tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 19, 2015 5:30am-7:01am EST
transformation that is taking place. the migration of terrorists into vast areas of logistic -- of baluchistan. but, i think generally speaking , things are under control. >> there are two or three questions at least, and i was sort of lump them together about the organization and the recent move to ban more organizations. the concerns expressed here are, one, there's been history of banned organizations using new names and coming up into what they were doing in the past. there's also specific concerns about groups that seem to be anti-indian, lashkar-e-taiba and others. we hear that the pakistanis did not close as we're going after everybody. and yet there seems to be some confusion about who is being banned. there's a delay. is there a delay? what is the policy now on banning organizations and on ensuring that it is not only going to result in a name change and the operations continue? >> i'm almost embarrassed to give you feedback on this,
because it's not a question of this government, pass -- past government, whatever past governments have done, that goes into the area of responsibility of the state of pakistan. there have been very vague policies on these and other issues, and that has led to a lot of confusion on the number of prescribed organization, even those that haven't prescribed some have gone into other areas, with different names and they are operating within pakistan. decided to identify these when we decided to identify -- when we decided to identify these organizations you be surprised to know that there was no tangible record on exact number of prescribed organizations with the government had made a decision on.
so it was a difficult area that i am almost embarrassed to give you this particular feedback but over the last few months we have very proactively as you rightly said, there is no tremendous support among all sections of the government -- there is now tremendous treating every prescribed organization with the same rule and the same state. but lack of governments action over spread over so many years had led to a lot of looseness on the part of the government. so it will take a bit of time but there is now a consensus that anybody picking up arms
must be brought, must be prevented no militias, no armed militias should be allowed in pakistan. and only sufficient security agencies should be allowed to carry arms. that is a policy which is being implemented. various terrorist groups have been arraigned, arrested, put in jail. their militias have been put in jail. so it's a major step forward but it's going to take time. you know, most of these groups over the years has given rise to a lot of problems, but now the commitment is to treat everybody alike, and you will see improvement in this area, sooner rather than later.
>> you have lost your microphone somewhere there. if you can -- i think it -- if you can just -- because we are telling casting. if i may, let me push you a little bit more on this. specifically on the question of groups that, groups that may not be doing anything in pakistan, but are seen as being operational elsewhere. so the anti-india groups being the obvious ones, maybe insurgent groups being the obvious ones. some of the concerns, because for instance, people see on tv december 4, there's a big rally. in and then it's also listed as
one of the organizations that is to be banned or taken to task, or whatever. this dichotomy i think infuse a confuses a lot of people about the intent of the pakistani state. >> well, i can speak about the intent of the pakistani state as of today. i cannot speak about the intent of the pakistani state or various pakistani governments over the years. but more importantly the international community have understood the point of view in this respect of pakistani governments. so why blame us? at this series time, and i think the intent, this is very, very clear, our point of view is that it will take a bit of time. things have taken place in the past do you cannot expect overnight solution to the intent is there that have been there before. actions have been taken the last
few weeks which are a manifestation of that content. >> another question in the same thing, and you rightly pointed to the improving relations between pakistan and afghanistan at the track one level. but the question pertains to the perception of afghans, about pakistan and about pakistan's policy towards afghanistan. and specifically to the presence of afghan insurgent groups, some of them in pakistani territory. so the question from the audience is, what will you tell an average of candidate if they -- an average afghan today if they were to raise the same concern? what is it to show that the policy has moved on from the past? >> i think it's not a question thatof my telling them or the government of pakistan telling them. it is the action on the ground. i think the military operation started within pakistan in june last year. it is given very, very positive, and i think it's not just within pakistan. it's across the border.
but having said that let me also say that there is a whole area on the border between pakistan and afghanistan which is inhabited by tribes that live on both sides of the border afghanistan side and pakistan side. so movement across the border is a nominal phenomenon, and these terrorists have used these means of communications, is open border to move freely between pakistan and afghanistan. as of now i can say with a lot of confidence and a lot of responsibility, most of the terrorist groups have run across the border into afghanistan. we are now working very closely with the afghan government to work out a strategy, too, not to a joint operation but to a
coordination, operate they are on their site side and we are on our side. and once that particular exercise takes place, a lot of the concern that you have expressed will die out automatically. >> okay. let me just ask a couple more before we end. on afghanistan-pakistan, one of the periodic areas if you will is in terms of the status of refugees. the track one was for and then you will see press reports in pakistan decided to have all of them expatriate, it's a debate what is the pakistani state policy at the moment on afghan refugees? they are the first ones come legal documents are missing, there are problems or whenever
there's a crackdown in that sense they tend to stand out. >> we have a serious problem on that account, as i said. anyway, upwards of 3 million, a few have gone back. we are still left with a huge majority. as of today the figures are about around 1.2 million registered, and almost the same number who are there without any papers. they are a huge drain on our economy, but most importantly we have hosted them for the last 30 years and we are willing to host them for many, many years, as long as necessary. but as per the agreement, they were to restrict themselves to
camps. they were to fully register, the international committee would also lend a hand, a supporting and. all of that now is not there on the ground. know can't is populated now. they've all moved out of camps. they are living in populated areas. they have their own society, so as to say. and a lot of terrorists coming from across the border or even from within the frontier use of these camps, use these avenues to carry out terroristic activities in pakistan. so that is an area of concern. what we are trying to do is we are trying to put them back into the camps. so exercise of registration has started. it is going to take time. we are going to serious financial problems taking them back it.
