sustained ambition with africa. and contending with the challenges we face. so just as a matter of time allocation and budget priorities, i think we would be doing less, not more, in the middle east. having said that, there are obviously certain fundamentals that remain constant, including starting with even our relationship with israel. -- israel as the anchor and foundation for democracy in the region. that won't change. the commitment to israel security is not going away. but overall, in terms of the
amount of time and focus and torgy and resources we need be thinking about how we allocate them to best match our interests, and again, i think that suggests more in the asia-pacific, more in our own hemisphere in the sustained engagement in europe. ifand you have talked about, iran were to return to full compliance with the jcpoa, the u.s. would reenter under a biden administration and then take it from there. what might that look like? >> well, here again, i think we presidentblem that trump has turned into a much deeper one,a much and potentially into a crisis. the president did two things. he tore up the jcpoa, the nuclear deal with iran.
and he said it would lead to -- to tell iran to negotiate a better agreement. he also instituted a campaign of so-called maximum pressure that he said would curb iran's provocative actions in the region. in fact, exactly the opposite has happened as many predicted , at the time. far from leading to a better agreement, the unraveling of the jcpoa because of the actions of , the trump administration has no place in the place were one, we are isolated from our partners who negotiated the agreement with us, and two, and ish more importantly, iran restarting dangerous components of the program and putting itself in a position where it is closer to the capacity to develop material for a nuclear weapon on short order than it was when we left office. no, as far as i can tell, no strategy, no plan
on the part of this administration to do anything about this, so we are heading right back to where we were before the agreement, which is a really terrible binary choice between either taking action to stop the program or doing nothing and allowing iran to develop a nuclear weapon on very short order. in terms of the provocative this strange seesawing back and forth on part of the and notration responding to what iran is doing. solemani --ost and for eightead ratcheting up of tensions. attacks on our bases
in iraq. we have seen iran take or provocative actions in the region, not less. the policy has backfired in a massive way. the most fundamental challenge for us in terms of our interest is dealing with the nuclear program. that is what this is about. iran comes back into compliance, bringing the alleys -- allies back on our side, asking us both to calm down. with our partners and allies both on our side, with the agreement once again in force, we can use that as a platform to try to build a stronger and longer agreement.
again,e allies with us we are in a much better position. confront iran's actions which we do not like. most of our partners are spending all of their time to figure out how to keep the nuclear agreement alive. >> let me quickly on the israel question for death they do annexation on the west bank and the next few months, does that complicates the israel relationship with the biden administration? it certainly complicates even more than it already is the prospect of achieving a two state solution in the middle east. that outcome, in my judgment and the vice president's judgment more importantly,
represents the best way and probably the only way you have a secure future for israel as a jewish and democratic state or for palestinians. there's action by both sides. some of the vice president would oppose but ideally obviously it won't pursue it. ill find ways to rebuild the environment in which it is possible for the parties to reengage the united states. >> and i want to shift a little towards europe on the way to do that is to look at turkey for a moment which is a nato ally and a european country in some ways. it's increasing a middle eastern actor as well. where do you see the
relationship going? what would the biden administration be looking for? >> at tuna very challenging place. as you said turkey is a nato ally bites interest, it is a vitally important country and it winds up being, and one way or other and essential way critical to some issue, conflict, initiative. we obviously want to find a way to have a more productive and positive relationship with turkey. that requires the turkish government itself to want the same thing. we obviously have some real issues and differences. we also have areas that it
would make good sense for us to work more effectively together. syria for example being one of them. i would hope that we can find ways to do that. but i do not want to underestimate some of the challenges we are facing in a relationship. and that is going to require first and foremost very direct and clear talk. i will say the vice president has a long relationship they have known each other they have engaged directly on a lot of things. i think we found in working with turkey that relationship is also the most important. i suspect it's a significant engagement on the part of
president biden to see if we can work through the host of things we need to work through together. >> this gets me to it a europe nato question for you look at the situation in libya now, we can see france has lined up with the russia in the usa and some others, italy quietly supporting turkey in a way. so, in that sense here in the mediterranean area of vital interest don't have a coordinated policy in libya. we don't have anything that looks like a coordinated nato policy in libya. i just raise this as an example is of the of issues we are looking at transatlantic late now it's not just is
germany paying enough money for its defense or is the united states being engaged enough in certain ways. it's kind of an emergence of interest and a failure in many countries to align policies with these alliance structures and international structures. how does the biden administration work on that? >> the first instance showing up again and demonstrating your action support these institutions and see them as important vehicles for shared interest. we spend most of our time taking a two before to them it's not really a surprise that they don't prove to be effective vehicles for dealing with the really, really hard problems. i think revaluing these alliances starting with nato is going to be very important
similar with the u. president trump is treated as an adversary when in fact it can should be a vital part of the united states it's very challenging situation like libya. that is really the first step revitalizing the alliances reasserting that american values them and we want to be engaged in them or with them. libya is a particularly challenging one. i have to acknowledge we obviously did not succeed in the obama/biden administration getting that right. i think one of the things we had not seen as clearly as we should have arguably is what was done that could rise to his power over the years.
