35 Burst results for "Foreign Policy"
West Bank Erupts in Protest Amid More Israel-Hamas Fighting
"We continue to follow this violent fighting between israeli defense forces hamas today violent protests erupted in the west bank and calls for a ceasefire being largely ignored again tonight. There are reports of civilians including being caught in the crossfire. Our nbc news chief. Foreign correspondent richard engel reports tel aviv for us. Tonight with new airstrikes tonight and tank and artillery fire. Israel says it's targeting hamas and destroying a network of tunnels in gaza. The islamic militant group is using to hide and launch two thousand rockets at israeli towns and cities over the last several days. But it's not only tunnels being obliterated. This was a bank is worth says was used by hamas more than one hundred twenty palestinians have been killed so far including at least thirty children were buried together today venturing outside gaza twenty-two-year-old law student. Kerama says the devastation is worse than she imagined. We feed like whatever we do. Whatever we build we'll get destroyed once again if we had hope for the future. They just can't. It could get much worse. Israel has deployed thousands of troops to the gaza border primed for a ground assault but israel for now has held off an invasion instead relying on its iron dome missile defense system to intercept rockets but some are getting through falling indiscriminately and killing. At least eight israelis million in israel had been rushing to bomb shelters but because of the children are traumatized. We have been in the shelter for a week and now the fighting is enraging palestinians. outside of gaza deadly clashes broke out in the west bank and for the first time in years palestinians with israeli citizenship are joining the fight with vigilante attacks from both
Private Undisclosed Emails Leaked From the Mueller Investigation
"Got another three hundred pages or so of underlying mueller investigation emails and texts and memos and in them we learned that don jr. vodka and kushner way more involved in russia talks than previously known at least to the public. I mean we knew Ivanka reportedly informed a co co-chair of her father campaign that her brother don jr. could make recommendations for military advisers while kushner offered details about his private meetings with henry kissinger We also learned that in january. Twenty seventeen manafort. Send an email to katy mcfarland. That's flynn's number two Saying i have some important information. I wanna share with you that i picked up my travels over the last month. Well she manafort was already you know knee deep in shit by this point she immediately fired off an email to flint. Saying hey given all. That's going on. Meet with them. And flynn said i would not be with him until we're in the hot seats unknown who he is working for and perception would not be good especially now they even knew it. They even knew it the record show. Flynn soliciting trump strategist bannon as far back as september twenty fifteen before bannon officially joined the campaign steve. He wrote just reaching back out. Let me know if mr trump needs any help with national security intel an intel community issues of foreign policy. So that's i think flynn's i reach out that december. He wrote corey lewandowski. And said i wanted to send this to you this past week but had forgotten shared a link to an article from russia state run sputnik news quoted. Flynn saying the. Us must work with russia and arab countries to defeat isis. He said this is an f. y. But something trump should at least be aware of. I have been very outspoken. On the issue at this point in the conflict with our current administration has run out of good options. also i met with president putin last thursday in moscow. We actually sat at dinner together. Merry christmas
Iran’s Foreign Minister, in Leaked Tape, Says Revolutionary Guards Set Policies
"Foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has been recorded, saying the country's foreign policy is too subservient to the needs of the revolutionary Guards. In a tape obtained by the BBC, Mr Zarif says that the late commander General Qasem Solomon, E, in effect brought Iran into the Syrian war to help Russia. Kazran Naji reports. The tape contains some incredible revelations from a normally very guarded foreign minister in it. Mrs. Arif maintains that diplomacy and Iran's foreign policy have always been subservient to the needs of Iran's military interventions abroad. Dimensions, General Qasem Soleimani, he says the general often went to see him with requirements, he says. General Soleimani, in effect took Iran into the war in Syria because Russia's president Putin wanted Iran to compliment Russia's air force by becoming its force on the ground.
John Kerry visits China for climate mission talks
"Eh? We're talking to Sean Carberry, who writes on foreign policy and was a former NPR correspondent based in Kabul. Paul Dano Hara, Washington bureau chief for the BBC, and Nancy Yusef, national security correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Speaking of China on Wednesday, the United States special presidential envoy for Climate John Kerry arrived in China ahead of an environmental summit being held by Joe Biden later this month. Carrie was expected to lay the ground for that meeting and urged Chinese officials tome or address climate change. Paul When we co thinking about shifting to China, the U. S and China are the two biggest polluters in the world. Can you tell us the significance of this trip and what pushed back? We've gotten from China on this. It's important it's you know, it's the first attempt to try and for this administration, try and sit down with the Chinese and starts work things out. The problem that America faces is it wants to be able to compartmentalize. Different issues with China. It was going to say, Let's get together and talk about climate and work it out because it's in their best interest, but also stay away from Taiwan and don't fiddle around here and don't do this on the Chinese Don't have that perspective. When it comes to foreign policy. They they don't put things in little boxes and treat them independently. They will not be able to Forget that America criticizes Chinese about other things while asking them for their support. The other thing the Chinese don't say, Well, look, you walked away from the Paris climate deal. You know, we've been plowing on We've been making more more commitments to carbon when you reducing carbon on reducing or the other greenhouse effect, and you spent four years basically going backward. So the Chinese are saying, we're not listening to you until you get your house in order. So America is trying to say We're back on the international stage when it comes to the environmental concerns and the Chinese the same. Well, we never left. So
Biden Administration to Impose Tough Sanctions on Russia
"In particular what Washington says were its efforts to disrupt the U. S election. LeBeau DeCecco reports. President Biden had warned that Russia would pay a price for interfering in the U. S presidential election if it was confirmed. Now the U. S. Is expected to sanction several Russian entities and expel a number of officials in retaliation for just that. The sanctions are also a response to other issues such as Moscow's involvement in Crimea. At a cyber attack on the U. S technology firms solar winds, which has been described as the largest and most sophisticated the world has ever seen. Abidin Administration's approach to Moscow stands in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor, Donald Trump. In his first foreign policy speeches, President Mr Biden said that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia's aggressive actions were over. Taiwan's president signed when what Cy Young one has told a visiting delegation of
The Art of Fake-Ending Wars
"War. Joe biden and support for operations in foreign policy reset reports. The bbc trump says. Us will be out of afghanistan by christmas. Twenty twenty cheered military times trump orders withdrawal of troops from northern syria. The new york times told us for decades. The united states is very often appeared to have ended wars. That do not. In fact ended all open into jargon like residual counter terror forces vietnam military advisers deliberately ambiguous timetables process criticisms all are used to confuse the average media. Consumer the politicians know that the american public broadly dislikes ward empire and thus wanna see restrained but the same politicians. Don't really want to in war. So they have a frequent pr problem. How do you make it look like you're ending a war occupation without actually doing so to resolve this problem. American political leaders have perfected the art of fake ending a war which is to say announcing awards go into end typically around election time only two once the headlines have made a big splash. Backtrack obfuscate claim quote. The situation on the ground has changed and quote or that military involvement will only be anna limited or defensive capacity. They shuffled troops around or find other thin pretexts to continue the same war or occupation indefinitely. In this episode we will discuss the history of fake ending. Wars who these pronouncements are meant to please why troop levels are often impossible to know. And why so. Many of our so-called wars are not really wars at all but military occupations. That never really meant to
Vienna talks on Iran’s nuclear deal conclude hopeful opening week
"Resume talks in Vienna today about Iran's nuclear program. In a sign of progress, they agreed to keep talking next week. The U. S government wasn't directly involved in the discussions but had a delegation in Vienna and was watching closely. That's because President Biden's foreign policy agenda has a lot. Riding on the results here with
Sen. Ted Cruz to visit migrant holding facility in Dallas
"In downtown Dallas today after showing video of conditions at the border on Fox Network's Sunday morning futures. The video includes footage of a Biden staffer blocking him from recording in a migrant facility. The Texas Republican and Senator John Cornyn led a group of senators to Donna, where illegal immigrants have been herded into overcrowded facilities. Large numbers of migrants have crossed the border since Biden took office. But there are foreign policy
North Korea test launch of ballistic missiles
"Has confirmed it tested to ballistic missiles yesterday describes them as a new type of guided missile and claims the weapons are of great significance in bolstering its military's power. It's the North's first ballistic missile test in nearly a year, and it is being seen as a message to President Biden. He said yesterday that North Korea and its nuclear weapons were his top foreign policy issue,
Biden eyes $3T package for infrastructure, schools, families
"Hi Mike Rossi a reporting president Biden starts to lay the groundwork for a three trillion dollar infrastructure package president Joe Biden has opened discussions with lawmakers on a massive infrastructure and domestic needs legislative package that Republicans are already beginning to sound off on late Monday Biden met privately with Senate Democrats to start mapping out of three trillion dollar package and a set of business opened Monday minority leader Mitch McConnell warned it may actually be a Trojan horse for massive tax hikes and other job killing love foreign policy no part of the package has been finalized although by his goal is to have a bipartisan package Democrats in Congress have indicated they're ready to push it through without Republican support Mike Crossey up Washington
US Officials To Hold Talks in Mexico & Guatemala on Migration
"Migrants coming to the U. S border. Thousands of unaccompanied teens and Children in U. S custody, some held in jail like facilities. More likely on the way. This is the urgent situation facing President Biden at the border today and an echo of the one he faced as vice president back in 2014. His approach so far is similar focus on the root causes. Today, he sent three top officials to Mexico and Guatemala to discuss how to manage the increasing numbers of people trying to reach the U. S. Joining us to talk more about this is Franco or join us and Przybyl, White House correspondent and Franco first tell us just the basics of this trip to Mexico. Well, I think this is a trip that really shows how urgent the situation really is. Most of the migrants to the U. S border are from three Central American countries. Mexico had been working with the former administration to keep them from making that journey through Mexico, but that largely stopped. Biden is now sending two top officials from the National Security Council and another from the state Department to the region. Roberta Jacobson. She will be leading talks with Mexico's foreign secretary, Marcello Abroad and other top Mexican officials. She was actually an ambassador to Mexico during the Obama administration, and she'll be joined by one Gonzales, the NSC senior director for the region. Now they'll be talking about how to manage the situation and also be exploring a joint development strategy for Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries, you know, trying to work together to address the root causes of migration. Let's take one example. Guatemala What's on the agenda there? Welcome. Salas, again from the NSC and Ricardo Zuniga from the State Department will travel to Guatemala to meet with president they part of the President Alejandro Giammetti and his foreign minister, Pedro Barolo, and other economic and security officials. They will also meet with representatives from the private sector and civil society groups. You know, the big picture here is that President Biden feels that security and prosperity in Central America Are closely linked to security and prosperity in the United States. Give us some context here in terms of how Biden waiting when he was vice president, and maybe what he's doing differently this time around as president. Well, his vice president, Biden led a similar effort to Rio to address the root causes of migration. It was called the Alliance for Prosperity, and it provided a billion dollars to help police training, judicial reform and and corruption. This time around. He wants to offer $4 billion. Now I talked to Andrew Seeley about this. He's the president of the Migration Policy Institute. He said Biden is finding out the hard reality about this challenge that faces all presidents. And that it's not easy. The border is to immigration politics with the Middle East is to foreign policy. You know, every president comes in determined to do something focus on a different part of immigration. And ends up sucked into the border in some way. Frankly, Biden now owns this issue and the political fall out in a way that he didn't when he was just the vice president and one big difference in his approach this time is that the administration is going to be a bit more clear eyed about the realities of corruption at the highest level of these governments and Central America. The administration says they will on Lee give the money to community and international organizations. How has the Biden administration responded to criticism from Republicans who are claiming that Biden triggered this influx of migrants by reversing some of the restrictive immigrant immigration policies? Of President Trump's, You know, it's been a difficult thing to answer. On the one hand, the bind Administration says Look, we're going to have a more humane policy and going to rebuild the asylum system, which was largely dismantled by the former administration. On the other hand, they're saying Don't come now. And there's a sense that that message is a little bit muddied. The White House insists they've been clear they point to the thousands of radio ads and targeted social media ads in the region that they say have reached millions of people. But the numbers of people coming to the border are still high. And while the administration says that most people are turned away Children or not, and some families are not as well. And will Biden visit the board? Well, he said yesterday that heals go at some point, but there's no sense that that will happen in the near future. That's NPR.