the agreement to let them remain in pakistan runs out in december 2015. the bottom line is that although we are concerned about the role of some of these camps, which are, which is being part of the security force pakistan's concern, we will not do anything which will be an area of concern for the new afghan government. so we work with them, work out a timeline and a schedule for the eventual repatriation. in the meantime, how do we handle within pakistan after the decisions over -- afghan government to work out a mutually agreed timetable for the repatriation of the unregistered afghans in the first place, and discuss the eventual withdrawal of the idps, the afghan refugees, closer to december 2014 -- 2015.
in a >> finally minister, one specific question on the police. i know you have invested quite a bit in terms of seeing how to and make the police do a better job. a rapid response force of as one element of the. what is the afghani state doing in terms of either revamping or improving the police pursue because ultimately will be the front line of crime prevention and control? >> as you rightly said, it is police, if police is able to somehow be able in the shortest possible term carry out an exercise of capacity strengthening, i think that will .strengthening, i think that will do wonders for our fight against extremism. but we have a lot of problems on this. the element of time, finances,
training, the police in pakistan as you know is not equipped or trained for antiterrorism for counterterrorism. just normal law and order activity. a little help and support that was available internationally, that has thinned out now. we are now engaged the military in capacity building of the police come in the first response force of the police which passed just recently that was entirely supported by the military. so in the short term we are getting their support, not only in terms of training but also in getting some personal from the military in the police force also. i people who are close to retirement and the military or people who have left the army and are now willing to join the police, so it is going to be a bit of a mixture of police and
retired army officials working as a response force in the short term. and in immediate and long-term of course we have program of training but that will take anything between 18 months to two years. >> i did say finally but there is one last finally, which is there some concern here, and otherwise, about international ngo presence in pakistan. there's this new bill to regulate ngos. one of the question is has asked them is the pakistani state outlook to work ngos were doing some very good work in pakistan for a number of years, and whether there's going to be a lesser space perhaps for them to operate, or is this bill and the current sort of structure or the effort just to bring them into the mainstream? there seems to be some concern with this new sort of ngo bill and sort of movement. >> absolutely no concern. i think basically we are out to
regulate the whole system. over the years, we actually didn't have a policy on this matter. so the idea is to regulate, no circumvention in area of work. there should be a fully no concern of export. the idea is for the government to know which area a particular ngo is operating, and to ensure that it works within that framework. and for the ngo to be very clear about its own area of responsibility. so simply the idea is to bring about clarity in the system, not to bring any kind of restriction on any ngo. >> minister, let me thank you. let me, before weekend, also invite vice president to give you a memo. let me say we wish you the very best of luck.
thank you for joining us. [applause] >> thank all of you for braving the cold and joining us today, and also for those who joined online, but very much would also like to take time to thank the minister for joining us today. this is a topic which we could go on a talk about for quite a long time but, unfortunately, we run out of time. a small memory of your visit to usip. more importantly, pakistan's counterterrorism challenges edited by moeed yusuf, also signed by moeed yusuf. we would like to present you as a gift for your visit here. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> jen bush talked about the islamic state militants, that's next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal," the recent decision by texas district court judge to block and obama administration order. later, day three of the white house summit on violent extremism. >> what you are about to seizure connect all these and vices -- all these devices, the challenge is how you get the right information at the right point in time to the right device, to the right person, to make the right decision? that's about architectures, and transform your business process. you have to change health care. education is thinning, supply change. and how countries are run is about to change. when you see the industry
leaders, and you have to have the instinct of when the something really fundamentally change. when you talk to the president of south korea and she gets it. probably unfair because she is an engineer. you talk to pen young -- pena in mexico, talk about how to achieve goals in social equality and the role of the next generation of the internet. how does it transform business? you do the same thing in germany, france, and the u.k. suddenly they get it, these are very smart people. >> the political landscape has changed with the hundred 14th -- 114th congress. there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats, there also wondered eight women in congress. keep track of the members of congress using "congressional chronicle," on c-span.org.
