tv Secretary of State Tillerson on U.S.- Europe Relations CSPAN December 4, 2017 2:00am-2:56am EST
that deep infrastructure that runs behind the means and makes the internet work and the question is whether or not we are the right ones to be making these decisions on what content should the allowed. watch monday night at eight eastern on c-span two. unfoldswhere history daily area -- daily. sees it was created as a public service and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] rex tillerson discussed
reports that he was trying to dismantle the state department. secretary tillerson: well, good morning and thank you, jane, for that very kind flukes and also thanks to the wilson center for this opportunity to address you today. the wilson center has made important contributions to public policy and it is very
fitting venue for our discussion today on europe considering 100 years ago, the united states entered world war i under the leadership of president wilson. while we tend to associate wilson with america in europe's affairs, our commitment to europe was championed by a predecessor of his, theodore roosevelt. when he died in 1919 as wilson was striving for peace in european leader joined together in mourning and praise. and another british politician said he had been the greatest of all americans in the moment of dire stress. a senator said he had been the apostle of the cause of right on the other side of atlantic. president wilson was beloved in europe because of his commitment to the in the event in the years before, during and after world war i. as he adhered to a neutrality policy, roosevelt felt a responsibility to come to europe's defense. it was reported he asked president wilson to personally lead an army division into europe and he had written to a british army officer saying if we had done what we ought to have done after the sinking, i and my four boys would be getting ready to serve with you. what motivated rejection of neutrality and commitment to the defense of europe.
we can see the answer in something roosevelt told the congress in 1904, the great free people owes it to itself and to all mankind not to sink in helplessness before the powers of evil. roosevelt knew that the defense of freedom demanded action from free nations, confident in their strength and protective of their sovereignty. roosevelt knew that the united states and europe then as we are now, are bound by shared principles. our nation's live according to a self-evident truth, liberty, equality and human dignity. these foundational principles are protected by the construct of our institutions dedicated to the rule of law, separation of powers, and representative government. our principles are protected from external threats by our collective determination, action and sacrifice in the face of security challenges.
world war i was the first greatest in the 20th century of whether the united states would pay the high costs of liberty. theodore roosevelt never participated in that war but did pay that high cost. his son clinton, a fighter pilot , was killed in the skies over france. in past decades, our way of life and by extension our core western principles have been tested by the totalitarian threat of soviet power and communist ideology and ethnic conflicts and internal pressures. the u.s. and europe have passed these tests. the united states and europe are again tested today and we will be tested again. under president trump, the united states remains committed to our enduring relationship with europe. our commitments to allies are iron clad. if we are to share the stability in the region, the trump
administration reviews it as strong, sovereign, prosperous and committed to the defense of shared western ideals. over the past 10 months, we have embarked on a new strategic policy that bolsters european and american policy, a recommitment to europe in the failed russia re-set and adapt security institutions to combat terrorism, cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation and expectation that european nations accept they are more secure when they contribute more toward their own defense. these new policy directions will better position the united states and europe to confront the challenges that threaten our prosperity. the actors that seek to sow chaos and instill doubt.
and oppose our way of life. this is a message i will repeat in my meetings with nato in bilateral meetings in a trip to europe next week. the preservation of our liberty begins with guaranteeing. to that end, the united states places the highest importance of security relationships with european allies including nato. alliances are meaningless if the members are unwilling or you unable to honor their commitments. president trump reafffirmed the united states' commitment to article 5 of the nato treaty because it is the best mechanism we have to deter aggression. as the text of article 5 reads, the parties agree that are an armed attack on europe or north america shall be considered an attack on all. any attack on a member nato state will trigger article 5 and
the united states will be the first to honor the commitment we have made. we will never forget our nato members came quickly to stand with us after the september 11 attack and we will do the same for them if they are attacked. while the west continues to seek a productive new relationship with post-soviet russia, thus far it has proved elusive as both attempts by the prior administration to re-set the russia and u.s. relationships have been followed by russia invading georgia in 2008 and ukraine in 2014. russia continues aggressive behavior toward other neighbors by interfering in election processes and promoting nondemocratic ideals. we recognize the active threat of the resurgent russia. that is why the united states has strengthened its deterrence
and defense commitments in europe ue the e.d.i. the administration requested $4.8 billion in its budget towards the e.d.i. this increase of $1.4 billion over the previous year will enhance the u.s. military's deterrence and defense capabilities and improve the readiness of our forces in europe. the e.d.i. facilitates training exercises with our european allies to better integrate our militaries and provide security for europe and bolster the capacity of our army, navy, air force and marine corps to deploy assets. in view of russia's military exercises conducted near the borders of the battleic states in september, our ability to respond to an attack in concert with our allies is more important than ever.