Borrell: EU to hit Myanmar officials with sanctions
"The E. U. is hitting me on mall officials with sanctions following a seizure of power the bloc's foreign policy chief Joseph Burrell says the EDU is penalizing the officials accused of being involved in a military coup on to the fun and cracked down on protests is that followed we're going to take sanctions against eleven persons involved in the cool and under pressure many of the demonstrators the minute treatment to help prevent it Myanmar's parliament convening on Feb we won and claimed the last November's elections won by the pro democracy party in a landslide with tainted by fraud in the face of persistent strikes and protests the junta has responded with an increasingly violent crackdown and efforts to limit the information reaching the outside world I'm Charles the last month
US and China trade angry words at high-level talks
"Have got off to an ill tempered start with US and Chinese officials exchanging sharp rebukes. The U. S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticized China over cyber attacks, economic coercion and human rights. China's most senior foreign policy official accused Washington of using its military might and financial supremacy to suppress other countries. A human rights group. Amnesty International
On Asia Trip, Biden Administration Seeks To Restore Alliances
"Gets underway today. In a sign of its foreign policy priorities. NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are heading to East Asia. The two secretaries will meet counterparts and leaders in Tokyo and Seoul. Their aim is to reassure them of the U. S is commitment to its allies and enlist their help and issues including North Korea's nuclear weapons and China's challenge to American primacy in Asia. To do that. They'll also need to Coke soul in Tokyo to set aside historical feuds and cooperate with Washington and each other. The USS has tried to engage with Pyongyang for the past month, but has received no response. The Secretary's will not be visiting China this time, but blinking and national Security advisor Jake Sullivan will meet with top Chinese diplomats in Alaska on Route back to Washington. Anthony Kuhn. NPR NEWS Seoul
UK universities’ closeness to China poses risks, says Jo Johnson
"Report led by former. Universities managed to joe johnson warns of the poorly understood risks of increasingly close collaboration between uk. Universities china i tell us more well yes so awfully. Liam johnson's kicking off busy. After his various stints in half universities minister but a really interesting. I'm pretty comprehensive report looking at the relationship that uk her education house china And a couple of areas. It focuses on the role that that china is playing globally in research and development. Showing that it's set to overtake the us or Focusing that sets it will take the us. The world's biggest spender on research and development As well as the case may significant research partner and interesting Comparison looking at the fact that in two thousand nineteen. The uk collaborated with china and about sixteen thousand sixteen thousand Papers which is from about one hundred papers in the early nineteen nineties. But it's pretty. It's pretty punchy. Report and It it's pretty critical. I think it is pretty critical about the current approach is it sort of gives the impression that the view view those writing report is that the u k really needs to up his game when it in terms of understanding. The policy needs to start to be more robust against trump this transit authoritative authoritarian dictatorship. That showed little desire to transform itself into western style democracy whilst understanding the sort of reality of the situation that the relationship between China is fairly intertwined so interesting policy recommendations. They're proposing to increase the funding. I'm so there's not reliant. On international students focusing on the fact there are lots of international students from china as well and really Saying that the loss of requests. For you or i to be more robust in this do auditing to do more checking existing research partnerships and. Yeah i mean one kind of take away from me is that i think it needs to be a bit more primary research this but a very interesting report selena the line amitai pulls out about the authoritarian dictatorship that shows little desire to transfer into western style. Liberal democracy kind of wanted these joe. Johnson says that requires a catholic. Calibrated policy makes Is your sense that what's in here. Would address the concern. Or what's your view on the solutions that have been proposed there. I think the there's obviously a certain amount of posturing that behind the scenes in the kind of premise. Around china is what china is trying to do in terms of its links with uk higher education which have been built up over a long period of time but also built a time where it has been extending its into international links across the states australia various other countries and i think that the solutions are proposed in hair probably aren't going to unwind what what has already been laid extensively in terms of relationships between uk universities and chinese universities and indeed a sense of appetite from chinese students to study overseas and increasingly for uk students to take up the opportunity for some experience of transnational education in china. So i think it's helpful to point and two as the report says i to be aware of the extensive nece links the debt of the links on the volume of activity. But i would think where we are right now and certain from into individual institutions perspective. It solutions that are proposed. Here are not going to be effective at. Rolling back yeah. I'm sorry. I mean one of the things i was talking to someone about the even. What rolling back. Look i mean even if universities needed to the money less. What is it that they would do to discourage students from china coming. I mean we have people. Discriminating against st some china charlene will all supposed to be officially in theory in our kind of standards for admission that i'll just slightly adapted for each country. There's sort of things that the the first thing which i read the report in most detail to to to the potential this but i the overall impression i get from the initial i've done is that there isn't enough. Focus on the role of the us foreign policy. Plays in all of this either so going back to what you highlights about. That carefully calibrated police response. If the ratcheting up of us. Foreign policy towards china as china's influence in the world grows. Are we going to end up. In a situation affects the organ. Have to start picking sides and in that case it feels like yours. Foreign policy is going to drive a lot of what we end up. Take that first. Instance particularly given that. We're outside of the eu now and that focus on our lives is even more important but interestingly the report doesn't really say that talks about diversifying international student recruitment. But it says that it from a point of view. Saying because we don't become too reliant and because we actually think it's going to drop off over time potentially of the rise of universities in china. Say they really very much in there which is saying. We need to stop chinese students from coming to the k. But it's there's there's something around it is as chinese institutions grow and and as the government potentially starts incentivize more students to stay and study domestically that at risk for uk universities less exposed like places like australia but still the reports are saying uk university of need to prepare for that
US Senate confirms two more key Biden cabinet picks
"Day on the Hill, Marcia Fudge from Ohio representative confirmed as the housing and Urban Development secretary. You have Merrick Garland confirmed as the attorney general. I mean, ah lot going on. Over there. But then you have well. The question about Joe Biden. And how he's doing. They're supposed to be a press conference tomorrow with Joe Biden. I think when Joe Biden has given time and ample time to prepare, he can handle things. You know, I did say that in the debates, Joe Biden is gonna fall apart. He didn't fall apart. He wasn't great by any stretch, but he didn't fall apart. He seemed to have all his faculties. So maybe what it takes is a lot of prep to get him to be able to do the thing to build that level of memorization or whatever it is, it's going on to get him through it. And yes, I think that in a press conference, things were gonna be very, very tightly controlled. Wouldn't think that it would be otherwise. But more and more people want to push the idea that Kamila Harris might be in charge. After all, she's taking solo phone calls regarding foreign policy. And admittedly, Barack Obama never allowed Um Joe Biden to do that. He probably knew Joe Biden better than we do. And Mike Pence only did it a handful of times a couple times a year. Was he the one engaged in those conversations. So maybe it's just a difference of philosophy. Maybe it's indication of an issue. But the idea that it's maybe can't ask me to go down that that conspiratorial
A Conversation With Carlo Rovelli On quantum physics
