Skip to main content

Nikki Haley
  Senator Rubio and Ambassador Haley Discuss Trump Administration Foreign...  CSPAN  June 22, 2017 12:20pm-12:57pm EDT

12:20 pm
the current administration condemning what the russians did and warning them not to do it again. so if you're a member of the russian government or some other government, you factor that into your calculations as to whether we should do that in 2018, 2020 or beyond. and that is the problem that we must address, and i'm worried that we're not addressing it because we're so preoccupied with the daily tweets and who did what and when and how soon and could you have done it differently? >> i want to open this up to the panel, but before we do, let's read that third tweet and the reason is that part of what you just said is that the administration is sending the wrong message and when the president issues tweets, that is the administration's message. of course there's this vicious cycle where the media follows the tweets, and i would like to look forward not backward. the next tweet was why did the
12:21 pm
democratic national committee turn down the dhs offer to protect against hacks. >> there's a tremendous amount of interest in our foreign policy and our national security and the u.s.'s role in the world. so i kind of wanted to begin by just asking you in general, i mean to go from a chief executive from a state which admittedly in the confirmation hearings that you told everybody that you had not had extensive foreign policy experience, but my argument in your favor always was she's very good when she focuses in on an issue and the ability to lead a state and those leadership qualities transfer and certainly in the months leading up to that, you just really dove into the details of foreign policy and i think it's been demonstrated in the first few months you've been there already. so what has it been like for you to be the u.n. ambassador? >> i didn't really have any thoughts about what the u.n. would where like, so i went in
12:22 pm
very open minded and i went in knowing that i had made a promise to the people and to those that approved me that i needed to show value in the u.n. and that we needed to show how the u.n. could be helpful and we also needed to see how we needed to change the u.n. the nice thing is when we got there, we had a lot to say, and i'm loud, i'm good at that, so we made a point just to tell what the u.s. was for and what the u.s. was against and take away any gray areas there may have been. then we talked about reform, and i think in the minds of everybody there they thought the u.s. was going to lead the u.n. and they were going to cut all the funding and all this was going to go away. what i tried to do was to change the conversation and say, look, our intent is not to leave, but help me show value in this place and help me show that it matters and help me do it by cutting the fat and making it more effective. and amazingly, we have so much more support.
12:23 pm
we're moving through budget negotiations now. they're working with us on the budget negotiations, they see that we're well intentioned, that we're not cutting just to cut, but we're being thoughtful about our cutting. the surprise of the u.n., most countries do send the best and brightest to the u.n. and that person has the ear of their president. you can totally make the u.n. work for you if you negotiate, have conversations, push the narrative, it can happen. >> i don't think this is a mystery, going in after the election, the president's views on foreign policy and his views on the value of multinational institutions was an open question. do you think that that sort of uncertainty going in gave us an advantage? in essence, did going in give
12:24 pm
the notion that people weren't clear yesterday the way that the u.s. was going to head, did that give you leverage for that argument? >> it totally gave us leverage. because of that they were very attentiv attentive. what they knew is they couldn't take the u.s. for granted anymore. in some ways they were focused on budget. but if you talk about syria and the chemical weapons usage by assad, the idea that we said you can't do this and the president followed it with strikes, really showed them we're moving things. and the comments i got from ambassadors in so ma s from are countries that it's good to see the u.s. leading again. >> why should we be contributing all this money to all these forums where these very small countries can block agenda or
12:25 pm
that major security -- how would you in the most concise way explain to people what the value is of the u.n. and or what an effective u.n. looks like in the 21st century and what can we do to move it in that direction? >> i don't think we can move it in that direction. there is bureaucracy, so from that standpoint we can cut 69 but you've got peacekeeping missions around the world that are intended to protect people on the ground. and what they have done, whenever there's a challenge, they just threw more troops at it. the problem is if the troops aren't trained and they don't have enough equipment, they -- if we can bring stability to an area, that's going to matter. >> tell us about the work you've been doing to try to reform that process? >> the main thing with the
12:26 pm
peacekeeping, what we said was, first of all, let's go back and look, what's the solution of the area, we have to look at the politics of the area, then we have to look at, what was the original intent. and then from there, go and say, is it effective? and that's how we have maneuvered and many a lot of cases, we have been able to cut a lot of the problem areas, but the other thing we have done, we're holding the troops accountable now, in a lot of areas, if the troops were there, terrorists were coming in and the troops were running away, they weren't protecting people on the ground. and in the congo, you have all these rapes of children happening by the troops and one of the things we said is that you've got to hold those troop contributing countries accountable. and we made an -- we just basically said you can't have this happen. and those congolise troops have
12:27 pm
