At today's Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questioned Secretary of State Antony Blinken about policies relating to China and the Russia-Ukraine war.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 remains insufficient.
00:01 - Senator Paul.
00:03 - Secretary Blinken, on your recent trip to China,
00:07 news reports came back and said that you reserved
00:10 your strongest language for China
00:12 and its dealings with Russia,
00:14 castigating Beijing for allowing the war
00:17 to continue in Ukraine.
00:19 The report went on to describe the exchange
00:21 as such a blatant dressing down in the Chinese capital.
00:25 Do you think publicly scolding China
00:27 will make it more or less likely
00:30 that they continue selling dual use parts to Russia?
00:34 - Senator, we've tried it both ways.
00:37 We've had these conversations with China
00:38 from some time in private, hoping to see a change.
00:42 We haven't seen that, and it's important.
00:44 - I would argue that we've only tried it one way.
00:47 We've got the stick and almost the majority
00:49 of people who work for you, everybody wants to use a stick.
00:52 Nobody's really considering that there is a carrot.
00:55 So really, for the last, let's say, five years or more,
00:59 your administration and the previous administration,
01:00 not a lot different, really,
01:02 that you put impediments to trade, you add sanctions,
01:06 and then you scold them.
01:07 And I mean, there is a school of philosophy
01:09 or a school of diplomacy that believes
01:11 that public scolding, particularly in another country,
01:14 can have the opposite effects,
01:15 that actually you've either completely given up on this,
01:18 nothing's working, so why don't we just
01:19 read 'em the right act, and that's kind of what it looked like.
01:22 Yellen was also there recently,
01:24 and she described and told the Chinese government
01:28 how it should run its economy,
01:29 what sectors of its economy that they should
01:31 or should not subsidize, and told them as well
01:36 who they can get business with,
01:38 and then she threatened to impose sanctions.
01:40 More or less likely to actually get them to do.
01:43 I mean, I think it's a misunderstanding
01:45 of diplomacy in general to think that
01:48 you going and scolding the Chinese,
01:49 Yellen going and scolding the Chinese,
01:51 that somehow they're gonna let go,
01:53 oh my goodness, we've been wrong all along,
01:55 and because they've yelled at us
01:57 and treated us like school children,
01:59 we're now going to change.
02:00 I would think that the opposite might be true,
02:02 that there might be a certain amount of child psychology
02:04 to criticizing people, and that like a rebellious teenager,
02:07 they actually might end up doing more.
02:09 In addition to threat of sanctions,
02:11 in addition to the scolding,
02:13 we now have the administration talking about more tariffs.
02:18 So in June of 2019, then-presidential candidate
02:21 Joe Biden tweeted, "Trump doesn't get the basics.
02:24 "He thinks his tariffs are being paid for by China.
02:27 "Any freshman econ student would tell you
02:30 "that the American people are paying his tariffs."
02:33 Remarkably accurate and true at that time,
02:35 but now he's become jumping on the Trump train.
02:38 But the thing about tariffs, regardless of who pays them,
02:42 American consumers will pay for these.
02:44 Tariffs are not good for the economic well-being
02:47 of all Americans in general.
02:49 But the question would become, when you add tariffs,
02:52 you're gonna threaten sanctions, you're gonna scold them,
02:54 now you're gonna add tariffs.
02:56 More or less likely that they'll do what you want.
02:59 I think less likely.
03:00 Everything we're doing,
03:02 everything the previous administration did,
03:04 as well as this administration,
03:06 is heading towards less tradement, disengagement from China.
03:10 Part of diplomacy might be offering,
03:12 well, I tell you what,
03:13 what if you quit selling the dual-use parts to Russia?
03:16 Maybe we could consider removing some sanctions
03:19 on trade and actually trade more with you.
03:22 So the threat of sanctions, the threat of tariffs,
03:24 actually have some effects if you're willing to remove them.
03:27 The history of sanctions is more, more, more,
03:30 and then you're not doing enough,
03:32 and people on the right here will say,
03:33 "You gotta do even more,
03:34 "we're gonna pass legislative sanctions."
03:36 Nobody talks about removing them.
03:37 But that's the only way you'd get behavior to change.
03:40 And so I really think that it's a fundamental
03:43 misunderstanding sort of of what's going on.
03:46 The final point I would like to make,
03:47 and I'll let you respond to this,
03:49 is the Ukrainians still claim that victory
03:53 includes the reclamation of all of its territory.
03:56 Many NATO allies are beginning to question this.