"This beautiful closing same in telling quantum physicists color ravelli's bestseller the order of time where he reflects on beethoven's mississippi lameness. The song of the violin. He writes is pure beauty. Pure disparition pure joy. We are suspended holding our breath. Feeling mysteriously this must be the source of meaning that this is the source of time. It's very color ravelli. These intellectual free spirit with radical routes and a passion for poetry and literature art and science. The whole rich smorgasbord. Caller was recently named one of foreign policy. Magazine's one hundred most influential global fingers. He works in italy. France canada trying to understand the deep mystery of how gravity works at the quantum level. He writes popular opinionated columns in italian newspapers and popular sites books that have really struck a chord with fans worldwide amongst them seven brief listens on physics. And he's two new books. Are there places in the world where rules are less important than kindness and out this month. Ease helgoland color joins you an eye on science fiction from canada this week on the tesha mitchell and we started out by reflecting on the way in which this pandemic as tiny virus with a will spread is challenging the hubris faces but then we got bigger or a bigger. Thank you for having me. I love how you describe. We humans as being the species of little creatures living on marginal planet of peripheral star in one of billions of galaxies in the cosmos a senior in an essay that you've written about the astronomer copernicus and he's he's a revolutionary challenge that with and so us with was center of the universe. But somehow i it seems to me that we leave with these pre copernican prejudice that certainly at the level of the ego. At least we do. Yeah as a spacey's we still cast ourselves at the center of the universe. And i wonder if you think if we didn't do that if we sensed that we would just an arbitrary player on an arbitrary planets round by hundred million galaxies. Do you think we would position. Different eggo formerly yes. The fact that we are obviously irrelevant on the larger scale of the universe. It doesn't mean that we have no meaning. It doesn't mean that we care about is meaningless we are. We're certainly nothing right. Our son is one out of two billion stars in our galaxy is nothing in our galaxy. One out of probably a billion billion golics's in in the world just creating team prepared killing. Someone is actually candid that right in the last decades it was realized that it was many more than what we saw today. So so we're even smaller than we thought we were more inconsequential. That's something we scanned by that. But that's not the trolley deal of us that make what we care about important for us. Thinks are important for us just because what we are. I love the woman i love. Not because she's universe because she's the woman i love that and so it's for for us. We are important for ourselves. I find it to if i give me. Serenity doesn't give me anguish it sort of relaxing to know that we do our best. We share what we can love what we can. And that's and we appreciate the this life. Yes your initial university studies in the classics i think and then and then onto physics and then onto a phd in meaning to the world of of quantum theory and quantum gravity. Bit on curious to know what that classical training brought to your physicists. Self from early on because all have read do who have raised. You know that you have a great passion for poetry and literature and physics sees is part of all that fear sciences. It's a complex center price that requires the collaboration of different people in different kind of minds. And i have appreciated a scientist which are extremely technical. Or which have an extremely analytical. Mind that just going to details and split the the arguments over and over again find the little truck. I'm not particularly doing good and doing calculations or going into details. But i think that science also needs People who look the things from from a larger perspective and and see where the the two problems where the good directions and full. That's a nation which is not strictly scientific. I think it's it's it's so important to look into Into the great scientist of the past the many of them had an extraordinarily wide culture. So i think they were. The over specialization of modern education does all how help from the middle sized to go ahead. Let's just physics. Tolstoy in biology and medicine in In in other scientists. I believe that. I don't like science teaching completely focus on solving little problems. You know you have a ball. Rolling down a slope but the speed How long does he go and come on. This is so boring is interesting. What isn't is understanding. What is the structure. We're using for understanding the wall. What is a force. What does it mean to have an energy.
Secretary Of State Described China As Biden's Biggest Political Test
"A lot of foreign policy challenges on its plate from the conflict in Ethiopia and a coup in Myanmar to Iran's nuclear program and relations with Russia. But Secretary of State Anthony Blinken sees China as the biggest geopolitical test. NPR's Michele Kelemen explains why Secretary Blinken says he wants to lead a foreign policy that better serves Americans at home and, well, he has a long list of crisis to deal with, He says. The challenge from China is different. China is the only country With the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system, all the rules, values and relationships. That make the world work the way we wanted to. He outlined his views in the speech Wednesday meant for the American public without mentioning Trump by name. He was clearly trying to turn a page from the last four years. Our relationship with China will be competitive when it should be. Collaborative when it can be an adversarial when it must be The common denominator is the need to engage China from a position of strength. That requires working with allies and partners, not denigrating them. Real strength, he added, isn't bluster or bullying aside from China.
"foreign policy" Discussed on FP's The Editor's Roundtable (The E.R.)
"Hey <Speech_Male> there listeners <Speech_Male> for years we've been using <Speech_Male> this feed as our main <Speech_Male> podcast channel <Speech_Male> for foreign policy <Speech_Male> readers. <Speech_Male> It began with editor <Speech_Male> roundtable discussions <Speech_Male> on the news of <Speech_Male> the week we <Speech_Male> then switched to first <Speech_Male> person which <Speech_Male> featured compelling <Speech_Male> international stories, <Speech_Male> and <Speech_Male> now we're kicking off <Silence> a new curated show. <Speech_Male> Here's <Speech_Male> foreign policies <Speech_Male> editor <SpeakerChange> in chief to <Speech_Music_Male> tell us about it. <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> If. <Speech_Music_Male> You're like us <Speech_Male> you're interested in the <Speech_Music_Male> world beyond the United <Speech_Music_Male> States <Speech_Male> you care what's happening <Speech_Male> in other countries <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> and what Washington <Speech_Music_Male> does. <Music> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> Your also into podcast, <Speech_Music_Male> but there's <Speech_Music_Male> so many out there. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> How do you find <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> right ones? <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Well <Speech_Music_Male> that's where we come in. <Speech_Music_Male> I'm Jonathan <Speech_Male> Ferman, the editor <Speech_Music_Male> in Chief of Foreign Policy <Speech_Music_Male> Magazine. <Speech_Music_Male> Each <Speech_Male> week, we'll scour <Speech_Male> the feeds to find <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the most interesting <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> podcast from <Speech_Music_Male> around the <SpeakerChange> world <Speech_Music_Male> and bring them to <Speech_Music_Male> you. Hi, <Speech_Male> Jonathan. Lovely <Speech_Music_Male> to have an <Speech_Music_Male> opportunity to <Speech_Music_Male> chat <Speech_Male> you in Brooklyn <Speech_Male> and knee in <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> lockdown. Jerusalem. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> You'll <Speech_Male> hear from <SpeakerChange> journalists <Speech_Male> in China. So <Speech_Male> clearly something fundamentalist <Speech_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> change in China. <Speech_Male> And America <Speech_Male> has <SpeakerChange> an understood <Speech_Male> that change <Speech_Music_Male> 'em listen <Speech_Music_Male> Cuba. <Speech_Music_Male> I was flabbergasted <Speech_Music_Male> when <Speech_Music_Male> I heard the president <Speech_Music_Male> say that <SpeakerChange> and <Speech_Female> much more if <Speech_Female> there's one thing that keeps <Speech_Female> you up at night. <Speech_Music_Female> <Speech_Music_Female> A real world scenario. <Speech_Music_Female> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Male> What is it? <Speech_Male> What keeps <Speech_Male> me up at night <Speech_Music_Male> right now <Speech_Music_Male> is looking <Speech_Music_Male> at <Speech_Male> the breaking <Speech_Male> down of <Speech_Male> the social <SpeakerChange> contract <Speech_Male> in America. <Speech_Male> We're calling <Speech_Male> this. <Speech_Music_Male> New Show <Speech_Music_Male> foreign policy <Speech_Music_Male> playlist <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> subscribe now <Speech_Music_Male> all these <SpeakerChange> places. <Silence> <Music> <Music> <Music> Panoply.
"foreign policy" Discussed on First Person
"Hey there listeners for years. We've been using this feed as our main podcast channel for foreign policy readers. It began with editor roundtable discussions on the news of the week we then switched to first person which featured compelling international stories, and now we're kicking off a new curated show. Here's foreign policies editor in chief to tell us about it. If you're like us you're interested in the world beyond the United States you care what's happening in other countries and what Washington does. Your also into podcast, but there's so many out there. How do you find right ones? Well that's where we come in. I'm Jonathan Ferman the editor in Chief of Foreign Policy Magazine. Each week we'll scour the feeds to find the most interesting podcast from around the world and bring them to you. Hi Jonathan Lovely to have an opportunity to chat you in Brooklyn and knee in lockdown Jerusalem you'll hear from journalists in China so clearly something fundamentalist change in China. And America has an understood that change 'em listen Cuba. I was flabbergasted when I heard the president say that and much more if there's one thing that keeps you up at night. A real. World scenario. What is it? What keeps me up at night right now is looking at the breaking down of the social contract in America. We're calling this. New, show foreign policy playlist, subscribe now all these places..