it has voting results and statistics about each sessions of congress. new congress, best access. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> now, potential presidential candidate jeb bush talks about combating the military group i.s.i.s. he spoke with the chicago council of global affairs. [applause] >> it's intimidating but we are delighted to be here. ambassador, thank you for the invite. secretary paulson, it's always good to see you. many of my friends are in chicago, it's a joy to be here. this shows our commitment, both my wife and i come our
commitment to illinois. one of floridian leaves illinois in february. thank you very much. i want to thank the members of the chicago council who have served in the military, your service and the service of the men and women that are currently serving is an inspiration to all of us in the bush family. my goal today is to explore how america can regain its leadership in the world. and why that leadership is more necessary than ever. american leadership projected consistently and grounded in principle has been a benefit to the world. in the post-world war ii era the united states has helped hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. secure liberty for an equal number. and has been a force for peace and security. only our exceptional country can make that claim. this is happened because our president's have accepted the
responsibility of american power in the world with the belief that we are a force for good. i have doubts whether this of administration believes american powers such a force. under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive. we have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. we definitely no longer inspired fear and our enemies. the problem is perhaps best and mistreated by this administration's approach to iraq. we have had 35 years of experience with -- excuse me iran. we have had 35 years of experience with iran's rulers. they have attacked american troops directly and through their surrogates. they have used terror as a tool of intimidation. today, for world capitals are -- four world capitals are now heavily influenced by iran and its proxies. baghdad, damascus, beirut, and sent out. their ambitions are clear and their capabilities are growing.
for many years, they have been developing long-range missile capabilities and their own nuclear program. during those years, america has opposed those efforts. but the obama administration has launched where the goal has shifted. the administration no longer seeks to merely to regulate prevent nuclear enrichment. now it seeks to merely regulate it. nuclear weapons in iran was once a unifying issue within american foreign-policy. leaders of both parties agreed to it. what he launched his negotiations, president obama said that that was the goal -- to stop iran's nuclear program. now we are told that the goal has changed. the point of these negotiations is to solve the problem -- it is to manage it. iran's intent is clear. their leaders have openly expressed a call for the annihilation of these date of israel. -- the state of israel. this is a threat to israel and
to the world including the united states. we could face large-scale proliferation issues throughout the region if iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. iran's neighbors will want their own nuclear capability because it is an existential threat. no wonder some democrats in congress have lost confidence in the administration's efforts in relations to iran. congress to pass bills to sanctions and require approval in agreement if someone the breach -- if one should be rich. -- should one be reached. my hope is that the administration would rise and meet this defining foreign-policy issue of our time. so far, they are unequal to the task. look elsewhere in the region and the globe. everywhere you look, you see the world slipping out of control. we see the rise of nonstate terror organizations like isis or boko haram growing and parts of the world.
we see the breakdown of states like iraq and syria and the rise of tribalism and warfare of unspeakable brutality. the beheading of egyptian coptic christians two days ago -- the wiping out a millennia old christian communities in iraq and syria, the beheading of americans, japanese, and europeans, all graphically displayed for us to watch on video. and the burning alive of a jordanian pilot. some of the work -- worst violence is perpetrated by radical muslims against other muslims. we were set with russia when it subverts its neighbors. we see the new threats of cyber warfare challenging our national security and our businesses. in asia, territorial conflicts loom under the surface. the great irony of the obama presidency is this -- someone who came to office, sing greater engagement with the world has left america less influential in the world.
the work to restore america's leadership in the world will take a concerted effort. the commitment of new leaders and the sheer sense that america is often at its best when it is tested. the united states has an undiminished ability to shape events and build alliances a free people. we can project power and enforce peaceful stability and far-off areas of the globe. to do so, we need to root are foreign-policy and a set of priorities and principles. of course, we must look to the challenges of specific regions and nations. each situation will require its own approach. but we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. today, i want to outline those principles which will make that possible and help america return to the responsibilities that come with being the world's leading power. i come to these issues with a great deal of thought and experience. one of my most formative experiences was when my wife and i at the age of 24 accepted the responsibility of opening up at
-- in office in caracas, venezuela. we had an 18-month-old and we went down there and caracas was this booming place. we lived overseas and lived outside of our beloved country. we learned how to use something that our parents used -- diapers because pampers cost a dollar a paper. -- pamper. i do not make enough money at the time to provide for that. that was ok except we got one hour -- water one hour three times a day. we had these personal challenges that were exciting be on believed and saw america from the outside. we saw venezuela moving away from united states as part of the so-called "nonaligned nations movement." many of them were pulling away as well. i lived overseas in the carter era when we saw firsthand what it was like to see the united states, this incredible country, lose the respective countries because of a week and fast living foreign-policy.