the e.d.i. also includes $150 million to help ukraine build its capacity. the united states recognizes that the war in ukraine in which people are still dying every day must come to an end. we have repeatedly urged russia to begin the path to peace by honoring its commitments under the minsk agreements. a fully independent and soverage ukraine is unacceptable. soveriegn is the only acceptable.s russia chose to violate the sovereignty of the largest country in europe. the united states and europe have stood shoulder-to-shoulder since 2014 in confronting this aggression. our transatlantic unity is meant to convey to the russian government we will not stand for this flage grant violation of international norms.
we hope they will restore their integrity allowing us then to begin the process of restoring normal relations. let me be clear. minsk-related sanctions will be in place. we are committed to the success of an independent and whole ukraine. however, ukraine's future depends also on winning its internal struggle to implement a broad range of economic, justice and security and social sector reforms. we encourage ukraine to continue building capable, trust-worth institutions that will eliminate corruption, strengthen their judicial system and deliver economic prosperity to their citizens. ukraine crisis made clear how energy supplies can be wielded as a political weapon.
enhancing european energy security by ensuring access to affordable, reliable supplies of energy is fundamental to national security objectives. the united states is liberalizing the rules regarding liquified natural gas and we will ensure the development of needed infrastructure like import terminals and interconnected pipelines to promote diversity. in july, president trump announced that the united states will provide technical support for croatia's island project. the united states will continue to support european infrastructure projects such as lng receiving supplies and ensure no country from the outside can use its resources or its resources to extort other nations.
we continue to view the development of pipelines, like the northwardstream 2 as unwise as they only increase market dominance from a single supplier to europe. the united states recognizes the fragility of the balkans and will continue to work with the partners in the e.u. to bring prosperity and democracy to the region. the people of the ball can countries to them, we say, abandon your old and moss yits so peace may become permanent. soyour old animosities that peace may become permanent. you have a chance to direct the new course of history. blood lines should no longer be battle lines. the united states and the world long to see a new generation of serbs, croatians, and others who will forgive the past even if they can never forget it.
a testament to america's shared values with europe is our cooperation on issues beyond the borders of europe which affect us all. the united states and our european allies have partnered to hold assad accountable through sanctions. since the beginning of the syrian crisis the e.u. and member states have pledged 9.5 billion euros in humanitarian and resilience assistance and those efforts are continuing as the global coalition to defeat isis stabilizes liberated areas. as the last pockets of isis are defeated in syria and to revolve the syrian conflict, our partners must be strong advocates for the geneva process under u.n. security resolution 2254. that alone can be the basis for rebuilding the country and implementing a political
solution that leaves no role for the assad regime. our european partners have been strong supporters of our diplomatic campaign against north korea. countries have taken steps to maximize pressure on the regime in pyongyang. portugal froze all diplomatic relations with the country. spain have expeled. -- expelled ambassadors. our our european allies know north korea is a threat and requires a coordinated response. we commend our allies for increasing pressure on the regime in pyongyang in order to complete the denuclearization of the korean peninsula.
the partnership that the united states and european nations have forged are a critical basis for confronting the threats of today and tomorrow both in europe and outside of europe. the united states and europe face many challenges and threats that unlike in the past are dispersed among geographic front lines, whether nonstate terrorist actors, threats of a more conventional nature, cyber or nuclear threats. because we know we are stronger in confronting these challenges, we will pursue even greater cooperation from and with the nations of europe. our best partners. history has shown when we are united we succeed in the face of shared challenges. as i remarked earlier, one of these challenges is russia. europe and the united states seek a normalized relationship with russia.