"foreign policy" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show
"Of we are air on Tuesdays listen and subscribe right now on Stitcher Apple podcast spotify or whatever your favorite podcast up is you know this notion that those treaties and agreements we're sort of the the pins that were keeping the international world order together is simply just it's more myth and reality it's American, strengthen hard power that that backs up security commitments. Book. Show on the Fox media podcast network. I've been teasing on the show recently early in some the introductions that as we get closer to the election and we earn out Tam close to the election I want to make sure the show is representing the debate. The country's actually having not just me talking to people I agree with or talking to people on the right. But where we both kind of agree that Donald trump is bad. Donald trump is running for president yeezy incumbent he is behind, but there is always a chance he could win and so I want to talk to people. Next couple of weeks who at least some people who actually think Donald Trump should win that he is a good president that what he's done is important that is philosophy about the world or about domestic policy is correct. And I want to try to test the boundaries of those assumptions, put them into conversation with my own. So I WANNA start here with foreign policy. My guest today is Rebecca Hinrichs. She is a senior fellow at the Hudson, institute? She's been an adviser to congressional Republicans on Foreign Policy. She's a specialist nuclear deterrence and missile defense, and she's unimportant and very clear articulate and defender of Donald Trump's foreign policy which in my view has been his more coherent effect. On the way we think about national politics and policy I. Think he is changed the foreign policy discussion in a more consistent and more lasting way probably than he has changed. Domestic. Policy Discussion. Where he's been all over the place, there are at least a couple of assumptions in Trumpian. Foreign policy that are simultaneously followed by the people who he is appointed to key positions, and also in my view begun to change the the the democratic discussion to I don't think the way Donald. Trump things about healthcare has changed Democrats to think about it but I can tell you some certainty. The way he thinks about China has. So I think understanding this and understanding what it looks like not just from his words which was all over the place the effort to make it into a cohesive foreign policy they can be or did is worth doing As. Always in these shows, I want to be clear that this is not a debate where we are I'm trying to win it I. Did not ask Rebecca Hendrix to come on the show in that spirit it's not a collision. It's an exploration of ideas I'm trying to test boundaries and put them in conversation with my own assumptions and beliefs about the world. But this is mostly to try to make sure decided the arguments clear on the show that there has been space to air it and space to test it but don't go into this looking for someone to win or lose. That's not how I went into it not her she went into..
"foreign policy" Discussed on CFR On the Record
"To soft power so when you have values makes others want to follow you that soft power is important and that's not a question of realism versus liberalism or anything. A good realist understands that. This is a form of power. But when you're hypocritical about the main issues such as the examples you cited hypocrisies agreed solvent of soft. Power dissolves very quickly. Let him do the other half who I think. It's fair to say all presidents have engaged in moral compromises and I think when you assess them you have to their motives in engaging compromises. We were talking about George Herbert Walker Bush. Here's one George Herbert Walker. Bush decided not to to put pressure on the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union intervene and Lithuania he knew that what Gorbachev was doing and Lithuania was wrong but he also knew that he needed to keep Gorbachev in power and that the direction the Soviets were taking was a direction not only in the interest of the United States. But of the world so to attack Gorbachev in Lithuania would undermine Gorbachev at a very critical moment. There are many people that attacked him the foot for this immorality for and for being hypocritical here the United States was standing for freedom and self determination and the Lithuanians wanted self-determination. He made a moral compromise. He understood what are we doing but it was a compromise is that is that Roy. Kind of compromise. One of the things. That Joe mentioned was in flexibility or moralism are we are. We not ready for pragmatic applications of morality. Or is that hyp hypocrisy. It is? Is it hypocrisy to engage in compromises for a greater good? I don't think so. But it's worth debating if I just fall for. Tim and I'm basically in this. If it tends to conflate context it's very rare that you can have what's quote a purely moral foreign policy you're gonNA have to make compromises and tradeoffs. Sometimes people say what do you do about human rights in X. Country and if you have a pure human rights policy you don't have a foreign policy. A foreign policy is to try to get as many values as you can. That includes security economics Balancing power and values human rights. And you can't just say I'm going to have a pure human rights policy Jimmy Carter elevated human rights. But he didn't make it a pure human rights policy was impossible. What about the question about international institutions and traditions are critical? That to me is one of the great problems of the current presidency. Is that the institutions create a way in which people can act outside of what might be called lifeboat ethics lifeboat ethics is one of US dies. It's killer be killed morale please little role that stage but if you create institutions you can get away from life owed ethics not always not perfectly but Robert axelrod once did a very interesting computer simulation in which he took prisoner's dilemma. Which is a game which is zero. Saba I win you lose. There's no way out of it and many people say international politics is a prisoner's dilemma. Zero sum game. What axelrod showed is if you played. Prisoner's Dilemma Enough Times. So you and I if I she done you. This time new chemmy. Next time if we learn tit for tat reciprocity and we keep playing again and again and again we actually don't deteriorate to the lowest common denominator we develop. Reciprocity there's room for morals and excellent. I wonder for phrase for this. He called the long shadow of the future. If I know that we're going to be playing this game always then we can think about. I'll give you this one but I expect you give me the next one and that leaves room for morality but when it's killer be killed there's no room for morality. Winston Churchill in one thousand nine hundred forty bombed the French fleet. He killed fourteen hundred of his allies but it was a killer be killed situation. The vichy government would have given that fleet to hit her and the Royal Navy couldn't stand that loss of capacity if Britain was to survive so people say. This is the ultimate act of immorality in a lifeboat. Ethics Situation. I think you say not anything be done. But if you have institutions you can relax those constraints so that everything isn't just survival survival skills important but everything is an all about survival you bring in these other values in the institutions. You allow a long shadow of the future so I think institutions are tremendously important. And that's why I'm so distressed by President Trump's disdain for international institutions in alliances. I think that's undercutting American long-term security. Okay so many people have owned the back over there place so Paul Richards from Columbia University About Nuclear Weapons Dean Ni- in your book. You you mentioned a Tabu. The dog that did not Bach or bite so so here we are In in twenty twenty and I ask you what a nuclear weapons for today and is there a good moral basis for spending on the order of a trillion dollars to upgrade the nuclear weapons infrastructure of the United States? Well I think credible nuclear capacity does still serve a deterrent role in the major deterrence is against others using nuclear weapons and that means if you have nuclear weapons you want to have the capacity. You don't want them so to speak on the front line and the this question of the history of this it's quite fascinating that when Harry Truman. This is the book when Harry Truman was became president and decided to go ahead and bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The head of the Manhattan Project General Groves said Truman couldn't do much about who's like a boy who was put on a Toboggan going downhill so it would have been remarkable for women to have stopped that but fast forward five years to Korea where Truman is losing the Korean War and Atchison and others. Tell him this is going to destroy your presidency and Douglas Macarthur. The general in the theater says I want the right to use twenty five to forty atomic bombs on Chinese cities. That's the only way we're in a void. Defeat and Truman says. I'M NOT GONNA kill that. Many new women and children was not just prudence in the sense of you know. I don't want the war to spread member. The Soviets had the bomb but it wasn't deliverable. They don't got it a year. Earlier it was. Truman changed his moral position and Tom Shelling. In his Nobel laureate lecture said the single most important thing that has happened since one thousand nine hundred forty five was the development of the Nuclear. Tabu because of Truman had taken that decision in Korea differently and nuclear weapons were ordinary weapons. We use them all the time. This world today would look very very different so I would argue that in this. This is a of moral views. But I think it's been a very positive evolution moral used so it allows us to think that Nuclear Weapons Day. Ken Play a deterrent role. Because the Tabu what we have to worry about is will the new entrance. If there's a North Korea an Iranian so forth nuclear power will they have the same respect for the nuclear? Tabu that the other countries that Tim did. You WanNa comment on nuclear weapons with the Cuban missile crisis. Which I know is an area. You folks on the Kennedy's decision not to take any sort of preventive strike right which was raised during the decision making process and Bobby Kennedy Attorney. General spoke up and said his brother wouldn't do that. Well a lot of questions. The only thing I'd say about that is that what's interesting for the Cuban missile crisis that both the Soviets and the Americans had similar values with regard to the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviets didn't WanNA use them either and they didn't put them in Cuba to be used. They were there to scare us. Thank you in the way back. Small Partners Group your evolution of moral views in this nation to the bone. It's find the very interesting. I was wondering if you could do that for Torture or enhanced interrogation and to place one time on a better historical context. Well I don't know all of the all of the data points I we do have evidence that waterboarding for example which we I hope we all recognize is torture that it was used in the Spanish American war the Philippine insurrection. But I'm not I don't have evidence that it actually was used afterwards by by the forces and and there's there's just rich discussion and I'm not really military story in the World War Two. I believe the United States tried to avoid using what we describe as torture on on when it interrogated people. I know having studied intelligence history that the US intelligence community didn't think the torture worked so that's not really a moral reason not to do. It was just not not effective and they learned that from the British because a lot of the American intelligence communities mores came from the British the British top United States how to engage in international espionage. And so I would. I would argue that. What happens in after nine eleven? Is that some thinking that was used to prepare? American flyers for being captured and interrogated by the Serbs was perverted into the basis for an approach to using torture against people we captured. They were preparing people for Serb torture. Techniques we then flipped it around and made it a justification for American torture. So I'm not sure this evolution at all. I think this is a remarkable weird awful story. That doesn't work. Reflect a linear progression. Just a quick footnote on that Teddy Roosevelt twos hero of mine and many others condoned waterboarding and Leonard. Wood for which we have Camp Leonard. Wood Leonard. Wood is seen as a hero today. Leonard would condone waterboarding in the Philippines and Roosevelt led him off lightly because he was a friend. So this is not entirely new. Can't Joe rose a some morality is excuse me somewhat amorphous term And possibly subjective depending on who's using it now but and there's a seems to me a clear difference between a set of criteria for evaluating actions retrospectively in terms of did they achieve some objective. Or do they operate within certain parameters and a code of ethics governing prospective actions on the part of national leaders and help which is the What is it that we're seeking to criteria for judging or a code of conduct? I think it's both I didn't in the book doesn't worry a lot about the what. I call the scaffolding about Dion Tala Jian County and ethics versus Utilitarian Ethics and Bill and and a risk ethics of characters. I bury that I want because in fact in practical terms when people make moral jobs like this little example I gave of the road accident. We do think in three dimensions. And if you think of the long traditions that have produced a very important code of conduct for the United States the uniform code of conduct that the American military has to live by. He goes all the way back to Augustine in the fourth century when they wrestled with the question of the Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill. And somebody is going to kill you. Evil Person's going to kill you if you don't defend yourself. The goodwill vanish from the Earth Neva will prevail now is the origins of the just war doctrine and the just war doctrine evolved over time with all three of these dimensions. Incense my three dimensions is is coughed or crib from the just war tradition but essentially you have to have just 'cause you have to have moral beans which means discrimination between civilians and non civilians in proportionality and you have to have a good prospect of success in the consequences so we've been using this for a long time it's built into the Geneva Conventions international humanitarian law and as I said is built into the uniform code military justice by which some American military have been sent to jail for violating. So I would argue that what. I'm urging is rather a common sense morality and that we do have it. We just weren't too often only talk about things. We talk about the brilliant moral clarity at Reagan or Bush forty three had when they had the freedom agenda. That's not morality that's moralism I want people to basically take the three dimensions that's inherent in just war doctrine which has informed arc codes of conduct and apply them to other things as well and Joe when I when I write biographies as I had said when I try to get students not to project their morality on the past when I write biographies the first thing I tried to establish the moral.