-- vacillating foreign-policy. later on as governor, i have a chance to lead 15 trade missions and given florida's footprint in the western hemisphere, i was actively involved in trade and security and nutrition issues in the region. we let the largest delegations for example, of any state from the u.s. to mexico, where 500 people participated. or brazil, or argentina. i have visited israel five times. in those meetings, i have had the incredible joy of seeing the spirit of israel. on my on my highlight reel of life, i will have a trade agreement signed by the secretary of commerce of the state of florida and ariel sharon. it was one of the greatest results my life to do that. i've seen the extraordinary technology of our strongest ally in the region being able to create prosperity, turn israel into the first world country. if you go to israel, you see the
incredible geography. geography we take for granted here. big countries with oceans as our borders have a totally different mentality than a country literally 10 miles away from countries all around the region, most of whom have never accepted israel's right to exist. since leaving office as governor, i have had the chance travel a lot more. i have forced myself to visit asia four times a year to learn about the dynamic region. it's a long way from miami. it is a dynamic region because it's modeled on our system and was turned into a uniquely asian experience. our allies watch with anticipation because of a lack of american engagement in the region and the rise of chinese ambition. i've seen firsthand the difference in power. as you might know, i have been fortunate to have a father and
brother who helped shape america's foreign-policy from the oval office. i recognize that as a result, my views will be held in comparison to theirs. this is a fascinating thing in the political world for some reason. sometimes in congress -- in contrast to theirs. for the record, i love my brother, i love my dad, i love my mother as well, hope that's ok. [laughter] and i admire their service to the nation. in the difficult decisions they had to make. but i am my own man. each president learns from those who came before, their principles, their adjustments. one thing we know is this. every president inherits a changing world and changing circumstances. in the 1991 gulf war timeframe
hardly anyone knew that the internet existed or who al qaeda was. in 2003, during the liberation of iraq, neither twitter nor -- existed. i want to share with you the approaches i think are necessary today. these are the principles i believe are critical to put america back on the road for firm global leadership. we cannot be a force if our economy does not grow. our aspiration should be growth for as long as the eye can see. imagine a country growing at 4%. the middle would begin to see rising incomes. we would be significantly more optimistic about the future. americans would think their children would have more opportunities than they had. we are one of the only countries that can execute on a plan to make that happen.
we need to fix how we can regulate, tax, get our fiscal house in order, reforming a broken immigration system, how we transform our education system and how we make sure that we move our training programs into the 21st century. all of these things are important. fixing our entitlement system which will overwhelm all of the long-term spending that is so important to sustain human growth, research and development, and infrastructure. we will never be able to get back to the levels we need to get to be competitive in the world unless we fix our entitlement problems. you must focus on trade. congress should give the president trade authority. as he completes the transpacific partnership in the transatlantic
and investment partnership. the good news is, we are probably the only country that can make this assertion, if we're serious about it, to become young and dynamic again. the united states would be in that category if we get that right. our role in confidence for being a power for peace and security would be sustained over the long haul. one other thing about our economic progress that directly ties to foreign-policy. in our midst today is an energy revolution that is perhaps the most exciting news that we have. it is possible for america to be energy secure with north american resources in relatively short order. we would play significant role in dealing with countries that use their oil for blackmail, for
political purposes. as we grow our ability to produce gas, we lessen the dependency of other countries and economic might, whether it is venezuela or russia. we make sure that we do not stifle the energy revolution in our own country and coordinating all of this with our strongest trading partner canada will yield a economic powerhouse in this region that could compete with any region in the world. one final point about economic growth.
free people, free markets, free ideas, implement it faithfully such a powerful example of what is possible to the rest of the world. as people lose confidence around the world in capitalism and democracy that underpins capitalism, they move in different directions very if they see america at its best growing with a tremendous prosperity, they will emulate that system as that will bring about a more peaceful world. the the second and supply believe in us that our words and actions must match. so the entire world knows that we say what we mean and mean what we say. it should be there. this administration talks, but the words fade. a drawl redlines, and then erase them. with grandiosity, they announce resets, and the disengaged. hashtags campaigns replace actual campaigns. the examples keep piling up. president obama called isis the
junior varsity when they comprised of fighting force of more than 20,000 battle ready men. president obama dismissed russia merely as a regional power, one month after they percent -- or dissipated in the violent takeover ukraine. his administration has lobbed leaks and personal insults to prime minister netanyahu and his cabinet with incredible regularity. in all of these actions we see a careless regard to the long-term interests of america and the world. instead, we see an effort to win the political new cycle. i want to take a moment to talk about the controversy surrounding benjamin netanyahu's speech. i am interested in hearing what he has to say. israel is not at the negotiation table with iran, but it has a lot at stake.
i don't blame him for wanting to share his views. i think it will be important for the american people to get that perspective of our closest ally in the region. i am surprised to hear the administration is upset. if we want to build confidence and trust in the american position, we have to listen. foreign policy should be a place where our long term security interests are front and center. the political hacks should be doing the campaigns and staying there. we should strive to make it bipartisan again. the president needs to set a strategy to be clear about it, not overcommit or overpromise but always strive to deliver. the third principle is that the president's word needs to be backed up by the greatest military force in the world. i i grew up in the 80's politically, where i watched ronald reagan and my dad, with incredible people serving by their side in a bipartisan the slogan that drove the
foreign-policy of the 80's was peace through strength. military military power must be rebuilt to provide for the common defense. it is a primary duty of the government under the constitution. due to budget cuts, we are on the path of only spending two and a half percent of gdp on defense by the end of this decade. this is really dangerous. the president should call on leaders of both parties to fix the budget and to address the shortfalls in our defense spending. he should show leadership and commitment to solving this problem. the next president should launch a strategic review of our military strategy so we meet needs with capability. our military is not a discretionary expense. it is essential. these of military power is one of the most serious decisions a president has to make.