however, russia has shown to have a global balance of power, one in which russia seeks to impose its will on others by force or by partnering with regimes who show a disregard for their own citizens as is the case of assad's continued use of chemical weapons against his own people. the dissolution of the soviet union liberalised and created new trade opportunities that benefits all. but russia has employed malicious tactics against the u.s. and europe to drive us apart, weaken our confidence and undermine the political and economic successes we have achieved together since the end of the cold war. playing politics with energy supplies, launching cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns to undermine free elections and
harassing and intimidating diplomats are the not the behaviors of a responsible nation. attacking a neighboring country and threatening others does nothing to improve the lives of russians. we want russia to be a constructive neighbor of europe and of the larger transatlantic community. but that is russia's choice to make. russia can continue to isolate by sowing disorder abroad a or it can become a force that will advance the freedom of russians and the stability of europe and asia yeah. -- of eurasia. there is actually much more that binds the united states and europe together than drives us apart. the jcpoa is no longer the only point of u.s. policy towards iran. we are committed to addressing
the totality of the iranian threat. we ask our european partners to join us in standing up to iran's maligned behavior. the regime is against western principles and to tall tartarian expression -- suppression. neither the united states or europe wants another type of nuclear threat on its hands nor any of our nations at ease through support for terrorist organizations, militias on the ground in iraq and syria and active ballistic missile program. at europe's intersection in the region, we know turkey cannot ignore iran because of its proximity and cultural ties but we ask turkey to prioritize the common defense of its treaty allies.
iran and russia cannot offer turkish people the economic and political benefits that membership in the western community of nations can provide. we recognize the important contributions of our nato allies that have been made in afghanistan and we ask them to maintain their commitment to the mission. the end state, the united states new strategy is to destroy terrorist safe havens and deny their re-establishment while the afghan is trying to maintain security and create the conditionses for reconciliation with the taliban and inclusive government that accounts for the ethnic diversity of all afghans. we know this will take time. but if we fail to exercise vidge lance and undertake actions from the terrorist threat wherever it is found we risk recreating the havens from which the 9/11 plots were carried out.
we urge contributions of troops, funds and other forms of assistance as we seek to eradicate a terrorist threat that will not be confined to the place where it was born. the mission is essential to our shared goal to ensure that afghanistan to contribute to regional stability and prevail over terrorist threats including al qaeda and isis. even though isis is on the brink of complete extinction in iraq and syria, the threat of isis and associated terror networks will persist in our own country and isis is looking for new footholdses in west africa. these areas do not need to become the next breeding ground for al qaeda, isis. when these groups are able to occupy territory without
disruption, their bomb makers and online propaganda have an easy time of plotting and executing attacks elsewhere in the world. this for many months was the case in raqqa. in support of our african and european partners, the united states committed up to $60 million to assist the g-5 joint force to combat terrorism and protect isis in africa. in africa.from isis the emergence is that threats to the safety of our people will have new and unexpected origins. the nature of the threats we face is already clear to the residents of paris, brussels, orlando, nice, istanbul, barcelona, new york and many other places where our people have suffered at the hands of
islamist terrorists, many of whom are radicalized in front of a computer screen inside their own homes inside their own countries. the threats we face are clear to countries who have confronted the impact of waves of irregular migration from north africa and the middle east. in the darkest hour of world war ii, churchill committed that the british people would fight to protect their country. today our fight is located on the internet, at passport check points and in the hearts and minds of young people in europe and around the globe. european security institutions including nato must be addressed including nato must be addressed to internal and external threats. to address cyberattacks and to address unchecked migration.
though we know these are the threats of the future, too many headlines have already declared these are the threats of today. new threats to the united states and europe are long-term, unpredictable in timing and localized in many different places. properly anticipating and combatting these threats require a greater european commitment to security because local responders are the most effective deterrent. while the united states will continue to maintain our guarantees against a catastrophic failure of security in the region and will continue to expand resources to maintain our protective umbrellas, the nations of europe must accept greater responsibility for their own security challenges. our alliances must be made stronger in the current strategic environment. a lack of diligence and duty will only invite greater risk. president trump said in warsaw and i quote, we have to remember that our defense is not just a
commitment of money, but a commitment of will. our expenditures are a reflection of how much we seek to protect peace and freedom. we once again urge european partners to meet the 2% of g.d.p. target for defense spending. this year, alban yeah, croatia, france have nearly committed to obtaining the 2% benchmark. they know to invest in security to preserve liberty. every nato community has honored that agreement. we also urge greater security integration provided that the relationships are efficient and serve shared interests. these commitments are necessary because our freedom and security is at stake. the united states and all nations of europe, especially those who once lived under the weight of communist dictatorships value our nations.