"foreign policy" Discussed on CFR On the Record
"And Timothy Naphtali to discuss Joe Nice new book do Morals Matter Presidents and foreign policy from FDR to trump. My name is Meena. Bowes I'm executive dean of Public Policy and public service programs and director of the Presidential Study Center at Hofstra University. And it's my pleasure to be presiding over today's session we're going. We have much to discuss. So I will give very brief. Introductions of our distinguished speakers feels though they need no introduction. But let me just quickly. Summarize a few highlights. Professor Ni- Is University distinguished Professor Service Professor Emeritus and former dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is one of the most renowned scholars of international relations in the United States and internationally in a recent survey. He was ranked as the most influential scholar on American foreign policy and he was named a few years ago as one of the top one hundred global thinkers by the Foreign Policy Journal. Professor Ni- has served as assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Chair of the National Intelligence Council and as a deputy under secretary of state in addition to his new book. Do Morals matter. His scholarship includes the powers to lead the future of power presidential leadership and the creation of the American era and the power game a Washington novel. Sometimes fiction is a little more appealing big reality professor dies. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences the British Academy and the American Academy of Diplomacy Professor Timothy Naphtali is clinical associate professor of public service and clinical associate professor of history at New York University with a joint appointment in both the history department and the Robert F Wagner School of Public Service. He Festival Naphtali also directs. Nyu's undergraduate public policy. Major he has written extensively on national security intelligence policy international history and presidential history. His scholarship includes the prize winning. One Hell of a gamble Kennedy Sorry Khrushchev Castro and Kennedy. Nineteen fifty eight to nine hundred sixty four and Khrushchev's Cold War which one the Duke of Westminster's Metal Military Literature in two thousand seven and was one of the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. Twenty fourteen lists of the ten best books on the Cold War. Professor Naphtali was a consultant to the nine eleven commission and wrote a history of US counterterrorism policy blindspot. The secret history of American counter-terrorism most recently and pertinent to American politics. He is the CO author of a book called Impeachment in American history past and present. I guess Professor Naphtali was the founding director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and museum in Yorba Linda. California where he developed the library's exhibit on Watergate and oversaw the release of one point three million pages of presidential documents and seven hundred hours of the Nixon tapes. He is a CNN presidential historian and a consultant to on CNN series. On Richard Nixon and the Netflix series designated survivor. So we will have much to discuss about the Nixon presidency and others modern presidents from FDR sweep of the presidency from FDR TO DONALD TRUMP. Today I'd like to begin. A Joe as we spoke about by asking you to tell us a little bit about why you chose to write this survey of the fourteen presidents morals and focusing on this three tiered approach to evaluating morality in foreign policy. Well I have long argued with colleagues both in government and in academia that moral do matter but you know the conventional wisdom is that interests bake the cake and then politicians come wrong and sprinkle a little moral icing on it to make it look pretty but it's all national interest and don't worry about the rest of it and I thought you know if these people take this view it's not only a moral but it gets history raw so I look at each of the fourteen precedence nine hundred forty five and said if you took simplistic cynical view which is quite common. Would you get history right? Some cases you will but a number of you will so i. I wanted to demonstrate that the conventional wisdom was wrong tact conventional wisdom. Was I put this in the preface of the book? I told a friend of mine. I was writing a book about this and she said good. It'll be a short book but I wanted so I I tried to prove the conventional wisdom's wrong. Then I say okay if Morals Matter. How should we think about it and very often? Americans confuse moralism with morality. And if you say good things freedom agenda defending democracy whatever. Your moral. Moral CLARITY IS ARI. Fleischer said about his boss. Bush forty three. That's not morality and sometimes people take the other extreme save. It turned out all right then. It was moral or as good and dust. Don't worry about the rest of it and I said when we make moral judgments most of the time we want to look at what the intentions are voters. What were the means? And what were the consequences and my feeling was that people were taking shortcuts. When they did bring morals and I use this very simple little homely example if your daughter was taking the. Sat's tomorrow morning and friend offered driver home. Get her home early but didn't notice that the road had iced up and drove too fast and off the road and your daughter was killed. You'd say good motives not so good means inappropriate means and Harar horrible consequences. But you wouldn't say it's all moral because his intentions were good and I think you can make that case. Let's say for the invasion of Iraq. Let's posit that George W. Bush had good motives but If you look at the means we didn't have the means to democratize Iraq and what's more The consequences turned out terribly. A civil war between Sundays and Shia. Creating a situation where al Qaeda in Iraq metastasized and eventually became isis. And in the meantime there was total disregard for the papers that were produced in the State Department and CIA which warned against this. And if we were to put this through a court of law we call culpable negligence. We all have worry about unintended consequences. The question is did you do the best. You could to think through probable consequences and I don't think you would so I would say that my little simple analogy of the car. The road can be applied to foreign policy. In fact I use three dimensional approach for all fourteen residents and people may disagree with the Judgment Psych. Come up with that. That's less important than than thinking in a more sophisticated way about morals. We're now going to have more and more thinking about morals. Current president has raised that issue to front page. If you want and we've got to get over this sort of it either sounds good or it comes out right It's much more complicated. I'm trying to use this book to get people to think in a more sophisticated bay. What do we mean a Marne? What is Moral Fard Policy? Will this layered analysis of kind of motives means consequences and each one is further subdivided consequences fiduciary interests education provides for a much more nuanced analysis of of the presidents of each of the president's and Tim when we were discussing this just before the session began. We were talking about motives and how you assess a president's motives you've gone through thousands of pages of documents if we just take the Nixon Library Dixon and Bush forty three. We were just discussing. How do we how can we assess? Do you do the records? Give us evidence of a president's motive. Well the first thing I want to say is that I am not GonNa talk about a book. I haven't read now as a someone who teaches in university. I guess I could do that. But I I have to say you know. For Sake of Transparency Joan. I was My boss suspect certainly a mentor. And someone I've I've long admired so actually I look forward to the book. I did look at a little bit about it In answering this question I want to remind all of you. That are concepts of morality evolves. And that that in fact though there are standards of international rally which I hope we'll get to Just think about our countries. Our countries thinking has changed on assassination because from nineteen ninety from Pearl Harbor until the one thousand nine hundred seventy s presidents believed that they could assassinate foreign leaders and foreign military commanders even and that though they wouldn't want the world to know they didn't feel they were somehow engaging in immoral American activity but in the one thousand nine hundred seventy s when the public learned about it not only had there been changes in the way in which Americans thought about the Cold War and about foreign power But America's had never been consulted and their reaction was American presidents. Don't do this and so from Gerald Ford until George W Bush president signed an executive order that they were not not only that they would not engage in assassination but no executive officer would would engage assassination then nine eleven occurs and the public's view changes and so the assassination directive disappears and. It doesn't just disappear for Bush. Barack Obama does not reinstate it. He uses the drone program to assassinate and now our current president has used the drug program and other means of assassinating most recently assassinating a commander of a country with with which we are not at war. Currently Iran so the morality of us has a nation that a- as Americans View. It has changed. So I want you to keep in mind that one of the slippery elements of discussion about the morality of us. Foreign policy is it. It has to do with generational and moments in American history and assumptions. At that time I one of the things I try to do was students is say. Do Not Project. The morality of today your personal morality when you're assessing decisions made by previous generations. You can think about it but don't start out by saying they were wrong because think about why they made the decisions they made to go back to to Joe's triptych. What were their motives? Now you asked me how you find that out. That's really hard. It's really hard. Because until until President Nixon President owned. They're actually president. Nixon will change this until Ronald Reagan presidents owned their papers Richard Nixon would lose his papers because of Watergate because they could own their papers they could destroy papers unless they were subpoenaed or likely to be subpoenaed. WanNa get Americans? We Americans don't seem to understand this. There was no requirement that presidents had to keep their White House materials most of them in the modern era deeded them to the US government but they set up a system to weed those documents if they were assassinated sadly in office they. They're inheritors set up a system. The Kennedys for example weeded out materials. I have the revenue evidence of this weeded out materials from the Kennedy Record for for example. So we don't have a complete record for many presidents Richard Nixon because of Watergate. Some of his associates did engage in the shredding of documents. Fortunately they were inept and then the. Us government seized the Nixon record as a crime scene as if it were a crime scene. And that's why there's a special law governing Nixon's papers from.
