Podcast: Mitt Romney on uncharted US waters, Russian malevolence, & China’s economic ambition

Transcript

Listen: Utah Senator Mitt Romney speaks with Ian Bremmer about the biggest foreign policy challenges facing the US, as well as the latest in the Congressional debt ceiling drama. On the GZERO World podcast, Romney (who was mocked by Barack Obama in a 2012 presidential debate for saying that Russia was America’s top geopolitical threat) shares his views about the risk that Russia poses today and how to handle Ukraine's wish to join NATO.

Romney voices his concern that the US should not provoke China, and doesn't think that the current or former Speaker of the House should be visiting Taiwan. He also weighs in on the "woke-ism" debate and explains why he thinks the US should ban TikTok.

TRANSCRIPT: Mitt Romney on uncharted US waters, Russian malevolence, & China’s economic ambition

Ian Bremmer:

I know some senators that have dabbled in that.

Mitt Romney:

I still do, absolutely. Pierre Delecto is not going away. Make sure that they're human beings as opposed to bots and foreign entities that are trying to influence and create anger here and resentment. I do think that parents are increasingly aware that having young people on social media has the potential of creating some real problems for the young people.

Ian Bremmer:

What's the legal obligation that a social media platform has to ensure that disinformation is not actively being promoted on their site?

Mitt Romney:

They don't have a legal obligation today.

Ian Bremmer:

No, I know that, but should they?

Mitt Romney:

Well, and the first amendment allows them to do what they feel is in their interest. Same thing with a newspaper, TV, radio. They don't have to make sure that everything said is truthful. The challenge is that, in the TV and the radio, you have editors, and if they publish something which is untruthful, they may be liable for slander. We don't have that with social media, because we don't know who's posting, and there's no particular responsibility for the social media company to make sure that there is a real human behind it, and that there's someone responsible for what's being said. There are oftentimes no editors, no fact checkers.

Ian Bremmer:

On some platforms, a lot fewer now than there were just a year ago.

Mitt Romney:

I'm afraid you're right. One of the things, I mean, as a good conservative, I was so happy to see the New York Times in trouble and some of these other publications in trouble, and now it's like, wait a second, maybe I should have rethought that the agonizing reappraisal, those entities have fact checkers, they have editors. They're subject to libel and slander laws, and that actually helps protect our discords. Social media does not have those things, and how to work them into social media is a real question we're facing. I don't have an answer to that.

Ian Bremmer:

Citizen journalists and bots driving information outcomes are not necessarily the answer.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, I think as this continues to expand, the misinformation that's available on social media, I think people will, over time, gravitate towards more responsible known sources of information. They'll say, "Okay, I'm going to go for the blue check marks." By the way, only if the blue check mark has been accurately evaluated and is determined to be a human.

Ian Bremmer:

As opposed to just anyone with eight bucks can actually get yourself a blue check mark.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

That's not a step forward in your view?

Mitt Romney:

No, that's probably a step backward because it gives the appearance of validity when it's not actually valid.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, you also brought up climate change. I want to ask you, do you think the Inflation Reduction Act, misnamed as it is, is a step forward meaningfully for the United States to transition to clean energy?

Mitt Romney:

Well, let me step back and just point out something that we all know, which is, its global climate change, not US climate change, and therefore those things which are massively expensive and disruptive in the US, but have no prospect of affecting global climate, in my opinion, are a mistake. So much of the Act includes things like subsidies for people buying electric cars in the US. You might think, "Well, that helps, except-"

Ian Bremmer:

Which Congress is going to spend a lot more money on than they thought they were going to.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, about five times as much.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Mitt Romney:

All right? It's much, much more expensive. The reality is, you can't get an electric car in many cases. You're backed up trying to get the batteries, the raw materials for the batteries almost all come from China, either the raw materials or the processing of them from Chinese companies. If magically every car in America were to disappear and we all were on bikes, global emissions of CO2 keep going up. Well, why is that? Well, because China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, as they become more developed, they're using more and more energy. Just fixing things here does not deal with the global challenge. The money being spent on things that are just US, in my opinion, are a huge waste of money.

Instead, we should take those dollars and invest in technology, new innovative technologies, which will be adopted here and adopted by other nations, because they're low cost and low emitting. Part of what's in the Inflation Reduction Act, is that kind of a technology, which is great. Small nuclear facilities, hydrogen technology, carbon capture, those have promise, some more than others, battery technologies. Those things that are just making us feel good and appealing to, if environmental lobby are things, which frankly in my opinion, turn off a lot of people on the right and create a credibility problem when it comes to the solutions that we need for climate change.