there was in fact no bureaucracy after he was gone from the scene prayed that made it very difficult to get anything done. there's also the fact the country is divided in so many ways. there's also hard-core nationalism that made it very, very difficult to get libyans to accept any security force that might stabilize the situation after qaddafi. or even training for their own security forces. our now course in the intervening time, we have vacuums and those were filled by bad things not good things. we have libya as a proxy contest for other powers that have listed so well. try to get starts with valuing and using the institutions that allow us to cooperate and collaborate.
>> okay. just quickly went to move on to the global issues. there's russia looming over american politics. i know every american president at least since george w. bush is assured they could figure out a way to work with putin. i would say so far we are zero/three for that. what would president biden try to do there? >> you remember back, the very first foreign policy speech of the obama/biden administration was one the vice president delivered in february 2009. that was then called the reset speech between united states
and russia. we talked about resetting the relationship and at that point it reached what it seemed to be a low point and without they were areas we can more effectively work together because it was in our mutual interests. and indeed we did that when it comes to a new start, we work together even in afghanistan at that point in time so that speech tried to create a foundation for the reset. as another part to that speech people did not pick up on as much of the time. it was the vice president said even as we set to reset relationships with russia they are not going to compromise certain core values is an influence and we will not accept them. it is not a world in which one country can tell its neighbors with whom they can associate are not associated with their policies should or should not b be. it's not a world in which one
country was able to violate the sovereign orders of a none other by exerting its greater strengt strength. unfortunately the way things unfolded, we saw the second part of the speech come to life. here again, we've had, may be the strangest and still unexplained chapter of the trump administration is president trump's administration to mr. putin and to russia. even as elements of the administration have sought to take an appropriately tough lien on russia or the things it does, president trump repeatedly undermines that effort and famously he denies russia interfered in the election will do it once again. he took the word of mr. putin over our intelligence community.
steve got to start recognizing the problem and the challenge. it's funny, i was just reading a peace before we got on the videoconference, in which he quotes from george and kenneth than odd. i just printed it because it is so remarkably compelling and remarkably of the moment. this is 70 some odd years ago. let me just read it because it is remarkably on points. russian sense of insecurities. it was archaic inform originally was peaceful agricultural people this was
added fears are more confident more highly russian rulers were always fearful that international organization where they see opportunity for expending their power or diluting the power of others. efforts would be made to disrupt national confidence that hamstring measures of national defense to increase social and industrial unrest to stimulate all forms of disunity black against white, young against old newcomers against established residence. wow. that sure sounds familiar. and so i think a recognizing that strain and russia's policy pre-dates mr. putin and presumably will follow him needs to be front and center in our thinking.
again, my own take is when you are able to approach countries with whom we are in an adversary position from a position of strength that much better enables you to have areas of cooperation if it happens to be in your self interest so for instruments up strategic limitation is something we should continue to pursue with russia. we are best off doing them only have our eyes wide open not as they've been for the last three and half years, firmly shut. >> i agree and i love the quote. i remember i wrote some years ago that i lost a lot of faith in the american intellectual class because of the end of the cold war everyone said he is such a genius. forty years ago and he finally were now they said russia is a communist we can be friends
that's all going to be great. and in fact the whole point is the problem here is not there communist but there russian communist that something we have to come to grips with. maybe the 20th century in america you wonder sometimes why you get up in the morning. >> some things are truly evergreen and this truly is one of them. i happen to see this and it jumped out. it is good stuff. i want to move to global issues.