"foreign policy" Discussed on Worldly
"Find a new purpose for it and in twenty five to thirty years american policymakers european policymakers haven't really succeeded succeeded in finding that new purpose for nato and here. I feel like the problem is nobody at least in american politics <hes> it probably even more so elsewhere is nobody really wants is to be like the foreign policy president the the wind up doing this but it's like it would be so controversial to say we are going to not have nato anymore or just say we'll. We're gonna have a ten year phase out and like a long series of meetings about creating some kind of european so you know it's not like just gone tomorrow but like this big deal we wanna make fundamental big change. That will make a lot of people upset right you. You save that like for your healthcare plan. You know i think this is one area where actually give donald trump some credit because the things that he has been willing to say not just some nato spending but on iraq and other cases. He's been willing to sort of break. The the bones of convention of what we're willing to but foreign policy the someone else is going to have to come in and sweep fix <hes> but the fact the rashly talking about these issues right now i think is is good and so he has to some extent been that force of creative destruction -struction the foreign policy debate so what i'm watching now is the the twenty twenty canada's particularly the democratic side of the aisle and how they're suggesting picking up the pieces and moving moving forward okay so well. We don't have a ton time but have you seen anything from from twenty twenty democrats that seems <hes> impressive or wildly misguided has guided. You know what a couple of put some quite detailed. Foreign policy plans sanders warren <hes> in particular pizza judge has been talking more and more but foreign policy some light kamala harris have basically been just avoiding talking about altogether but there are definitely some commonalities <hes> the all pretty much agree on getting rid of two thousand one a u._m._f. The authorization to use military force in afghanistan and against other groups the all pretty much agree on pulling back from a lot of the war on terror conflicts <hes> they don't agree a lot of other things particularly the role a trade and wither foreign policy should promote should be about domestic policy or whether it's mostly about foreign policy itself so i mean i think really it's going to end up coming down to who actually makes it sort of the final stages of process and so the the amount of in this context i think would be a sort of a token of wanting to not be as profligately invi these many. We've reverend <unk> times many like small scale military interventions where there's like some jihadist here there and wherever right that's all fallen under her this year malcolm well yes. There's there's a lot of other authorities. They can use for the stuff like train and equip and various other sort of small codes that they they can use for the stuff but the two thousand and two thousand one is sort of extraordinarily permissive and what it lets the president do in in terms of using military force abroad and so the fact. I think that a lot of democrats are saying they want. Repeal that is is a good sign because it suggests that they're saying i don't want to use military force as much or i frequently right and it was a way of sort of signalling to the military right like we are. We are telling you to like think about this in a different way and of signaling skepticism of the use of force what it can get us and if i had to characterize most of the democratic field at this point i would say that that's the key characteristic is a skepticism the system about the use of force and what it actually gets us in foreign policy all right so before. I let you go what what what else what else i've asked you. I think we've covered a lot of grand so far in the whole wide world. Okay i love it. I love it okay. Well thank you so much. Ashford research fellow in foreign defense policy at the cato institute fantastic aspect. I also want to mention there will be a weeds live on september tenth in seattle. If you live in seattle or somewhere near seattle or just anywhere in the northwestern is western part of the united states <hes> you should check it out. It's a town hall seattle..
"foreign policy" Discussed on Worldly
"Iran. I think it's really true that a lot of these people are making very bad faith arguments about we want to negotiate we want better deal and what they actually want is an excuse deva conflicts net and i mean whether it's bad faith or not on on some level right. It's it's your setting goals that are not real list right. I mean that's the that's the essence of the problem. Writing would american can hawks would like is to dictate iranian foreign policy yeah duran and you just you can't do that right and at the story. Are you asking. What's the problem with u._s. Foreign policy and if i had to pick one problem with u._s. foreign policy just one thing i would say hubris. It is the idea that we believe if that we can do more than we actually can. <hes> you know the idea that our sanctions will force <hes> iran not just to capitulate on say a point of foreign policy but to <music> convinced they're regime to quit and give up the idea that our sanctions will force russia to leave crimea. These are very unrealistic. They show a sort of an unwillingness to see that any other country has agency or the ability to decide things for self. Even things don't like them to decide right. They have agency <hes> and the viewpoint in washington. I think too often is if we just press hard enough. Countries will do what we want to talk about about. Russia actually 'cause become am. I think a difficult difficult subject for a lot of people <hes> so what what happened there from from a realist point of view over the i. I don't know let's like can we go back ten years. What's the what's. What's the saga here yeah <hes>. It's become very difficult to talk about russia. I'm russian foreign policy specialist myself and of course snow. There's domestic politics component that makes it hard to talk about <hes> but in terms of the foreign policy aspects our relationship with russia has not been good basically basically since the end of the cold war is probably worse now than a husband <hes> but a lot of that has to do with the u._s. During a period where russia was very weak <hes> sort of taking a lot of unilateral steps that russia didn't like so expanding nato is typically viewed as the classic one here <hes> but you know the intervention kossovo for example a lot of people forget. The russians were so opposed to that. The bar sales naturally landed paratroopers russian paratroopers has to try and prevent the intervention so we did a lot of these things in areas where russia was used to having a lot of influence a lot of clout we drove nato pretty much ray up to russia's russia's borders and a lot of drove a perception among the russians or foreign policy elite and political elite that <hes> there will never be a place for them. I'm in europe's security architecture that that europe is basically opposed to russia because of america and so we've set up this conflict where it didn't need to necessarily exists and i mean i remember..
"foreign policy" Discussed on Worldly
"The weeds medically c._s. Yes has a new friday series. He talks about interesting stuff with interesting people and this week was a foreign policy conversation that i thought and the rest of the world league team thought would be really good for us to spotlight and feature on the show so he's talking to 'em ashford who is a research fellow in defense and foreign policy. If the libertarian cato institute and emma is a really thoughtful well an interesting observer actually relatively rare for the beltway pundit class and so they talked about china the middle east our relationship with russia since the cold war and some bigger stuff that we often like to talk about a worldly like the notions of restraint and foreign policy realism how to understand trump is he really an isolationist elation is to some people allege anyway. It's a super cool chat and i really hope you enjoyed as much as we did. Thanks a lot. I have always loved. Caters work on defense of our policy issues things super interesting perspective that is not heard enough here in washington really glad to have you great to be here. Okay so. I like just like a super easy. Question is like what what's what's wrong with american foreign policy. This episode may go a little long if we try and cover it for a thing <hes> but you know i guess the thing that i'll start by saying what's wrong with foreign policy is not donald trump or at least. It's not only donald trump. There are a lot of sort of structural factors that are changing he'd have america fits in the world we really other countries in terms of power and politics and all of those have been changing since the under the cold war donald trump has come along and yes a lot of the things he says but foreign policy are completely nuts like no like i'm gonna buy greenland tomorrow <hes> but he's much which more symptoms than he has the actual disease u._s. Foreign policy has really been running on autopilot since the end of the cold war. We engage in a lot of these military interventions. We've really prioritized. The military over all the other tools foreign policy we sort of sanction everybody without any thought for what will actually get for it and we really started continue to act if the the power structures that we had in nineteen ninety-one when the u._s. was definitely the biggest most strongest most powerful country in the world. We act like that's gonna continue you. Forever is not at all clear that that's really the case and so i mean so so many ninety one this is the cold war ends and the united states is like top topdog like every other country is just pretty weak at that point and now you have china is much much richer much more economically powerful than it than it was at that time india others like that and then also america's cold war allies are. You're just like that was a long time ago. Yeah so you know the period or after nineteen ninety one. I think it was charles. Krauthammer coined the term unit polar moment which is the idea that that that is real estate. <hes> international relations scholars would put it that the u._s. was the the unipol the one power.
"foreign policy" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Of in this context i think would be ed sort of a token of wanting to not be as profligately involved the these many we've ever view times many like small scale military our interventions where there's like some jihadists here there and wherever right that's all fallen under this a._m. F._m. Yet there's i mean there's a lot of other authorities as they can use for this stuff like train and equip and various other sort of small codes that they can use for the stuff but the two thousand eight two thousand one eight u._m._f. Is extraordinarily permissive and what's the president doing in terms of using military force abroad and so the fact. I think that a lot of democrats are saying they want. Repeal that is is a good sign because it suggests that they're saying i don't want to use military force as much or as frequently right and it was a way of sort of signalling to the military right like we are. We are telling you to think about this in a different way and of signaling skepticism of the use of force of what it can get us and if i had to characterize most of the democratic field at this point i would say that that's the key characteristic his skepticism about the use of force what it actually gets us in foreign policy all all right so before. I let you go what what else. What else did. I've asked you back. I think we've covered a lot of ground so far the whole wide world okay i love it. I love it okay. Well thank you so much. Gotcha ashford research fellow in foreign and defense policy at the cato institute <hes> fantastic. Oh i also want to mention there will be a weeds live on september tenth hence.