Ian Bremmer:

US has a credibility problem with a lot of people at home in the US. US also has a credibility problem with a lot of people around the world. The US is not the largest carbon emitter in the world today, that's China, but is responsible for the largest amount of carbon emitted historically, in other words, getting us to where we are today. Does that oblige, does that lead to a special responsibility for the United States to provide more resources for other countries around the world to help facilitate a transition?

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, not going to happen. What we are going to do, is look forward and say what things are in the interest of Americans and the world, and it's in our interest to see our technologies being adopted around the world, low-cost technologies. So, we will invest. We'll do the investments that the brains of America have always provided for the world. We will make those investments. We'll help get them adopted around the world. That's the contribution we'll make. But, just sending money to other nations and saying, "Oh, we're sorry, that's not in the cards."

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, I'm not talking about reparations. I'm more talking about to the extent that we have countries like India, which are going to be the largest emitter in the world. They have a nominal 2070 net zero carbon plan. The world is going to have a lot more emissions. Should the United States be helping a country like India make their obligations faster?

Mitt Romney:

Well, the best way to do that, is by helping them get off of burning animal feces, coal, wood, and using natural gas, which hopefully will come from Alaska and other places in the US, and helping them adopt nuclear technologies and other sustainable technologies. That's the best way we can help India and other nations.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay, let's move to big foreign policy issues that you and I talk about a lot. Start with 10 years ago, actually it was 11 at this point, I remember a debate that you had with Barack Obama where you said that Russia was the biggest national security threat to the United States, and Obama almost mocked that response. Do you feel like maybe he should be rethinking that these days?

Mitt Romney:

Well, my comment was that Russia was the biggest geopolitical adversary. So, not military adversary at that point, or even threat, but that they were a geopolitical adversary. No question about it. Every initiative that we had at the UN, they would block. They supported the world's worst actors, and they were fighting against us, if you will, politically, geopolitically, on every front. There's no question, but that Vladimir Putin wants to reestablish what was once the Russian Empire, the old Soviet Union, in one form or another, and that he would be belligerent in doing and malevolent in doing so, and he has been. Madeleine Albright was kind enough to see me at an event and said, "You were right, Mitt." I think there was a recognition, even in the Obama administration at that time that I was right. But in politics, you're looking for wages.

Ian Bremmer:

Did Obama ever come back to you privately like, "Yeah, I was a little -"

Mitt Romney:

Yeah. No, we haven't had that conversation.

Ian Bremmer:

Never?

Mitt Romney:

We haven't had that conversation.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, there's still time.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, exactly.

Ian Bremmer:

There's still time.

Mitt Romney:

Exactly. But look, we all recognize that Russia is a bad actor, and at the same time today, looking long term, what's the greatest threat to our national security? Probably the emergence of China as a great power. We're not an adversary militarily today, hopefully never will be. Hopefully we can get them to divert from a course of confrontation to one of competition, and maybe collaboration on some fronts, but they're not there today.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, on Russia specifically, we've just seen the United States, along with many NATO allies, now going to be providing advanced tanks to the Ukrainians. Literally 24 hours later, president Zelensky is like, "Okay, but we'd like F16s right now." What sort of limits should there be in terms of US and NATO military support for the Ukrainians? Is this a slippery slope? Is this a boiling frog? Do you worry about that or are you very aligned with what the Americans are doing right now?

Mitt Romney:

Well, before I answer that, I just want to say, I think it's extraordinarily ironic for the Russians to say, "This is an outrageous expansion and escalation." It's like, well, Russia has hundreds of tanks in Ukraine, so they don't think the Ukrainians should have any tanks to respond? It's like, come on. There are already tanks there, the Russian tanks, and the Ukrainians should have the capacity to have tanks of their own, and to respond. What's the right level? How far should we go? Should they get aircraft? What should they get? Well, I'd step back and say, first of all, how is Ukraine going to win this conflict? What is the pathway? Maybe there's some alternatives, but let's describe first what it is that we're looking to achieve, and then, how do you get there and what weapons are necessary to get there? I don't know that we've done that. I hope it's done at the State Department or the Department of Defense, but I haven't seen a strategy laid out.