>> may be a halfway house is a think about latin america hemisphere for a moment i think the next administration whoever that is will face deep issues as are often very divisive as well. you can look from brazil to mexico and take that group there are significant level ranging from political polarization climate to a broader social break in the breakdown of law and orders of venezuela imploding black hole. it is a mess. so how does a new administration wrap its head around this and we can't ignore it. we certainly cannot ignore it
on the upside growing economies and democracies we respect human rights that is profoundly in the interests of the united states. and in the world but as you say very well, there are huge challenges. that is the migration challenge from the northern triangle countries. obviously, the problems in those countries when it comes to crime and gang violence, drugs, lack of economic opportunity among other things are huge drivers. the idea that someone wakes up in the morning and says she
wouldn't be great fun today to give up everything i know, where i live, my family, my friends, may not go some where where may not know the language or have family or friends when that be a great thing to do people who undertake these journeys they have usually compelling drivers that push them in that direction. hypothetically. it takes extraordinary courage and energy to give up everything, put your life in jeopardy and find a better life somewhere else. we must have a stake to help people find ways to make themselves more attractive so more people don't feel compelled to make that kind of
journey. >> it is interesting when joe biden was vice president we talked about not being able to get anything done in washington. he actually secured a bipartisan support for almost $1 billion in aid for el salvador guatemala and that was concrete commitments from those countries to take on corruption, to take on violence, to take on poverty that is driving people to leave their homes. big chunks of this money so they not go into a government blackhole we started to see that decrease from el salvador, that was a smart approach. not throwing money away but tying it to concrete commitments there was an
interest of both sides paid we have a plan, the vice president has a plan to build significantly in over four years with a regional strategy that would require countries to have their own resources to undertake concrete reforms that make them more attractive places for their own people. that's a thing that is smart and effective in clearly in her interest. >> will not go into the overarching global issues. those who are over dangers of climate change and strategies for coping with it or dealing with it and it is a huge issue that leads into almost every facet of foreign policy.
i would like to hear how the biting campus thinking about this. >> it is arguably the 1x essential issue we face. and it has to be. under a biden administration it would be. it would be a number one priority. he has put out a detailed plan for what he would do in terms of the very significant and urgent investment at home to put us on track for clean energy economy with net zero economy. let's think briefly about the international peace. that is deeply important because we are 15% of global emissions. even if we do everything just right at home, that does not solve the problem if the rest of the world is 85% of global emissions. the benefits we can then
leverage our economic authority to push the world to take more determined action. to the vice president thanks it's critical and sad that on day one of his administration he would read during the past climate agreement. then, as a priority certainly in the first year of his administration convene a summit of major carbon admit errors to rally countries to raise their ambitions further and faster. we would also look to do a number of other things. to reduce admissions and shipping and aviation, pursuing stronger measures to make sure they cannot undercut the unites states economically as a meter own commitments. they would insist that china
stop subsidizing coal out port and financing billion dollars of dirty fossil fuel projects that is the kind of approach we would take. but it does start at home. we are not doing at dhec of a lot harder to convince the rest of the world to do with they need to do. >> you mentioned trade before. the administration try to strengthen the wto, go back to the ppp, where do you see that heading? >> think again, walter, would serve the couple of basic premises. we are about 5% of the world's population. we want to reach the other 95%
in her ingenuity got to be able to reach them. as a basic principle trade is profoundly in the interest for going to sustain advance or standard of living, with open markets and make sure american products, american services, american ideas can be consumed around the world. it goes back to something we talked about the very beginning. we have a choice to make great if we are not engaged in these efforts, someone else is likely to be in our place. it makes a big difference in the united states if we are helping to shape the rules the institutions that govern trade make sure they are in a race to the top not the bottom when
it comes for example to protecting the rights of labor, the environment, transparency, et cetera. having said that we would do things different league going forward. first the guiding principle through which president biden would look at a trade is what we are doing in the interest of american workers. everything we do has to be grounded in the proposition we going to fight like heck for american workers. second if you want to be effective yet how we get invested in her own competitors in the time and effort into building our educational capacity are infrastructure and of course workers themselves.