been removed. >> can you say that's one area where that's actually working? >> with all the renewals we have done, which is four or five, they're all going to start to work. the ones that are difficult, south sudan, congo, those are the ones that you are concerned, that you almost wonder, how are we going to fix this? >> one of the human rights council. the constant singling out of israel, when you have countries like venezuela and saudi arabia and other habitual violatorins human rights, how does that question the legitimacy of serial violators of the rights of its own people. >> the united states has always cared about human rights, we don't see human rights as a
12:28 pm
fluff issue, we see human rights that the generally is related to peace and security. when you go back in time, the worst conflicts came from governments not taking care of their people. so human rights has to -- i went to geneva and talked to the members of the human rights council and basically said, look, the united states doesn't want to leave the human rights council. but you got to give us a reason to stay. because with venezuela which is a perfect example, and it's so much worse than you see on tv. i tried to call a security council meeting on venezuela, my colleagues weren't happy about that and didn't want to do it because they said it was a peace and security issue. they all said this has to be heard on the human rights council. why hasn't it been heard on the
12:29 pm
human rights council? because the human rights council including china, and otherings. they have no -- so, you know, what we left, the message was something's got to change. either we're going to do it here or we're going to go do it somewhere else. >> do you think there's enough members on the council that would allow the u.s. to continue to be a part of it? >> they took it serious liz. and one of the items i brought up with -- with any country in the world, you go through agenda item 4, it allows you to say that there's a problem. agenda item 7 is solely for acts condemning israel. why would you do that when you have syria and north korea and all these other places and you're going to have one agenda
12:30 pm
item for israel? >> the u.n. human rights council has a specific agenda item, israel is always on the agenda? >> it's just an israel bashing item, and it's been there forever, and because it's there, they're constantly trying to use it. whereas i want the attention to be on north korea and syria. and if israel does something, just do it through agenda item 4. >> you said something earlier that i wanted to explore with you further, and that is human rights as it relates to national security. and you see human rights portrayed as a nice thing to do, sort of an emotioemotions -- eml thing to do. >> we're all concerned about and it's not getting any better. how did ill start?
12:31 pm
>> you had 13 to 15 boys that were having fun and happened to spray something against their government which happened to not be too bad. officers go and pick them up. and brutalize them, they return them bloodied and bruised to their parents. what would parents do? they got upset, they went out to the streets and started complaining about what happened. and other parents joined them. and through those situations, we're now dealing with conflict. go back to tunisia, you have a guy who has a fruit stand, and the officers continue to steal from him, abuse him, demoralize him. all of these things, that he gets to the point that he just can't take it anymore and he sets himself on fire in front of a police station. it set off the arab spring. so you have to always look at how a government treats their
12:32 pm
people. it's the reason we have to pay attention to venezuela right now. human rights is not a feel good issue, it truly is the root cause of conflict. so they have not talked about that in the security council. during my presidency in april, i made it a human rights issue that needed to be talked about a lot of countries don't agree with what we think. we don't claim to be saints, but we're always trying to get better. and i thinkitis our job to always point out the values of what we think every country should do. because it really does go to security and stability. >> let me pivot back to what we have already discussed and that is the membership of israel in the united nations. was it an issue when you got
12:33 pm
there and is anybody raising it as an issue? and what is being done to create some fairness here in comparison to some of the other places in the world, like you have discussed already, syria and the like, what's the plan and what have you done and what do you think the prospects are moving forward? >> i really didn't know that much about israel and the u.n. i didn't know that much about what the history was there. i had heard a little bit about it, but really wasn't that involved. until i saw it. all i have done is tell the truth on what i have seen. and to go and be in that hearing on the middle east, and to hear every single country not talk about the threats in the middle east, not talk about the terrorism that we're seeing, but all they did was bash israel. it was abusive and they did it in a way that you can tell it was a habit. and they have done it every month for the last ten years. think about the time we could be working on other issues.
12:34 pm
and so i just called them out on it. i said this is ridiculous, we're dealing with issues in north korea and syria and all the issues in africa and this is what you want to talk about? so i did say that things needed to change. it did show how the u.n. is changing because in the next, when we had our middle east hearing when i was president, i really focused on all the threats in the middle east and where we were going. we probably had about half go that way and the other half continue to do the israel bashing. but this past month, aboboliviad the presidency, and two other speakerings, they had two other arabs that were coming in, and i said fine, but you have to have someone else balance it out. they agreed to that. but what we saw, everyone, except for about one or two, didn't bash israel.