Look, it's not up to us, it's up to the Ukrainians to produce that, but someone's got to lay out how we get where we want to get, as opposed to just hoping that the extraordinary resolve of the Ukrainian military and of their people, that that'll be enough. I'd like to know, okay, what are you planning on doing? What do you need to get there? Then, I can assess which weaponry is necessary in that strategy. Right now, it seems like, and I understand the Ukrainian's position, "Hey, give us everything. We want everything," but they're in an extraordinarily disadvantaged position right now, because Russia attacks them, sends in missiles, takes out infrastructure, and they can't attack back. Well, that's difficult. It would be like in a boxing match with someone and saying, "Okay, you could slug this hard you want, and I'm just going to defend." It's kind of hard to win that match.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, the Ukrainians are being invited into the European Union. There is no plan to integrate them into NATO at this point, even though they were extended candidate membership years ago. Do you think, given what we've experienced over the last year, that that position should be change

Mitt Romney:

I think we're a long way from considering whether Ukraine would be part of NATO. We hope it can remain an independent country, a sovereign country, and kick Russia out. So, let's accomplish that first. But even if we were able to be successful in doing that, if putting Ukraine into NATO were to cause another conflict and massive loss of life, I don't know that it would be worth it for Ukraine. We'd have to assess whether it's worth it for the rest of us, but we are providing extraordinary support to Ukraine. That ought to continue.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, move to China, as you say, we're not in a military confrontation with China. We are certainly in a heated economic battle with China, which have some national security implications for all sides considered. There's been a lot of focus recently on export controls, including advanced semiconductors on 5G, on Huawei, which now looks to be prepared to really ban Huawei completely from being able to do business with US, maybe with allies as well. A lot of industrial policy being developed there with some allies on board. Is that the correct focus for US policy, vis-a-vis China right now?

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, the answer is yes, in my opinion, which is, both the Trump administration that really raised the spectrum of China, I think, to the public awareness, and now the Biden administration has taken it even further. Secretary Blinken has laid out a strategy for how we're going to deal with China in broad strokes. He's described that, which I think is right. But let's just note that, the engine that fuels their ambition, is their economy. They don't play by the same rules that Western nations play by. They don't have to, it's not part of their law. So we, for instance, make it illegal to engage in predatory pricing, or we make monopolies illegal.

They don't do those things. By carrying out these kinds of predatory behaviors, they're able to take over major parts of the global economy and make a lot of money, and fuel their military. We've got to make sure that they play by the same rules the rest of us do. We haven't gotten there yet, but there's an effort to do so, and I applaud that effort and think that we and our friends around the world ought to say to China, "Play by these rules, or you're not going to have the free access to our market and to our products that you've had in the past."

Ian Bremmer:

So, reciprocity is a critical focus here. Now, on that issue, we talked a little bit about social media. Of course, US social media companies don't have access in China, not the big ones like Facebook for example, Instagram, Twitter. TikTok is the most popular social media in the United States among young people right now, they're Chinese-owned. Should that be banned because of reciprocity with Chinese?

Mitt Romney:

I think that's the kind of question that has to be addressed, and my answer would be yes, which is we have to have a reciprocal relationship. If they're going to have their products being sold here, then our products have to be sold there. With regards to TikTok-

Ian Bremmer:

I hope you've discussed this with your grandkids, by the way.

Mitt Romney:

Well, with TikTok, one of the questions is, is there the capacity of the Chinese Communist Party, to be able to spy on American citizens by using TikTok? If there is, then we have to prevent it from being used here. We have to recognize that we are in a competition with China. We want to, if you will, move them from confrontation to a fair competition. But if they're going to be engaging in benevolent tactics, why we have to shut them down.

Ian Bremmer:

Former speaker, Nancy Pelosi, made a trip to Taiwan. Biden didn't really want her to go, she went anyway. Now, we hear McCarthy's planning his own trip to Taiwan. A lot of posturing here. Are these things that you'd like to see senior members of US government engaged in, or should they actually be following the administration?

Mitt Romney:

I don't think it makes a lot of sense for provocative actions to be taken either by the former speaker or the current speaker. Look, we've shown our commitment to Taiwan. If there's a reason for a trip in terms of meeting people, let's just not do it in a way that gives, if you will, propaganda fodder to the Chinese Communist Party to take action that might not be in Taiwan or our interest. So look, I hope to be able to go to Taiwan at some point, but I don't think they'll care very much. So it's like, "Okay, fine. Romney goes over there," and there'll be others that do as well.

Ian Bremmer:

If u goes Pierre, I think it'll be fine.

Mitt Romney:

Exactly, the French are always welcome. I think we just have to be careful not to provoke at a time... By the way, where Taiwan is not as, if you will, militarily ready as we might like to see. Frankly, we're not as militarily ready as we would like to see in the Pacific. Our navy is smaller than it should be, some of our systems are not up to date. So, let's let time pass before we decide to poke an angry potential adversary.