if we do not exercise responsibility, we will not have sovereignty and if we do not have sovereignty, we will not have freedom. maintaining sovereignty entails cultivating the virtues that make it possible. free nations must exercise vigilant protection of civil societies and the groups and families and individuals that compose them. rule of law and representative governments are empty shells when detached from a vibrant civil society and a deep respect for certain self-evident truths. we can win every political struggle but if we are not vigilant of our own behavior, our own people may lose. the preservation of western ideals depends on how willing we are to protect the core truths on which our political and economic freedoms are based. we know the people and leaders of europe are having many
conversations about their future. america will not impose answers to those questions. we recognize that europe is composed of free nations where in the great tradition of western democracy must be able to choose their own paths forward. as in the past, the united states is committed to working with europe's constitutional arms and we recognize our allies are democratic nations with their own history, perspective and right to determine their future. this position has a particular relevance of what is transpiring in the u.k. over the brexit. we will maintain our special relationship with the united kingdom and the e.u. regardless of the outcome of brexit. we will not influence the negotiations, but urge the e.u. and u.k. to move this process forward swiftly and without you
acrimony. unessesary we offer a hand of friendship to both parties. the next history must be written in europe's own words. as i mentioned in the beginning, 217 is 100th anniversary. 100th7 is the anniversary of the us entry into world war i. this november marks another event, the beginning of the russian revolution. though the soviet union collapsed 26 years ago, a few symbols and phrases with decades of soviet union endure. the gulag, the five-year plan, the iron curtain, the berlin wall. these few words almost universally understood capture the history of communist rule in europe and russia and if we fail to defend the core principles of sovereignty in the western
tradition. in our time, forces like authoritarian nation states, radical islamist terrorists are attempting to erode our principles of freedom, equality, human dignity, the rule of law and representative government. we cannot fail to take on the solemn responsibility of protecting those freedoms as theodore roosevelt also said, every nation whether in america or anywhere else which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence cannot be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it. where this responsibility, the u.s. will remain committed to peace, stability and prosperity and liberty for europe. as we reflect on how our ties with europe have endured over the past 100 years, the united states stands with our allies and partners so our free societies stand strong together
another 100 years from now. thank you. [applause] host: thank you, mr. secretary, for a speech that i think is worthy of many of the leaders you cited, woodrow wilson who served us as president 100 years ago, theodore roosevelt, franklin roosevelt, winston churchill and that is why we honor people like you in public and business awards over the years. so let me focus just a bit more on europe since that was your topic and going to europe next week. we were recently at nato visiting with our extremely
able ambassador kay bailey hutchison and convened a lunch of eight foreign ambassadors to nato. and what came through is the view they have that this is a zero-sum game. as the united states focuses on problems around the world -- like urgent problems, like north korea and iran, it will pay less attention to europe. i thought that your speech made the point that this is not a zero-sum game, that if a strong europe stands with us, we are stronger together to face the tough problems around the world that are also developing blowback to europe, am i right.