having a military equal to any threat is not only essential to the commander-in-chief, it makes it less likely we will have to put our men and women in uniform in harms way. it is essential. these of military power is one of the most serious decisions a president has to make. having a military equal to any threat is not only essential to the commander-in-chief, it makes it less likely we will have to put our men and women in uniform in harms way. i believe that weakness invites war. strength encourages peace. america needs to strengthen the alliances and relationships that foster peace. you have lied on these alliances that have been understated perhaps for the american people, that they have been a huge part of the reason that people have had the chance to rise up. america needs to lead and we cannot do it alone. we need to strengthen nato. our relationships with japan and australia, and with our neighbors have to be rebuilt.
we will not be successful unless we invest in the much-needed coalitions and partnerships, and developed the personal relationships that make it possible to garner worldwide support against the great threats we face today, most particularly islamic extremists. they should be no comfort, success, or future standing against the u.s. while certain nations will always seek to challenge our country, you must be prepared to address the new asymmetric non-state-sponsored threats that consume the news. these threats come nearly every day, in the form of the most evil and horrific acts on innocent lives.
hostages on an airplane or subway, office workers shoppers, children out of school, cartoonists at their drafting tables, or christians simply practicing their faith. al qaeda, taliban, and others set their sights on the softest of targets. you must be prepared for a long time commitment to fight these battles. it requires fights on many levels.
for the life of me, i do not understand the debate has gotten off track, but we're not understanding are protecting. we do protect our civil liberties, but this is a hugely important program to use the technologies keep us safe. it requires determination with allies and a rigorous homeland effort, including border security. the threats of the 21st century will not be the same as the threats of the 20th and it is critical that we adapt. our foreign policy must be rooted in a critical principle let us call it liberty diplomacy. we declared the power in our country rested with the individual and not the other way around. that liberty was natural and self evident. free speech, free markets, free press, and religious freedom.
america's experience affirms the power of human liberty, not just because america has thrived, but because the world has thrived from it as well. i think of the example of dr. lee from korea. in the 1950's, he fled the north to fight alongside american troops for the south. when the war was concluded, he studied medicine. his work led him to identify and isolate a virus and develop a vaccine. america's defense of korea was not without sacrifice. the war, some historians say ended in a draw. but do not tell that to dr. lee. korea has gone from the most desolate country to a first world country.
it has world-class businesses that have embraced korean technologies. the stakes could not be clearer. for those who doubt me, consider the testimony of the very few people who escaped the modern concentration camps of north korea. our commitment to korea will bear through for generations. in europe, in africa, and asia tens of millions of people can tell their own story of american goodness, of the life saved, of the life liberated, of a life of freedom, because america chose to lead and sacrifice and chose to be freedom's greatest defender. we do this work for others and we also do it for ourselves. time and time again, we have learned that if we withdraw from
the defense of liberty elsewhere, the battle eventually comes to us anyway. in our cities and streets, and in our skies. the enemies of freedom will never be content to live in their own dark corner of the globe. you must eventually strike out at america and they often do. america does not have the luxury of withdrawing from the world. we have no reason to apologize for our leadership, or our interest in serving the cause of global security and peace and human freedom. nothing and no one can replace strong american leadership. thank you all, i appreciate the chance of being here. [applause] [applause] thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i know everyone in the room appreciates the depth of your remarks.
he took us on a principled world tour. let's start a little closer to home. let's start with cuba. the rationale for the reset -- we have 50 years of failed policy, it is time for a fresh approach, because the previous policies have not worked. we are going to establish a relationship with the country that is still governed by the castros.
the president has the authority to do so. nothing in return. they get subsidized oil from venezuela and american tourists. all of that goes to the coffers to support the regime. the notion that you're going to have freedom outbreak in cuba, i think it is false. i think it is incorrect. is it important to engage the cubans? sure, i think it is more than appropriate. a but to do so secretly in that anything in return, we already are seeing the results. will the first formal talks, the cubans began to renegotiate what their expectations are and ask for more in return as they negate the ability to do anything that would treat a trade-off. i think it is the wrong thing to do.
had they waited, where they serious about creating the climate for a free cuba, they would have seen significant financial strains that would've brought cuba to the table. if venezuela collapses, the first thing that happens is that they will have to pull back from the program they have which subsidizes significantly the cuban regime. cuba would probably have to pull in and back on the number of state security forces that are in venezuela to prop up the regime. >> let's stay in latin america, as a reference point for your principled address and the application of the principles of and application of the principles of freedom and democracy, economic growth. him and the extent to which
success in the u.s. and also economic success relative to our allies makes them strong, worthy allies. what is it that you think creates such difficulty for latin america? >> half of latin america has embraced freedom as it relates to consistency of the rule of law, allowing for a thriving civil society, of creating better economic conditions so people can rise up, commitments many of these countries may have seen. we have seen significant gains of people completely isolated for now -- who are now blooming out of abject poverty. you can see significant economic growth. chile, colombia, mexico, to a certain extent. these are countries in their ascendancy. the ones who have accepted state dominated socialism are the ones who have problems.
it is a reminder of the obvious. free market capitalism provides opportunities for people. the u.s. has pulled back from the region. the voids are being filled by new actors, notably china. our withdrawal from the region is not appropriate. i think the focus ultimately needs to get back to a free trade agreement of the americas, for the u.s. would benefit. if you go back home today and look at a map and look at where i live, it would be at the center of the universe of that trade agreement.