Ian Bremmer:

So, 4-star general, just a few days ago, Mike Minihan, said that he believed that war between the US and China

Mitt Romney:

I don't know that it's insane, but I'm glad that our military makes preparations of that nature. Certainly that's not something we should go out and publish and say, "Hey, this is what we want to tell the world," but for generals to tell their soldiers, "Hey, get ready," of course, get ready, but we don't expect that to happen. I think that's extremely unlikely. It's not in our interest, it's not in China's interest, but being sure that we are militarily so strong that China would never think about testing us militarily, is the right way to proceed.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay, one more region for you. We just saw some drone strikes against Iran. It's become the friend without global limits for Russia. Perhaps Russia hoped China was going to occupy that position, they're not. But Iran, much more of a rogue state. They are fully out of the JCPOA, the nuclear deal, breakout nuclear capabilities. They are repressing the young population with enormous violence on a daily basis, and they're also increasingly coordinating ballistic missile support, drone support, with the Russians. The Russians are providing them with an air force. What can, what should be done by the United States and its allies to try to contain that threat?

Mitt Romney:

Well, one of the challenges is that we've already got crippling sanctions on Iran, and it hasn't crippled them sufficiently to keep them from building their military capacity-

Ian Bremmer:

Like North Korea's.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

They've got a lot of nukes now.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, there's only so much you can do. I was raised in a time when America went for the world. I mean, we had the power. Everybody had to bow to what we were saying had to be done. That's just not the case anymore. We can't get everything we want. In this case, we're looking at Iran and we say, "What resources do we have to make it harder for them to supply the Russians with the weapons they're using in Ukraine, and to deplete their economy?" Frankly, they are depleting their economy, as is Russia, as they're carrying out this conflict in Ukraine. It's being done, by the way, at huge cost for them.

I hope Americans recognize that we are battling two very evil forces, Iran's force to a certain degree through the supply they're providing to Russia, but Russia's force, and we're doing so without shedding any American blood. It's really quite extraordinary. It's very much in America's interest for us to stand with the people of Ukraine and to give them the support, because we're decimating the Russian military, a military which is linked from an ally standpoint with China, which is a greater long-term threat for us, and a peaceful, prosperous world is good for America.

Ian Bremmer:

But history with North Korea shows that, despite America's best efforts, at least what the US believed was best efforts, they end up going nuclear, and they end up becoming much more of a threat to their neighbors and globally. Iran appears to be on that trajectory right now. Is that where you think we eventually get as we just keep sanctioning them, but ultimately we can't really prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?

Mitt Romney:

I don't know that they'll go all the way there. I don't know what military options we will have if they decide to move in that direction and what options Israel has, for that matter. But I do believe that China has a more important role than they want to acknowledge, which is, even with regards to Russia and Ukraine, if we were to turn up the heat on China and let them know that as their close friend Russia continues to brutalize a sovereign nation Ukraine, that there'll be consequence for China as well. Not big, bold sanctions, but they're going to be a little harder for some of their products to get in, a little slower for them to get approved-

Ian Bremmer:

Say that to the Indians too? Friends of ours, but buying 33 times more oil from the Russians right now.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, well, the Chinese have a lot more sway with what Vladimir Putin is doing than do the Indians. Just having people recognize that, hey, to a certain degree, if you're aligning with people that are doing very bad things, we notice that and there will be a consequence for that. It's not military consequence, but there will be economic consequence, and you probably want to rethink that.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay, so last question for you. It appears that having classified documents in your residence is a perk if you're a president or a vice president. Are you sure that if we take a look in your house, you were not going to find any classified documents hanging around? You haven't stashed any?

Mitt Romney:

I asked my counsel to go through all of my records and they found the remains of Jimmy Hoffa. Other than that, I'm pretty clear.

Ian Bremmer:

All I can say, I suspect that your garage is larger than Biden's garage.

Mitt Romney:

I'm not sure the garage is any larger, but my cluttered files are enormous. But, I have never taken from a government facility a classified document, so I don't need to search my files. I must submit that the sloppiness, the carelessness that we've seen from this president and from the prior president, is really disturbing and does not look good on them or on our country, and is frankly of a danger to our national security.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, you heard here first, Mitt Romney is not Geraldo Rivera, and we're very glad for that. Mitt, great to see you.

Mitt Romney:

Thanks, Ian.

Ian Bremmer:

Thanks.

Mitt Romney:

Good to be with you.

Ian Bremmer:

That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of course you did. Well, why don't you check us out at gzeromedia.com, and take a moment to sign up for our newsletter. It's called, GZERO Daily.

Announcer 4:

The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, places clients needs first by providing responsive, relevant, and customized solutions. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more. GZERO World would also like to share a message from our friends at foreign policy. Something's often missing in the way we talk about the climate crisis, and that's the issue of justice and equity. On Season three of Heat of the Moment, a podcast from Foreign Policy in partnership with the Climate Investment Funds, host John D. Sutter explores the concept of a just transition, away from fossil fuels and hopefully towards a net zero future. Listen to season three of Heat of the Moment, a just transition, wherever you get your podcasts.

Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.