secretary tillerson: the united alles alone cannot confront of these problems. you can take anyone know of the threats i went through and you connectionoints of at some point. whether it is china, russia, arabian, we are confronted with a particularly complex time in threatsd dealing with to our civil society. we are only going to prevail with continuing to use our allies, the strength of our allies. one of the strengths of the united states is we are blessed in our national security and security posture that we have any allies all over the world. those alliances were forged in
shared blood and shared sacrifice. unlike many of our adversaries who can count their allies on less than all of the fingers on one hand because they did not forge those alliances and make their shared sacrifices nor are they forged through shared ideals. what we are recognizing and promoting is the strength of these historic alliances which i think of her some time, perhaps since the end of the cold war, we lost our way a bit in some of these relationships. may be of a view in particular of europe, the end of the cold war, that imminent threat that everyone faced for that 70-year time was now diminishing in what we now realize is it did not diminish. it is still defining itself, still searching for its role in the name of russia. at these threats emanating out of the middle east brought
themselves right to the shores in to the borders of our european allies whether it be through mass migration but also with the mess migration comes three -- the transport of those who would kill others and sacrifice themselves in doing it. those are threats we can only confront with the alliances. it is in some respects a recommitment but also a redefinition of what this alliance means. i think the message president trump carried early on when he went to europe and received a lot of criticism for it, was to -- you carer allies about your freedom and the security of your people as we care about you. when you looked at the commitments that the u.s. and that is sacrifice that the u.s. makes in terms of notches the our own menlars but
and women in uniform, the commitment we have a, it seems to be a little out of balance and i think the president was sending a message that we are committed to this alliance. you need to get as committed to it as we are. i think what i've heard, and i've had a lot of dialogue, that message has resonated and we are seeing it in nato, defense spending, a recommitment of personnel. this is really what was needed at this time when we are under these enormous threats and we have to strengthen the alliances and nato's capability to deal with the changing threat. that was the purpose of the residents message early in his presidency, which we have now -- followedgh on through on. we have more work to do. barber message to europe -- our message to europe is, nothing has changed in the terms of our
commitment to you. nothing since we made that decision 100 years ago to enter world war i in your defense. nothing is changed fundamentally. the same values that bind us are still there. let's keep that strong. few wanted to get into a other questions including questions from the audience. i note an interesting point you made in your talk about turkey. turkey now has a choice. it can become more connected to europe, which is a huge advantage and to us, or not. i heard that loud and clear. i want to turn to the question of state department funding and organization. something many people are interested in. every organization needs renewal. the wilson center needs renewal. surely everyone here, including long serving state officers here think the state department needs renewal. questions remain about the steep
cuts in your budget proposed by the opposite management and budget. it does not mean that is what congress will enact. and what some claim is a halloween out of your department. today to valued friends of the wilson center, nick burns and ryan, both of them enormously experienced foreign service officers and investors wrote a piece and then your times -- in the new york times about who is leaving and what the implications are. tohink there is another side the story and i would like to ask you to tell your side of the story and give us your vision for what the state department should become. secretary tillerson: let me start with a budget because i think it is an easier question to address. the budget -- the state department was given in 2016 with a record-high budget. almost $15. this is above what traditionally
is a budget in the mid-$30 billion level. this was ramping up over the last few years, in many respects for good reason but as we look at that spending level, quite frankly it is not sustainable. it is very difficult to execute a 55 main dollar budget and executed well. -- $55 billion budget and execute it well. i take the stewardship of those dollars very seriously and i take the congressional oversight very seriously. i'm not going to brush them aside. part of this was a reality check. can we really keep this up? the truth of the matter is, it can be very difficult to keep it well. do it secondly, part of bringing the budget numbers back down is reflective of an expectation we are going to have success in ofe of these conflict areas
getting these conflicts resolved and moving to a different place in terms of the kind support we have to give them. so it is a combination of things -- just, a recognition that those numbers are outliers. the numbers we're moving to or not outliers, they are more historic in terms of the level of spending. as for the state department redesign and i use the word "redesign" because it would've been able to comment on day one to do a real organization and i "reorganization" to determine moving the boxes around. i have 82 direct reports to me. 82. almost 70 of those are special envoys, special ambassadors, positions that have been created.