another example, where engagement has been a spectacular success. in columbia, this was a plan to deal with the social turmoil in columbia where the drug cartel and violence was significant. the previous administration made a significant effort to provide in an technical and non-terry support, economic support. the president made a real commitment to open up the
economy, to allow people -- to liberate the economy. him it was a huge victory. we should apply that same type of approach right now. the president has actually proposed that for the northern triangle states, which have a similar situation, perhaps more grave. the drug cartels make it hard for people to consider investing there. the middle is getting squeezed and the poor feel disconnected. that has bipartisan support. during my brother's administration, it had support from both sides of congress. if the president is serious and goes to congress, he will get support. >> if we stay with your principles and move across the atlantic and think in context of economic growth, robust allies --
>> now we are getting in trouble. >> we would need them to be economically robust. we would need them to share our values and ideals. we would need a sense of cohesion. to confront circumstances such as russia and ukraine. how do you think about the relative strength of nato, the alliance in confronting this threat? >> if you consider nato's long life, it has been a significant force for good in the world. as people in most of europe now see the world, they see it deeply pessimistic. frankly, it is directly related
there has not been a country in the post crash era that has made the adjustments to promote growth. japan has gotten close, massive stimulation by the central bank. the hard-won was adjusting their entitlement system or whatever they call it, the social contract, hasn't happened. uk has made some adjustments. that is the big challenge. i think we're going to see a hollowed core in europe or must we start to see strategies to create high sustained economic growth again. it is one of the big challenges. it is why immigration reform for our country so hugely important. race is not a unifier in this country. we are 34 different kinds of flavors.
the u.s. has the potential of being young and dynamic again. if europe embraced that approach, they could see economic growth as well. if it doesn't happen, i think you're going to see nato being a place where there might be a lot of conversation going on but not a force that will intimidate anyone. the treaty obligation of helping our fellow nato members will be hollow as well. the minute that happens, you create real insurgency that could lead to miss cancellations by people in the region -- you create -- >> what is your sense of what we should be discussing, with respect to our perspective of mr. putin and the germans, and other european democracies who do not have the benefit of the oceans you described. he is physically proximate to
them. >> they have centuries of war. they have a different attitude about this, for sure. the first up for the u.s. is to recommit to rebuilding our own military and making a commitment that we are committed to doing this. we want to rebuild nato. it is hard for us to go electric europe about their declining commitment -- to go lecture
europe about their declining commitment when we are doing the same. need to give the europeans the sense that we are not disengaging. we he to engage with the germans particularly, because they are the most important power in europe. and other countries as well, to say that we have their back and are going to be here for the long haul. i don't know what the effect is, it is hard to be on the road but the president did make a commitment. i think that is the appropriate thing to do. to show commitment that we are serious about the nato alliance is important. the worst thing would be to announce it and not do it.
i'm going to assume that it is being done. there is no price. there is no price in plutin's world. there needs to be a price. there is a calculation on each of these actions. if the cost is too high for russia, it will create a deterrent effect. rather than react, we ought to state what the sanctions are going to be. finally, i would suggest ukraine is not immediately in our national interests, it is not in our neighborhood, but it is important in a lot of ways and to ignore their request for military support and they are being invaded, because that is what is happening, just seems feckless. you create a better climate for pushing russia back. they have structure problems as well.
these countries have economic problems that could play out if we were more patient. >> let's talk a bit about another tough neighborhood. let's move from europe to the middle east. >> is there a good neighborhood we can go to, temporarily? [laughter] >> you are in one. [applause] [laughter] >> good point. [laughter] >> thank you. it's hard to know where to start.
let's take freedom and democracy and the arab spring, but has to be now seen as a mis-judgment about what would into following the arab spring, from egypt to tunisia. >> tunisia has worked out. >> right. we would be remiss to celebrate tunisia and move on. >> tip they had to them. [laughter] -- toip a hat to them. >> whether or not the saudis become a western-style democracy anytime soon, in that neighborhood, it has historically been true that you take your friends and allies
rather as they come and understand that you have alignments of different sorts, strategically. we got away from that of it in egypt. it has resulted in a bit of a confused state as to who it is we would actually wish were there. we don't have the strong egypt we once had which created a significant buffer to iran. what is your sense of how we harmonize our ideological views and having a secure ally that thinks differently than we do? >> this is your best question so far. [laughter] this is a question we need to think about a lot. foreign policy is not one thing. american values and american liberty is a force for good in the world.
if we could create the freest world, we would have less threats, less violence, less terrorism and many other things. but to get there, it is a long-term challenge and different in every country. i would say we got to truong in egypt. we got it wrong in egypt. and now we are pulling back support. i just know if you saw this a month ago, but he gave a speech about muslim extremism. he said it was their responsibility to fight against it. we have to be practical and balance our belief in liberty with the belief that security and engagement will create the possibilities for the egyptians to create more freedom.
if we pull back and are diffident, and say you are not on our team, we get the result you see. egypt welcoming putin to cairo which they did last week. 1973, henry kissinger and richard nixon, and a brilliant stroke of foreign policy, pulled sadat in. now we see russia invited back in because of our disengagement. there has to be a balance. i have been critical of the president a lot here. this is a problem of presidents
past as well, if you have an election, you are democracy. hamas had an election, hezbollah, these groups are not supportive of democracy, they use the election process to take away freedom from people. we consistently think in american foreign-policy that if you check the box, it is ok. we have to assess that as well. in the cases egypt, they can play a constructive role. we should be engaging with them. they could've brought about a more lasting peace. we are consistently disrespecting the allies that make a huge difference in the region and i think we have to rearrange that again.