12:35 pm
and i said to them, i don't want you to pick a side. it's not about either being for israel or being for the palestinians. i want you to talk about what this means. and where we go from here. and do you know almost all of them talked about supporting the peace process and encouraging both sides to come together on the peace process? it was a habit. they just didn't even know they were doing it. and so a lot of that is just changing the culture at the u.n. to be more effective and to think about what they're doing. israel was kind of like the kid in the schoolyard that gets bullied all the time. the people who want to feel good about themselves go and bully. that's what they were doing to israel. >> is your sense about what happened that month a sustainable thing? do you think there's hope that that can be sustained? it sounds like what you're describing is muscle memory had built up over 10 years, this is what they did, this is what they have always done.
12:36 pm
and your challenge forced them to go back and kind of re-evaluate how they behave and how they conduct these meetings? >> i'm not asking them to change their minds, i'm just asking to be balanced about that and be fair about this and understand all the conflicts in the world. in april when i had the presidency, i didn't think it would last past my month of trying to get them to move. the idea that this month where we're in the breakfast where we're deciding the agenda, i said are we going to have another israel bashing session? the other members said why don't we make a move to support the peace process. i just couldn't believe it moved that fast. whether it's sustainable, we'll have to wait and see. i don't think that's going to stop the abusiveness there, but i think they're conscious of it now. >> a lot of people are not aware, but as our ambassador to the united nations, you also have retained, which the previous administration apparently did as well, a cabinet level standing which
12:37 pm
makes you a member of the national security council, so beyond the meetings where we see you on with that earphone and other people are talking and kind of engaged in these debates, hewhat other aspects o your job do you have that people may not see? >> we have meetings where we decide policy. i'm a policy girl. to matake this job, i wanted ito be a cabinet position, and i wanted it to be the national security council. and it helped me do my job better. when you negotiate at the u.n., if you know the direction that the country is going before others know it, you can steer the conversation. and so what i can tell you on the nsc, you've got a group that's active and strong. but there's hot spots everywhere. so we're just constantly meeting on different areas deciding where do we go from here? it's a great dynamic, it helps
12:38 pm
you do your job when you've got to interact with other countries to know exactly what the decision making process is. >> one of the placings you visited was a refugee camp, i know you shared it with the foreign relations committee, and the committee members. what gives you hope for the fig future? and is there anything there that gives you cause for concern in the long-term? >> i always go to refugee camps and also see the people outside the camp. i did it in syria and jordan and i did it in israel and goaza to see what was going on with the palestinians. first of all, the syrian people have an amazing resilience about them. they are hopeful, they are able to smile. they have seen a lot. and they have been through a lot. but through all of this, they remain hopeful. and they still truly believe they're going home. and i hope and pray that that does happen.
12:39 pm
what i saw in jordan and turkey was, the fact that both of these countries are doing amazing jobs. at taking care of syrians. you look at jordan, they have taken in a million people. but they're supplying them health care, education and a stipend, per person. so they all have this debit card, and we know how those things can be abused. but at the u.n., they use this debit card at banks, at the grocery stores, whatever, and it is eye scan, there is absolutely zero percent fraud. think about that, we should be doing that. not only that, it's a registry, so we know who they are, where they're from, who their families are. so i'm working right now to make sure that we partner with the u.n. to make sure that we have that information because that information is valuable for all of us. you leek at jordan doing that,
12:40 pm
and you leek at turkey, turkey has taken in 30,000 refugees. they're doing the same thing, health care, education, making sure they have funding, the syrians aren't looking for a handout, they're starting their own businesses, they're learning a skill, all of these things. but turkey, the turkish doct doctorindoctor ins trained the syrian doctors to take care of the syrian people. so both of these countries have changed over time. my focus was how is the u.s. going to deal with the syrian conflict because we can't deal with it like we did in year one and year seven, we need to be in regard thi regard -- forward thinking. what i did was i came away with a couple of things, jordan has to go to double pressing of schools, turkish children go in
12:41 pm
the morning and syrian children go in the afternoon. the roads are crowded, because syrians are so well skilled, they're competing for their jobs, as you look at that, syrians are very grateful, jordanians and turki isish want be helpful, but they're wondering where they go from here. they're both different, they can't be treated the same. but out of all the refugeeings i spo spoke to in and out of the camps, not one of them wanted to come to the united states. we want to go home, and their family members are there and they literally look at the mountain where syria is on the other side, and there's such a hope and an amazing motivation for them to go home. so what what i'm doing is working with the secretary general of the u.n., to shift how our funds are working with
12:42 pm