undertook a conversation about what is the best way to run that. that is in it. i've been through three major reorganizations in my history and i enjoy doing it. it is always focused on, how do we help the people be more effective? how do we get the obstacles out of their way? approachk a different since i did not know the department, did not know the culture. we had a massive listening exercise and we had 35,000 people respond. we had over 300 face-to-face interviews and we will continue active dialogue today. and i ask, if i could do one thing to make your work more satisfying, what would that be? we got hundreds of ideas. we selected about 170 of those ideas that we are now perfecting. we call it a redesign because most of these out to do with work processes internally and work process within our agencies
that we should be able to improve the way people get their work done. some of it is tools and enablement. things like, we have a really antiquated i.t. system. i was shocked when i went down to spend the afternoon and said what is one thing i can do and a set, get us into the cloud. and i said, we are not in the cloud? and they said, no. we're still on all these servers. , first.a big cyber risk it made it very cumbersome for people. what i started using my own computer i realized how cumbersome it was. so a lot is the redesign, process redesigns in some and enablement for people and it is all directed along the people in the state department to get their work done more effectively, efficiently, and having a much more satisfying rear. processes in of the hr functions that have not been updated in decades. they need to be updated.
how we put people out on assignment. we invest enormous amounts of money at and people we deploy to missions overseas. i was stunned to find out a lot of the missions are when your assignment so we invested all the honey, we send them out to the mission, they are there for one year and about the time they are starting to figure it out and have an impact, we move them somewhere else. me, you people said to know, i would really like to stay another year and start contributing. so things like that came out at this exercise. so we have five large teams. they are all employee-let. i brought in some consultants to help us facilitate that the redesign is all led by the employees in the state department. the issue of the hollowing out, think you all appreciate any time you have a change of government you have a lot of senior foreign service officers and others who decided want to move on and do other things. our numbers of retirements are
almost exactly what they were in 2016 despite. we have the exact same number of foreign service officers today -- we're off by 10 -- that we had at this time in 2016. there is a hiring freeze, but i kept in a place because as we redesigned the organization we are probably going to have people who need to be redeployed to other assignments. i do not want to have a layoff. i don't want to i are a bunch of people. manage some ofs our staffing targets with normal attrition. hiringsigned over 2300 exceptions because i told every post, if you have a critical position and you really need guilt, just send it in. i think i have out of 2300 requests, think i denied a positions i decided we don't really need. so we're keeping the organization fully staffed.
foreigntill running a services officers school. we hired over 300 this year. so there is no hollowing out. these numbers people are thrown around are just false. they are wrong. there's a story about a 60% reduction in career diplomats. the post "career diplomat" was created to recognize an elite few. the number has ranged from as low as one at any given time to as many as seven. when i took over the state department, we had six. four of this people at retired. these the most senior people. they reached 65-years-old, they retired and moved on. we have a review process underway and we are evaluating a handful of people who might be worthy of that designation but we still have two of them. we went from six to two. it was a 60% reduction. sounded like the sky was falling.
another comment i would make is while the confirmation process has been excruciating slow for many of our nominees, i have been so proud of the acting thoseant secretary's and who stepped into the acting undersecretary roles and when i read this article about hollowing out, i take offense to that on their behalf because the people that are serving in those roles are doing extraordinary work and they know they are not going to get the job remotely. they already know we have a nominee but they come in every day, work hard, trouble with me around the world, and it is a group of people that helped me put it place and help the residents wouldn't place the north korean strategy with the international sanctions, the syrian approach to the peace process we think we are about to get on the right track, and approach to negotiating with the russians on the ukraine. defeat isis to the campaign. the rand policy, the southeastern -- south asian
policy. -- all of that has been done with people we are working with today and i am very proud, very proud of what they've done. working hard. behalf.nded on their i'm offended on their behalf when people say somehow we do not have a state department that functions. i can cut you is functioning very well for my perspective. we have more we want to do? to do. are more we went my only objective is to help these people who are choosing this as a career. i will come and go. others will come and go. what you and i do to help them because they have decided they want to spend their life doing this and they should be able to do it as effectively and efficiently and without a lot of grief and obstacles. if i could remove some of that for them, that is what i want to do. chrysler because you, that message will resonate around the world. a lot of people wanted to hear me tell you, a