just going to corporations and ways that allow them to buy back their stock, pay more dividends and increase the value of their ceos or they interested in and as we are negotiating, it is vitally important affected by a trade agreement the table at the start not just receiving the final product at the end. so trade leaders, i'm sorry labor leaders, environmental leaders, as well as other groups that are affected other interests that are affected they need to be on some the take off not just the landing. otherwise whatever is negotiated is probably not critically sustainable. we were talking earlier about how information and technology may have veto power over decisions arrived at by
national governments or institutions. there likely to use that veto power. >> you make some very good points there thinking about country like india where probably the environmental and labor standards that we might want are some american civil groups might want in a trade agreement are going to be disturbing. where the environmental strongly green u.s. administration likely to be immediate to a long list of things it does not want to do necessarily and spontaneously leapt to want to do. particularly respect and elsewhere. and at the same time it would
be china that includes very strong u.s. india links. you can't possibly give a detailed exposition of india quality but how do we think about these things together seems that they really do matter. >> i could not agree more with the premise of your question. strengthening and deepening the relationship with india is going to be a very high priority usually important to the future of the pacific and the kind of order we all want fair, stable, and increasingly democratic. it's vital to be able to tackle these big global challenges. it's a success story according
to the clinton administration the hope senator biden partnered with that administration to help get the cooperation agreement the 123 agreement to the united states senate usually important to solidify our relationship in her own administration during the obama administration. there is concrete across a whole series there is the trade initiative is an industrial base to work together to produce important technology. we made india a major defense
partnered that something we got congress to approve it is unique to india. with that did it basically insured when it comes to technology india needs to strengthen its military it's treated on par with the allies and partners. so having said that foundation, we worked hard to persuade india it would be more prosperous and more secure if it signed onto the paris climate agreement. the challenging effort but vice president biden and they did. it was a reflection that we cannot solve common global challenges without india as part of the deal. across the board is not just
to advance clean energy but to do a whole series of things. space exploration, humanitarian relief x operations. all of these things were part and parcel and they all went to strengthening it. they'll have challenges now in real concerns for example about some of the actions the government has taken special and cracking down some of the laws on citizenship, you're always better engaging in a partner and a vitally important one even as you are working to build greater cooperation and strengthen the relationship going forward. we have seen evidence that it works.
>> alright, we have covered a lot of ground. we have not covered all of the ground. maybe i can persuade you to come back sometime and take another bite at the apple. i really appreciate your sharing the time and look forward to a very, very interesting debate during the presidential season. select thank you walter really c-span two, an interview with new mexico governor michelle lujan grisham on her
states response to the pandemic and other issues. hosted by the washington post. 2:00, a house hearing on oversight. specifically, what measures are being taken to protect federal employees at ice detention facilities. response to the pandemic with a central topic on the sunday news programs. here's a look at what trump administration officials had to say about the recent spike in cases in many states, guidance on masks and reopening schools. >> we have this under control. we are in a very different place than where we were in february. we are much better able to respond. we sent out 10 teams to the most vulnerable areas to help with testing.
we do have a national testing strategy. we will give states all the supplies they asked for. we are happy with where we are. please don't mistake me with saying that. we are working with states to make sure they can respond to this incredibly contagious disease. sure wethat is making are slowing the spread by understanding the importance of wearing face coverings and good hand hygiene and staying home when you can. we can turn this thing around in a few weeks when everyone does their part. 2-3 weeks for what exactly? >> the disease course is about 2-3 weeks. we can turn this thing around. if we can get a critical mask of people wearing face coverings.
we have the ability to turn this around very quickly. we saw the president where a mask in public for the first time. we have seen more governors come out and say you must wear masks. is it time for a national mandate? i am not the person to say who can nationally mandate things. in a state where it is very cold and the percent positive is very low, it is very essential to wear a public. we know this will decrease your spread of particles to other people. we can get some aerosol spread in. close spaces. we have to have 90% of people
wearing a mask in public. if we do not have that, we would like to control the virus. we do expect and we are planning for everything else. we do expect hospitalizations to go up. right now we are at 63,000. we do expect that to go out. you getnces of dying if covid are very reduced than what they were before. because we know how to care for you better. we have remdesivir. if we have more cases, more hospitalizations, we expect to see that over the next few weeks. >> i am saying that school should have plans. like miami-dade county has. parents and family should know what their options are.
i am asking you if there is a flareup, should schools revert to remote learning? you are very aggressive about reopening. what happens if they feel that they cannot? are you comfortable with remote learning? >> i think the code-2 needs to be kids in school, in person, in the classroom. we know for most kids that is the best environment. >> i understand that. what if they cannot? districthe school feels they cannot safely go into the school because there is a flareup? you ok withing, are it in that situation? >> if there is a short-term flareup for a few days, that is a different situation than planning or an entire school year in anticipation of something that has not happened. reality is we are committed
to ensuring all students and all schools have the resources necessary for kids to be able to continue learning. where schools do not follow through on that, parents should have the opportunity and option. >> yes or no? is the threat to funding still alive? >> we are committed to ensuring students are in school and and parents have the flexibility of those resources to be able to take the kids to a school that refuses to open. >> that is not a yes or no answer. >> the house foreign affairs committee held a hearing on the reports of russian bounties on u.s. troops in afghanistan and the potential impact on u.s. relations with russia and the taliban. this is about three hours. >> the committee on foreign affairs will come to order. the chairs authorized