>> bespoke in your speech to having been -- you spoke in your speech to having been in an extraordinary vantage point in your life. among your father and his close circle of advisers, your brother and his close circle of advisers, and the quality of service that so many of those people are few to have contributed to those years. there is a perception that the same quality, even if you sort of have a point of comparison, no longer exists. do think that is true?
or do we look at the rearview mirror with rose tinted glasses? >> we see things and always view it negatively. i feel like i should be the marine psychologist in the geico ad. he throws the kleenex at the guy. get over it. we should not be as pessimistic as we are. we are on the verge of the greatest time to be alive. [applause] the president has had counted people around him. he has not empowered them to do their jobs. he has taken away power from the departments that are responsible for defending the homeland and protecting -- creating the
military strategy and foreign-policy strategy. it has become more centralized in the white house. i think that was a mistake. but the talent is there. granted, if you think about of people that served in previous administrations. henry kissinger, schultz madeleine albright all testified last week. these are incredibly counted people. but we have those people. i'm not worried about that at all. >> so the new bush cabinet would have no difficulties? >> that is a 15 yard penalty. [laughter] >> that wasn't my best question right?
[laughter] one could easily conclude that a discussion of sovereign states the way we have been proceeding, is much easier than a discussion of the isis phenomenon. you mentioned it in your speech. what to make of this, a stateless entity, carving out territory to incorporate it into an image of what they perceive to be a caliphate. how do you -- what type of diplomacy do you apply here? >> no diplomacy. with them directly? the strategy needs to be restrain them, tighten the noose, and take them out.
it has to be done in concert with folks in the region. look at jordan. its population has grown with refugees from syria and iraq and previous wars with israel. this country is a powder keg. similarly, other countries in the region are seeing real challenges, whether it is turkey or the persian gulf states.
these are big security threats in the region and we need to create a coalition led by the u.s., because only the u.s. could lead something like this but in total concert with the neighborhood. it is made more complicated by our pullback. on top of that, the shiite-sunni issue gets complicated. the president has a huge challenge here. part of it is his own making. part of it are trends that have existed for a long while. but we have to be engaged. if we think this is going to be contained in a particular part of geography, which some americans believe, there will be a day with a big awakening. >> what do you think about tribalism? beyond that, what about the dissolution of sovereign states in the middle east and the return to tribalism?
>> i think that was be horrific. it would be a mistake to think that isis is not what it is. it is violent, extreme islamic terrorism. the more we try to ignore that reality, the less likely it is that we are going to develop the appropriate strategy to garner the support of the muslim world to do what i said, tighten the noose and take them out. it is important. people in our country, including the president, struggle with this. our strategy would be more decisive if we accepted what it is. i have read articles about whatever the 1915 breakdown of the middle east and how that no
longer is a viable deal. i would like to know what the options are. >> what i meant to say is that isis allows barbaric acts. boko haram and the others, throughout africa, seems less so. how do you establish a dialogue with such a phenomenon? >> let's go to iraq. there were mistakes, for sure. using information that turned out not to be accurate.
not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out of hussein was a mistake. iraqis wanted security more than anything else. my brother's administration -- there was no support for this, it was hugely successful and created the stability that when the new president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more secure situation. we created the void. when you have a failed state or a weak state and you leave, the first thing that happened, maliki turned to iran.
iran's influence has replaced the united states's in a significant way. if you're serious about protecting the status of nationstates, you have to protect the integrity. isis did not exist 3 or 4 years ago. the guy who is the leader was in a prison in southern iraq. >> with that, we have 15 minutes to go. i have no doubt that the governor's speech and answers to my questions have provoked -- >> great questions. >> except for the one. [laughter] have provoked comments from the audience. raise your hand. you have to wait for the microphone. how about this one right here. can we get a microphone?
>> thank you for this wonderful talk. my name is professor bernadette. i'm interested about the comments you have made about our recent engagement with cuba, that patients would have yielded a better result. that struck me as strange because we have been patient for over half a century. is sounded to me that you were saying the catalyst is going to be the oil prices. but we know the collapse of the soviet union did not do it. why do we have cause to think that the change of the oil prices and venezuela is going to do it?
why not have the courage to say that this has been a failed policy for over half a century we need to do something fresh? >> absolutely. first of all, the embargo cannot be lifted by the president. it has to be lifted by change in law, in congress. the president can only tinker around the margins. there is very little support for lifting the embargo among many of the leaders in the democratic party that are engaged in this subject. what i am saying is that if the objective is freedom in cuba, if that's was the objective of this negotiation, i hope it was because that is a legitimate goal, then it's prolonging the regime's existence.