syrian crisis, so we can work to help the education efforts, and the psychological support. that's the ask that the refugees made, that they need more psychosocial support, for the kids, for the trauma, we saw women going through it, we saw children going through it. so we're getting to the heart of how do we best help the syrian people and we're finding that out. >> can someone give me an indication of how much time we have? because another great panel is coming up here. five minutes. by two? ten minutes. >> five minutes by two? >> ten minutes. >> so first of all, we talked a little bit yesterday but i think it hasn't gotten a lot of attention recently, but the situation in lebanon that we have discussed briefly has not gotten a lot of attention, you have a prime minister, whose father was killed by hezbollah
12:43 pm
years ago, but then you've got a president who was part of the coalition, who is a christian, but who is a part of a coalition created a synergy with hezbollah and hezbollah in syria and southern lebanon that has been able to develop it's own capability of developing weaponry. we haven't read a lot about it. but you're starting to get concerned. and we have seen a lot of people speak out about the inevitability of another syrian conflict of some sort and the danger that that could expand to broader lebanon because of some statements that have been made by the lebanese president. so just kind of talk to us a little bit about that situation and whether you think we have now reached a point where the international community wants to start speaking out a little bit more and how you view that as a flash point. >> so when i went to israel, i went to all the borders, looking at the u.n. missions, but also looking at the borders of
12:44 pm
possible kibconflict. and israel is surrounded by threats, and we went to gaza and looked at the threat of hamas as well. the take away that i had was the most concerning, obviously gaza, but lebanon, and it's because when we were on the border, you could see hezbollah and how they were stationing areas. you could see they were looking back, but now they started to build rockets and missiles. and they are preparing themselves and the government of lebanon is looking the other way or either feeling pressure to stay quiet. because that's not happening. now i'm moving to look at the u.n. mission there, because the u.n. troops there are not looking at hezbollah or bring g ing any attention to that. so they need to talk about if they see missiles or anything like that happening. so i'm going to look at the u.n.
12:45 pm
route, but israel has their back up, they see the movement, they see the progress hezbollah is making and they're getting ready. and it's something we should be very concerned about and we should watch it because to have conflict break out between lebanon and israel, i mean the destabilization that would do would be horrible. so i hope, what i'm trying to do is just get this on everybody's radar to say, don't think this is just another threat to israel, this is bigger than that and we have got to pay attention to that and we have got to figure out how we're going to deal with the government and how we're going to deal with hezbollah. >> we saw for many years particularly after the iraq and afghanistan wars, that the u.s. is always telling people what to do, that we're overly engaged and complaints about us. but as you walked in there, was your sense that they were looking for america's
12:46 pm
assertiveness, even if the u.n. criticized them for it. or is it that we want america to do less and we're tired of taking orders from you? what was your sense of the world's appetite, particularly our allies regarding engagement? >> it was very clear to me, they all didn't want to look like they were our best friend, but behind closed doors they wanted us to know that they were supporting everything we were doing. and so we need to figure out what are the true relationships and it has gone from, what's happened in five months is it went from what's the u.s. going to do? what are they thinking, how are they acting? to now, they still don't know what the u.s. is going to do, but that's a good thing, but taking us very seriously. and one of the best thing that this administration did was when the president made that decision on the chemical weapons, usage
12:47 pm
of assad, and acted, it stunned everyone and the amount of support we got for being a leader on that and the number of people that said it's so good to see the u.s. leading again, now they're starting to be where they're not afraid to be in a picture with us or say that they're our partners, so there's a very healthy transition taking place but it's volatile. >> so there are countries saying behind closed doors that they support you but in public -- >> i always try to remind people that, most people only get to see my fellow senators when they see them in an interview or on the floor giving a speech, and a lot of times they like what they're seeing in a speech and that's all they thouknow about . what is that dynamic like with ambassadors, even countries we
12:48 pm
don't have the best relationships with, they're real people too. is there a similar dynamic at play or are they depending on the country a lot more guarded about what the they're able to say and do? >> i think that's my job, to create the relationship and create the dynamic that we want the u.s. to have. and what i'm attempting too do is to show strength, but let them know we want a relationship, but we're not going to be pushed over, we're not going to be taken for granted. we're here, we're going to call you out if we see something wrong, we're going to praise you if you do something right. but be honest to us, we'll be honest back to you, because these ambassadors are so closy tied to their presidents, they're constantly trying to get information to figure out how they're going to move. it's an interesting dynamic, in terms of some of them. bolivia when i first got in was
12:49 pm