03:59 Czech President Peter Pavel,
04:02 who once served as the chairman
04:03 of NATO's military committee,
04:05 recently stated that he believes it's naive
04:07 to think that Ukraine will be able to regain
04:10 the occupied territories from Russia.
04:12 The commander-in-general of the Ukrainian army,
04:15 until he was fired by Zelensky,
04:16 had the same sort of comments.
04:18 I think that it's not an unreasonable thing
04:20 to believe that this war may well end in stalemate
04:23 with people in place,
04:25 some say similar to the way Korea was.
04:27 Nobody likes it, nobody wanted it,
04:28 nobody agrees the Russians should be there,
04:30 but they're there, and they have a bigger army
04:32 and more might than their neighbor.
04:34 So if President Pavel is correct in his assessment
04:37 that Ukraine's war aims are naive,
04:39 one of the few negotiating items Ukraine possesses
04:43 is a promise to remain a neutral country,
04:45 not aligned militarily,
04:47 yet you have repeatedly ruled out Ukraine
04:49 remaining outside of NATO.
04:51 If you take this off the table,
04:53 you're taking off one of the things
04:55 that actually is a negotiating item.
04:57 My question to you is,
04:59 are there any circumstances under which
05:01 neutrality of Ukraine would be a negotiating item?
05:05 - Thank you, Senator.
05:08 Let me try to respond to both questions.
05:11 First, if you want to look at hectoring or haranguing,
05:15 I would invite you to look at the website
05:17 of the Chinese foreign ministry on a daily basis
05:20 in terms of what they say about us.
05:21 Second, I'm not going to apologize to anyone
05:24 for standing up for American workers and American companies
05:27 because here's what we're dealing with.
05:29 And by the way, of course, you're right, we always try,
05:32 and as a diplomat, I always try
05:34 to engage our partners or adversaries diplomatically,
05:37 quietly, to see if we can get the result.
05:39 If we don't, then we have to use every means
05:42 at our disposal, including calling them out.
05:44 - Let me, if I may, please address the question.
05:46 So on this, what we've seen and what we're seeing now,
05:50 and this goes to the tariff question,
05:52 is China very deliberately using overcapacity
05:56 in critical sectors to export its way
06:00 out of its current economic troubles
06:02 and to do that in a way that undercuts
06:05 and indeed could gut our own workers and industries.
06:07 - All of that is true, but my question to you is,
06:09 is there an offer ever that you would undo things
06:12 in exchange for behavior?
06:14 - Of course, and that goes--
06:14 - So you wanna argue tariffs are good and sanctions are good.
06:18 The offer would have to be to say to the government,
06:20 quietly or otherwise, that we would be willing
06:23 to go in the opposite direction.
06:24 - Of course.
06:25 - There's no public, I hear no public discussion,
06:27 not from Congress and not from anyone in the administration.
06:30 - Senator, the--
06:31 - We would undo this if this.
06:33 - Senator, on their own terms, it's clear
06:37 that if the conduct that we object to
06:40 and that risks terrible damage to our workers,
06:43 to our communities, to our companies,
06:45 if they change that conduct, of course, no more tariffs.
06:47 - Did you specifically discuss not having tariffs
06:49 or undoing sanctions in exchange for the Chinese
06:52 to quit selling dual-use parts to Russia?
06:55 - In the context, sure, if their companies don't engage
06:59 in that practice, we're not gonna sanction them.
07:00 - I didn't hear any public statements of that.
07:02 Did you make private statements to President Xi
07:04 that you would undo trade sanctions and not put on tariffs
07:07 in exchange for better behavior towards Russia?
07:09 - By definition, if they don't engage in the conduct
07:11 that we object to, then we're not gonna be using
07:15 those tariffs or using those sanctions.
07:17 - But this sounds like me drawing this out of you
07:19 doesn't sound to me like this is the kind of diplomacy
07:22 that's occurring.
07:23 If you want it to occur, you have to have
07:24 a little different conception of you've got the stick.
07:28 The whole problem with diplomacy in this country,
07:30 not just your administration, but the previous is,
07:33 all you see is the stick, all you see is more sanctions,
07:36 and if I ask you to tell me what has China done
07:38 to change its behavior based on your sanctions,
07:41 to change their behavior for the better,
07:43 I would say you can't come up with anything China's doing.
07:46 Everything seems to be the wrong direction.
07:47 That's your interpretation.
07:48 Everything's the wrong direction.
07:49 - No, we've actually seen--
07:50 - So the sanctions really are not having a value
07:52 unless you want to negotiate removing sanctions
07:55 to get better behavior.
07:56 - Senator Van Hollen.
07:57 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.