"foreign policy" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"New purpose for an in twenty five to thirty years american policymakers european policymakers haven't really succeeded in finding new purpose for nato and here. I feel like the problem is nobody eddie ellison in american politics <hes> it probably even more so elsewhere is nobody really wants to be like the foreign policy president the the wind up doing this but it's like it would be so controversial to say we are going to not have nato anymore or to say well. We're going to have a ten year phase out like a long series of meetings about creating some kind of european secure. You know not like just gone tomorrow but like this is a big deal. We we wanna make fundamental big change. That will make a lot of people upset right you save that for your healthcare plan you know i i i think this is one area where actually donald trump some credit because the things that he has been willing to say not just some nato spending on iraq and other cases. He's he's been willing to sort of break. The the bounds of conventional what we're willing to say about foreign policy now someone else is gonna have to come in and sweep up and fix but the fact act rashly talking about these issues right now i think is good and so he has to some extent been that force of creative destruction in the foreign policy debate so what i'm watching now is the the twenty twenty candidates particularly the democratic side of the aisle and how they're suggesting picking up the pieces and moving forwards okay so well we we don't have a ton time the have you seen anything from from twenty twenty. Democrats led seems <hes> impressive or wildly misguided. You know a couple of them. Put some quite detailed. Foreign policy plan jon sanders warren <hes> in particular pizza judge has been talking more and more but foreign policy some cameras have basically been just avoiding talking about cold weather but there are definitely some commonalities <hes> the all pretty much agree on getting rid of the two thousand one u._m._f. The authorization to use military force in afghanistan and against other terror groups the all pretty much agree on pulling back from the war on terror conflicts <hes> they don't agree a a lot of other things particularly the role a trade <hes> and wither foreign policy should promote should be about domestic policy where mostly be about foreign policy itself so i mean i think really it's going to end up coming down to who actually makes it sort of the final stages of s process and so the amount.
"foreign policy" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"So i can read the slippery slope thing all the time in the iran iran discourse that we have but i mean i like the classic iran thing will be somebody from the more hawkish side will say <hes> is totally unacceptable aw for the iranians to do x._y._z. a._b._c._d. And that's why we can't have any kind of agreement with them and also we need to not let them by an airplane parts and then somebody else is going to be the guy you're trying to start a war and they're like what no war. We're just talking about airplane parts here. The problem is is that if you start saying like we're going to use used coercion and were absolutely determined than like ultimately you have to do something yeah. I think the iran situation has been really instructive. <hes> if if you're worried about sort of people that are very uber hawkish about these things iran is actually a case where they have got their way at every step of this <hes> <hes> issue under the trump administration we withdrew from the j._c._p. Away on maximum sanctions we forced other countries to adhere to them that we're stepping military presence in the region and if you look the rhetoric of what those people are saying what people say the foundation for defense democracies are saying <hes> the rhetoric changes from well this will force around come to the negotiating hitting table this will force them to pitch late to while the fact that they're standing up to us. You know we can't take that. We're going to have to be stronger about it and then eventually you get down to the maybe it's about military options and so even i think a lot of these arguments upfront are sometimes made in bad faith and that's the thing i don't attribute to a lot of people but <hes> in in the context of iran. I think it's really true that a lot of these people are making very bad faith arguments about we want to negotiate we want better deal and what they actually want as an excuse skew stuff a conflict instead and i mean whether it's bad faith or not on on some level right. It's you're setting goals that are not realistic. I it right. I mean that's that's the essence of the problem. Righty would american hawks would like is to dictate iranian foreign policy yeah duran and like you just you can't do that right and at the start you asked me now. What's the problem with u._s. Foreign policy and if i had to pick one problem with u._s. foreign policy just one thing i've hubris it is the idea that we believe that we can do more than we actually can. <hes> you know the idea that are sanctions will force <hes> iran not just to capitulate on the point of foreign policy but to convince their regime to quit and give up the idea that our sanctions sanctions were forced russia to leave crimea..
"foreign policy" Discussed on Vox's The Weeds
"Guess the thing that it'll start by saying is what's wrong with foreign policy is not donald trump or at least. It's not only donald trump. There are a lot of sort of structural factors that are changing dinging. It fits in the world that we really do other countries in terms of power politics. <hes> all of those have been changing since the end of the cold war. Donald trump has come along and yes a lot of the things he says but foreign policy are completely not slake no like i'm going to buy greenland tomorrow <hes> but he's much more symptom than the the actual disease u._s. Foreign policy has really been running on autopilot since the end of the cold war. We engage in a lot of these military interventions. We've really prioritized. Use the military over all all the other tools of foreign policy we sort of sanction everybody without any thought for what will actually get for it and we really started continue to act as if the power structures that we had in nineteen ninety-one when the u._s. was definitely the biggest most strongest most powerful country in the world. We act like that's gonna continue forever is it's not clear that that's really the case and so i mean so so many ninety one this is the cold war ends <hes> and the united states is like top dot like every other country is just pretty weak at that point and now you have you know china is much much richer much more economically powerful than it than it was at that time india others like that and then also america's cold war allies are just like that was a long time ago right yeah so you know the period or after nineteen ninety-one i think charles krauthammer coined the term the unit polar moment which is the idea that that is released star international relations scholars would put the was the unipol the one power in the system that can dominate all the others <hes> and that looks very different today. China is rising even if it's not more powerful or richer than the u._s. It may be at some point in the next twenty or thirty years. European states some some of our allies countries like germany. They're rising at least economically if not militarily and then we have a lot of these other states like russia which is really a declining power but it is at the very he's trying to challenge some things that the u._s. has been pushing since the end of the cold war so we continue to pursue the same policies we have been but the world looks different different so that i hear from a lot of people from farm policy ball is that trump is like is an isolationist that he has abandoned bandon our alliances and our global leadership. I thought there was like a piece in slate the other day <hes> this morning i think typical of this is like says says japan and south korea are in some fight with each other and this is what happens when america doesn't do its responsibilities yeah so the people can sing with since back in the campaign about trump that he's an isolationist or perhaps worse you know that he is a realist or he's restrain her on foreign policy which returns fairly specific meaning <hes>. It's not really true so trump says the occasional thing that does fit into that malt so for example. He is trying to get us troops out out of afghanistan not clear if he's actually going to do it but the attempt to do it would fit in that mold some extent during the campaign he said hey. We're not going to fight anymore. Stupid wars like iraq that would fit in that mold but people always forget the second part of it which is that he says the exact opposite whenever he feels like it so we're going to go out there and we're going to smash isis smash anyone that disagrees with us. We're going to wage a trade war with china. We're going to just engage in a lot of sanctions against. I <hes> countries like venezuela. Were going to withdraw from the j._c._p. Away none of these are things that realistic restraint and again. I really hesitate to use that word isolationist..
"foreign policy" Discussed on Pod Save the World
"One other news of the week thing. I want to ask you about. They were reports this week that major league baseball in the Cuban baseball federation struck a deal to let Cuban players. Join the major league organizations that affecting you worked on this probably specific deal. You works only worked on the Cuba negotiations. Like, what does that mean? And why is it important? Yeah. This is a total like passion project of mine because I like baseball, and I like Yuba so the pure problem. The problem is the only way under because of the us embargo and just because of the the frosty relations in the us and Cuba. The only way that Cuban players used to be able to get into major league baseball is to defect. Now, you know, the most famous cases of that are like, you know, if people in the US, and they like jumped a fence and ran but a lot of Cuban players get trafficked to other countries. Right. So they end up paying smugglers to go to Mexico, and there there's. Horror stories and major league baseball told me some of these horror stories, that's why they were interested of essentially, people forgoing all their travel documents and giving away all their life. Savings to be smuggled some place to be stranded there, and you know, it was a great source of danger to Cuban baseball players. And also if they came to the US, they kind of had to cut ties to their their families are still there. And and so is really difficult situation. Where you have these great baseball players in Cuba. And yet you have this kind of humanitarian risk associated with them trying to play baseball in the United States. So we started to we tried to remove all the policy impediments to Cuban players being able to sign them into the baseball. So for instance, we changed the regulations so that Cubans could take back their whole salary that they made in the US to Cuba. Right. It used to be that there were limits on that. And the embargo made it difficult for someone ironically for Cubans, actually. Do well and make money the United States and be able to take that money back to Cuba. So that was a regulatory change we made in part with an eye towards having it be possible for Cuban athletes to to go back to Cuba. Then the Cubans had to figure out a formula with major league baseball where in other countries, keep players go to play in Japan, and they just have to pay a portion of their salary to the government, and they can't do that in the in the US, obviously because of the embargo so the any any contributions acute employers wanna make back in Cuba have to be to Cuban baseball and disappoint like programs through young Cuban kids playing baseball the Cubans very much wanted it to be. So that if you play an MLB, you can still plan the Cuban national team, and we'll baseball competitions. And then there was his final question of like how many Cubans can be drafted in a year because Cubans Zona lose everybody in their league. So all this stuff had to be negotiated with the bottom line is baseball should be selling the brings people together Americans like baseball and Cubans like baseball. It should also be the case that if a Cuban player wants to play an MLB he shouldn't have to risk his life to do. So you shouldn't have to say goodbye to his family forever. And so we were trying to remove all these obstacles for MLB. And and it's great news that they got this done. I hope at some point there'd be a MLB teaming Vanna, it'd be solely awesome. Right. Yeah. That's really cool. Well, I'm glad I got this done. Let's hope that Trump and idiots like Marco Rubio complaining about it. Yeah. It's rubio. Like this guy says he wants to help keep them people in like all the protas. He embraces a while the popular in Cuba and fuck over the Cuban people, right? Like who incubus for not letting their players like play on the biggest stage like who who is Marco Rubio sending out for other than his his own hardline political interests in south puncture gives them enormous pride grace you've been baseball league in assessment as and has the season..