it is similar to iran. there is a feeling that if we do not put too many conditions on our negotiations, they will end up being a democracy over time that repression will subside. but you have to create the environment for that happens. in the case of cuba, no one honestly believes that this is just going to happen by osmosis. lift the embargo, lift everything, very few people -- i do think it happens unless you negotiated in a way that creates the conditions for it to happen. the venezuelan point is this. venezuela replaced russia as the main provider of aid to cuba.
cuba has lived on five or six lives here. not opening up our piggy banks -- 95% of which will go to the regime, not the cuban people, i thought it was a mistake. >> bill, how about you? >> governor, first, thank you for your comments. i want to focus on one of your principles with which i agree. that economic strength can lead to political strength. if we take that to asia, let's talk about china. second largest economy in the world and soon to be the largest. there is no question that they had taken the growing economy
and have tried to project political strength. the president talks about a pivot to asia but has done very little. what should we be doing differently? to really preserve the strength of the allies. >> i think the term pivot was probably a mistake. pivots are in the eye of the beholder. people in the region say that you only talk about pivots in our region, not washington. if people do not think it is a serious move, it will not achieve the desired result. and second, the rest of the world wonders, am i the pivot-ee? [laughter]
it cannot just be talked about. it has to be real. engagement with china is equally important. we have to create confidence with our traditional allies, japan, korea, australia. but we also have to have an ongoing, deep relationship with china. one point about the cuba deal. we got something in return. just from a negotiating point of view, this was poorly handled as it relates to cuba.
china, we have to stay engaged. my experience, and it pales in comparison to many in the room is that it is easy to create misunderstanding. going forward, it is the most complex, important relationship that the u.s. has. >> right here, please. coming your way, right behind you. >> governor, thank you very much. we live in a city where two miles south of here babies born have a different life expectancy.
what can we do differently in the new white house? >> the question of poverty is a huge problem. i think you start with the realization that the world we're moving toward, that baby, he or she, is going to be really cold. [laughter] but unless there is a change that baby will never have a job. the world that we are heading into creates exponential increases in automation. when a child grows up -- living a life of purpose and meaning is going to be altered in many ways.
it is a huge challenge. our policies have not worked to lift people out of poverty. they haven't worked to help them have the capacity to achieve more success. put aside who the president is this is not exclusively a white house or federal issue. as society, it goes beyond transfer payments. it goes to how do you love a child with your heart and soul and teach the habits that yield success. how do you teach people great and determination and give them the tools for a much better education, so they can dream bigger dreams and not feel so disengaged the they do not even try.
the health issues are easier then the permanency of poverty. if you're born in america today you're more likely to stay poor than any time in modern history. if you're born rich, you and your family, it is the greatest time to be alive. you are more likely to stay rich. we are sticky at the ends, and the middle is getting squeezed. our policy is not focused on how to address these issues. that is a work in progress, for sure. a great question. >> the gentleman in front of me. right here. >> thank you. mr. bush, just to play devil's advocate, if iran wanted nuclear weapons, why couldn't they just go to one of the bad boys in the neighborhood like north korea or pakistan or russia?
where allegedly there are couple of hundreds nukes missing from when the ussr collapsed. it is an argument that is also being used for proliferation. if you bought a weapon made already, you don't have to hide it. >> it is a scary question. i don't know if you follow the story of the pakistani nuclear scientist who stole technologies from europe, brought it back. he is a national hero in pakistan. he lives in the open. he created the capacity to do just as you are describing in pakistan and was caught trying to export that technology to where? iran and libya.
what you are describing is not something -- they have tried. they have absolutely tried. we have to be real about this. they are trying. that is why engagement in the proliferation efforts that are ongoing are hugely important. look, the more i get into this stuff, there are some things were you just go, holy. [laughter] it just makes me more committed to an america that is fully engaged in the world. as the rest of the world gets weak and more insular, we have to be more engaged because these things will occur. great question.
>> it is and it is going to have to be the last one. governor, we in chicago and the council hugely appreciate your time and the opportunity to take your principles from your remarks and to have a conversation with all of us around those principles. and we are truly pleased and privileged to have the first opportunity to do so. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its members through the first session.
new congress, best access, on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> coming up on "washington journal" we will take your calls. president obama will deliver remarks at the conference this morning. at 10:30 eastern. we will hear from national security adviser susan rice later in the day. our live coverage starts earlier on c-span two. we will hear from john kerry at 8:45 a.m. eastern. coming up this hour, i correspondent looks at president obama's executive order on immigration and a recent order to temporarily block the order.
more about the court case. and christa williams of the american immigration lawyers association. plus, your facebook comments and tweets. ♪ john: good morning it is thursday, february 19 am a 2015. with congress and way from washington, president obama has been holding a three-day summit focused on countering islands extremism. -- violent extremists. meanwhile, yesterday, in chicago, one of the men who is eyeing a chance to succeed president obama is in the white house, offered a high-profile speech on foreign policy. jeb bush said he would be his own man if given the chance to lead. we are getting your