lot of people wanted to hear that. it will resonate around the world. gerry connolly, one of our stars in our foreign policy programs ask, do you think human rights ofoad are an important part the state's mission? where do you think progress with russia is possible . finally, in light of the increased activity in the arctic, is the arctic in alaska of strategic importance to the united states and to its european arctic allies? secretary tillerson: as to human rights and human dignity, of course they are priorities. what i've said about those
elements of our foreign policies is those are values that are and dohring and never change. constructing foreign policy and approaches you have to prioritize. de-prioritize human rights. it is with you, part of every policy decision you make. you wantion is, how do to affect it. if you say it is a priority, priorities can change. this can never change. it is an dohring -- it is and enduring and it will never change. the most important thing, the ultimate human right, is the right to live. the right to live, first. if i can live, then i can begin to take care of my family. and i can begin to fight for my human rights. then i can fight for my dignity. but if i'm being killed every
day, if i am being bond, if i am is togassed, our priority save lives. so we're going to save lives first. if we do, we stabilize and then we can start creating the conditions to ensure people's rights and human dignity respectively. russia, thereo are areas of major cooperation. we are working hard in syria to defeat isis and we are on the cusp of having isis once and for all defeated in syria. we have worked to do. we working together with russia on how to prevent civil war from re-erecting. we've had a lot of -- from re-erupting. there is a lot of commonality. how we get to the peace talks, we have our ups and downs. you saw a very important joint statement from president trump
and president putin from denying, vietnam during the aipac meeting. an important alignment of how we peace processn going forward. it was important to have russia can from the sea at the same way we do. i think there are other areas of counterterrorism that russia has great fear of migration a lot out of the central asian regions. we think there are areas, greater areas for counterterrorism efforts with russia. there may be efforts in afghanistan, we have not come to what that might be what we are talking about it. and ukraine, we are never going to get this relationship back to normal until we solve this problem. rinsits there as an endu obstacle. i have appointed a special ambassador to focus on nothing but working with his russian
counterpart, which putin appointed, to see if we can find our way forward. not normalizing the process but seeing if we can break the logjam. we've had some very substantive discussions. we are discussing the possibility of a peace force in ukraine to stop ongoing everyday people getting killed. we want to stop that. save lives first, then start working toward the process. there are many areas of cooperation with russia and they have many others they would like to work with us on but we just do not think it is time to do that. with respect to the arctic, the arctic is important. it will be a increasingly -- increasingly a part in the future. a lot of waterways have opened up. the united states is behind united nation's air. they have evaluated it, they're way ahead of us. strategicns made it a priority. even the chinese are building
icebreaking tankers. why are they building icebreaking takers? they see the value of these passages. .e see the value of these we have one icebreaking tanker today. the army is very proud of it as crummy as it is. i know there is money in the budget to build another icebreaker. at the whole arctic region, because of what has happened with the opening of the arctic passageways from an economic and traits standpoint, but certainly from national security standpoint, is vitally important to our interest. so our engagement through just not the arctic town so but through other mechanisms is important in working with arctic countries on international norms, what will the rules of the game be because these are areas that have not been addressed in the past so, very important. >> time is up but i was going to ask you what you want your legacy to be but listening to
you, i do not know that that question is really answered yet. you are all over the world. you are focused deeply on the top questions. you're headed to europe next week. back and answer all of the questions we could not ask today. is that a yes? secretary tillerson: yes. i will be back. >> thank you secretary tillerson. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]
announcer: tomorrow, the center for strategic and international studies will host a forum examining security threats in the region of north africa known as the grip. monday night on the communicators, matthew prince, ceo of the internet or company calledflair who successfully booted and neo-nazi group of the internet trends is to discuss hate speech in the first amendment. >> once you start on the path of
saying that this invisible infrastructure running the network gets to make decisions, do not think that is where you might like if you come out at the other end. it is a little bit like if your phone company was listening in on the conversations you had and decided they did not like your tone of voice of the language you are using or the topics you are discussing, if they just pulled the cord and shut down the phone line. that phone is a social contract we had with the phone company for quite sometime. what i is happening is there is a number of companies like cl run behind the scenes and make things work. that question is, are we the right ones to make the decision on what content should and should not be allowed online. announcer: watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2.
livednesday morning, we're in tallahassee, florida, for the next up on the c-span 60 capitals -- 50 capitals tour. >> now, senate confirmation hearing for the health and human services secretary. he formerly served for ceo of ei -- eli lilly and company. this is 50 minutes. conversation] ] avel pound >> the meeting will come to order. today's meeting is on the nomination of secretary of health and human services. while we hold a courtesy hearing and received