bashing us terribly and i met with them and said why do you hate america? and it just kind of stunned them. but when we were talking, we agreed that there were disagreements but don't go and do that. and he stopped. it's not that he doesn't say where the disagreements are. but the rhetoric has to stop because it's not healthy, it doesn't allow any good to happen if we allow that rhetoric. and so that's the culture change again that we're trying to change. >> just five minutes, that's plenty of time for this question. tell me, obviously you came from the political realm, you were a governor, before that a state legislature, we know what our schedule looks like, you've got votes, you've got issues that come out. what does the typical schedule of the u.n. look like for you and your staff on a regular basis, there are regular meetings of the security
12:50 pm
council, regular meetings of the security council, what is thatlithat li like from week to week? >> we're trying to bring order happening. these are such important situations so basically the security council is all year long typically four days a week. the permanent ones meet, uk, france, russia, china and us and the 10 elected members that rotate. >> you meet four times a week? is that always you? >> it might be my deputy ambassador as well. we pick and choose when i should participate, when she should participate but we're always negotiating what is going on at the time. so it's always a team effort in terms of how we do that. then you have to general assembly which starts in september and ends in december but the negotiations are going on all year so right now we're negotiating the budget so those committee meetings happen separately, a like like y'all
12:51 pm
have and so those continue on you have to build relationships. i've got to meet 193 ambassadors. so you're trying to make sure you're meeting them, that they know you're there, that you're not ignoring them and that they're important all while trying to do the d.c. work which i do love policies so the idea that we can go and decide how to move as a country in terms of changing the dynamics is important so the d.c./new york thing is busy but i can do video conference when i can't get here so it still works. but to say we're all the place is a good thing. we've got our hands in all of the pots that matter and now i've just got to make sure that our voice is strong and that we're being heard and that people know what we're for. >> would you say that for the vast majority of countries at the u.n., their mission to the united nations is their most important diplomatic outpost? >> they look at this as -- only
12:52 pm
senior people get these positions. this is their most trusted and senior person to send to new york. the u.n. is such a big deal for all of them. so they didn't understand the u.n. backlash but now i think they understand it's not that we don't see the u.n. as important but you can't just take our money and not let us have a voice. so i think there's a new respect for where we are but i also think that we have to respect all of these people who are there and the fact that is the person that has the president's ear. >> two quick -- have been back to south carolina? >> i have -- i took -- michael and i took the kids to spring break. for a week. >> so i guess one of the things i've been curious about is what skills and talents or abilities or experiences as governor have equipped you for this job? anything that surprised you that you said, you know, i did a lot,
12:53 pm
something like this when i was the governor, i imagine that legislature sometimes is as difficult to deal with as your fellow diplomats from time to time at the u.n. what was it about being governor that surprised you in terms of your old job and your new one. >> that was the surprising part. i have been honest that i didn't have a lot of foreign policy experience prior. when you're a gun, you run a state, it's more executive, it's balancing the agencies, making sure they're efficient and effect i have and dealing with the politics of what happens. going into foreign policy it's like studying for a final exam everyday. the idea that it's a constant learning curve is there but what is -- there's a lot of things that work and one is trusting your gut and moving with your instincts is very important. the negotiation tactics you put right up there, decision making and the idea of moving fast has
12:54 pm
to happen if we're going to have a strong presence, in the world just the ability to deal with people who aren't telling me the truth and calling them out on it is incredibly important and pow powerful in a time like this so more skills than i thought but the knowledge part -- >> so as you know we have a strong mutual friend in frank martin, the head of the south carolina men's basketball team, has he asked you to help identify international players? [ laughter ] >> no, because he knows i'm a clem seine girl. >> oh, all right. i miss the people of south carolina, a lot of people comment about the fact that i have my palmetto necklace. that's because you never forget where you come from and it's important that i was a young indian girl growing up in a town of 2500 people where they didn't know who we were, what we were and then you see this state that
12:55 pm
has blossomed and overcome so many issues and is building everything. i'll always have one eye on south carolina but the people of south carolina taught me so much and i'm proud and i use that gift. >> i'm sure you sensed this yesterday but we live in a time of tremendous political conflict but the one thing -- and i think you sensed it yesterday is a lot of my colleagues in the foreign relations committee in particular have been complimentary of your work and one particular senator said when he voted for you it was a leap of faith and you haven't disappointed. so we've -- we're grateful you're doing this. i've always been a huge fan of yours, always appreciative of our friendship but i speak for a lot of people that we're exciting about the way you use that platform. there isn't a week that there
12:56 pm
isn't some clip of you at one of these security council meetings -- >> yelling at someone? >> but making an important point and we feel like you're not just representing our country, you're representing our values we thank you for being a part of this. i encourage you to stick around. we have a great panel coming up. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. [ indistinct audio ]