"foreign policy" Discussed on Pod Save the World
"Welcome back to Pat, save the world. This is Tommy Vitor great to be back here in the with you all I got to part show coming your way. I Ben Rhodes, and I talk about what's been a pretty wild week in foreign policy news. We had the the legacy on foreign policy of George H W Bush the good the bad and the ugly. We had a g twenty where you saw the Saudi leadership isolated. He saw the US isolated. You saw a maybe maybe not agreement to end the trade war with China. And then we talked about Democrats and foreign policy, and what they should be talking about in twenty twenty which leads into my next conversation with Kelly magazine, you heard from her before she is a brilliant foreign policy thinker and writer the center for American progress. We talked about Elizabeth Warren's big foreign policy speech last week and more broadly. What Democrats should be saying out on the trail. So it is a great show. I think you'll enjoy it. And here's the conversation with that. Ben Rhodes is back back in studio in studio not in a hotel, and he's been. Although I must have been kind of poignant nice seeing Jim Bakker of all this emotional turmoil with George W Bush passing with Jim Baker was Bush's secretary of state chief-of-staff best friend, basically from the days in Texas. So is passing was probably very tough on them. Yeah. It's interesting. We when I got there. I saw Bama and he had just seen George H W Bush. Oh, really? So he is like, yeah. I got into town and went right to visit the guy and. Yeah. So you've got to say basically goodbye to him. The always let you know. George Bush was always very nice to not many Republicans were no. They were you know, he was always very gracious to him. And so is it was a fortuitous opportunity for him to drop by and say goodbye central. Yeah. Well, that's a perfect segue to the first thing I want to ask you because I think it's fair to say that George H W Bush was the most experienced person whoever took the office of the presidency. He ran the CIA is using Basser to the UN us are on. Void China is the vice president. Yeah, he's a member of congress, though, that, you know, the men more back, then I guess. Yeah. So you know, he gets credit for managing the fall of the Soviet Union. The unification of Germany for driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait's you work for Baker. James Baker former secretary of state liquor saying we've both heard Obama talk about how much he liked George H W Bush and was impressed by his leadership. Specifically the way he led the national security team and his foreign policy. What did you make of his record generally? Well, you know, if you asked Obama which recent president. He admired the most in terms of their foreign policy. He would always say, George, H W Bush. You know, I think basically anybody post John F Kennedy. Right. That's what Obama would say. You know? I think if you look at the way in which he led number one, he always put alliances and international institutions at the center of what he did. Which is almost a stunning thing to say, given how much son did not do that give Trump scorns lines. But essentially, you know, even when you pursued the Gulf war, he made sure that that was a UN Security Council sanctioned effort, he built this coalition with dozens of countries his approach to the end of the Cold War was one that was very much focused on how do you strengthen international institutions like the United Nations and NATO. He was pretty aggressive in pursuing is really Palestinian peace convening the Madrid conference. It helped lead to peace deal between Israel and Jordan. So multi-lateralism alliances. Is were the center of his approach to the world. He also didn't kind of beat his chest, and gloat, you know, this kind of Republican approach to foreign policy that makes it kind of this. You know, you humiliate other countries binary, he didn't spike the football on the Cold War. You know, he he understood that it would be destabilizing. Centrally if he was trying to grind the Russians nose into the ground. So the soft landing was not, you know, preordained, and as I've heard a bomb say many times, some of the best things you do as president or the outcomes that don't happen..
"foreign policy" Discussed on Pod Save the World
"Welcome back to Pat, save the world. This is TamI tour great to be back here in the with you all I got to part show coming your way. I Ben Rhodes, and I talk about what's been a pretty wild week in foreign policy news. We had the the legacy on foreign policy of George H W Bush the good the bad and the ugly. We had a g twenty where you saw the Saudi leadership isolated. He saw the US isolated use. A maybe maybe not agreement to end the trade war with China. And then we talked about Democrats and foreign policy, and what they should be talking about in twenty twenty which leads into my next conversation with Kelly magazine, you guys have heard from her before she is a brilliant foreign policy thinker and writer the center for American progress. We talked about Elizabeth Warren's big foreign policy speech last week and more broadly. What Democrats should be saying out on the trail. So it is a great show. I think you'll enjoy it. And here's the conversation with that. Ben Rhodes is back back in studio in studio not in a hotel, and he's been although you know, must have been kind of poignant nice seeing Jim Baker. Of all this emotional turmoil with with George H W Bush passing. Well, Jim Baker was Bush's secretary of state chief-of-staff best friend, basically from the days in Texas. So is passing was probably very tough on his interesting. We when I got there. I saw Bama, and he had just seen George H W Bush, really? So he is like, yeah. I got into town and went right to visit the guy and. Yeah. So you've got to say basically good bye to him. The always let you George. Bush was always very nice to not many Republicans were no. They were you know, he was always very gracious to him. And so it was a fortuitous opportunity for him to drop by and say goodbye central. Yeah. Well, that's a perfect segue to the first thing I wanted to ask you because I think it's fair to say that George H W Bush was the most experienced person whoever took the office of the presidency. He ran the CIA is using Basser to the UN us envoy to China is the vice president. Yeah, he's a member of congress, though, that, you know, the men more back, then I guess. Yeah. So you know, he gets credit for managing the fall of the Soviet Union. The unification of Germany for driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait's you worked for Baker James Baker former secretary of state liquor saying we've both heard Obama talk about how much he liked George H W Bush was impressed by his leadership. Specifically the way he led the national security team and his foreign policy. What did you make of his record generally? Well, you know, if you asked Obama which recent president. He admired the most in terms of their farm policy. He would always say, George, H W Bush. I think basically anybody post John F Kennedy. Right. That's what Obama would say. You know? I think if you look at the way in which he led number one, he always put alliances and international institutions at the center of what he did. Which is almost a stunning thing to say, given how much as son did not do that give Trump scorns lines. But essentially, you know, even when you pursued the Gulf war, he made sure that that was UN's Security Council sanctioned effort, he built this coalition with dozens of countries his approach to the end of the Cold War was one that was very much focused on how do you strengthen international institutions like the United Nations and NATO. He was pretty aggressive in pursuing is really Palestinian peace convening the Madrid conference. It helped lead to peace deal between Israel and Jordan. So multi-lateralism alliances. Is were the center of his approach to the world. He also didn't kind of beat his chest, and gloat know, this kind of Republican approach to foreign policy that makes it kind of this. You know, you humiliate other countries and binary he didn't spike the football and the Cold War. You know, he he understood that it would be destabilizing sensually if he was trying to grind the Russians nose into the ground. So the soft landing was not, you know, preordained, and as I've heard many times some of the best things you do as president or the outcomes that don't happen..
"foreign policy" Discussed on The Global Politico
"I certainly thought that it was hard when in foreign policy you spent so much i'm thinking about other countries that you can forget that like the most important thing is our own country in other words we are scrambling the last year to kind of protect and build upon and burnish you'll get the paris agreement in force get other countries to coming to paris it we can't think as foreign policy makers about like how do we keep our own country in paris and and it it it it was a lesson the election was a reminder that there is no more important element of our foreign policy than who we are at home and i don't know what that means we could have done differently in retrospect but it it does it does suggested you know i often be seen it was i i was kind of our bid on the political side of things too in so people would say well you know the is that is that bad you know someone should be wholly pure and foreign policy but the reality is that if you don't have your your politics rush a foreign policy legacies not to be protected because you need to win elections in so so again i think that what we're all being reminded is whether you're foreign policy practitioner of similar care is about issues around the world that all begins with like we are at home and how we organize our cells politically how we organize our communities and who we elect its leaders because you can have all the best ideas in the world the generated near the university or thinktank but but without the right people making decisions that's not going to matter in in the exchange the ben and i have in the film over the general assembly speech yes i want to get to that that really is is is is pretty interesting now in light of what has happened because the essence of our argument in which president obama was in as well on dense side of the argument and so this the prevailing side of the argument alas but was you know to to sort of address the skeptics of globalization you know the people but also.
"foreign policy" Discussed on The Global Politico
"Thrown into uncertainty as well because we don't know the ending uh you would think you know the end because obama left office but in fact we don't the story of your foreign policy accomplishments is still very much up in the air so i your leader uh you know how much do you feel like that picture is being filled in uh you know obviously some of the things trump said he would attack on the campaign trail he has uh he's withdrawn from so that we don't exactly know what the longterm consequences withdrawn from tpp uh he certainly not active on on any of the issues that that you really spent your time on at the at the united nations how do you each feel about where obama's record is right now you know it's interesting at say two things one is you're what trump has done is in some ways not surprising you know he's partially roll back uber has pulled out of paris he's threatened to kill the around your but not done it but what's been what's been worse to watch i think is like underneath that you're the hollowing out of the state department the defunding of all the types of programmes is somme that i fought to get money for the end to help peacekeeping or to help promote education around the world the kind of unseen elements of american foreign policy that underpin the liberal international order that's where the year has been much worse than i than i imagined nine tests pitted him kind of taking aim at some of our legacy accomplishments but it's more this this disavowal of an entire approach to the world that it's not just obama it's fairly bipartisan over over the decades what i like about the fifth home is.