Senator Rand Paul:
This is one of my big beefs with the neocons, you're either Chamberlain or you're Churchill, and there is no sort of in-between ground and everything is a black and white decision. Everything is Munich.
Ian Bremmer:
Hi, I'm Ian Bremmer and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. I'm host of the weekly show, "GZERO World" on Facebook Watch. In this podcast, we share extended versions of the big interviews from that show. This week, I sit down with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, who as a US presidential candidate in 2016 is well known for his libertarian views in support of the Tea Party movement. Today. I'll ask him about global trade, US military intervention, his relationship with Donald J. Trump. Let's get to it.
Announcer:
The GZERO World 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.
Ian Bremmer:
Now, you have been interestingly supportive of the Trump-Putin summit. Something a lot of people seem to be uncomfortable with, given all the challenges that Trump has around Putin.
Senator Rand Paul:
Right.
Ian Bremmer:
Do those challenges not worry you or do you think the engagement is so important that it doesn't matter?
Senator Rand Paul:
I've seen no evidence that somehow President Trump is connected to the Russians and somehow being manipulated by Russians. No evidence of that. When I ask him about it, he says he's never talked to any of them during the campaign. He didn't have any conversation with any Russians. And I think he gets mad from a pride point of view when people are trying to point out he didn't win the election. Somehow it was illegitimate and that the Russians somehow won the election. You can see how that would make anybody who's a proud person mad. But I love seeing him down in West Virginia where he gets like 75% of the vote and he is got 30,000 people there and he says, "How many Russians do we have out there?"
Senator Rand Paul:
And I asked the same question in my state, anybody here ever talked to a Russian or been manipulated by a Russian? Most of Russia's ads that we've seen, like that were on Facebook and stuff, are written in such bad English nobody would even read them probably. They weren't really that well done. Should we try to stop Russia from participating in our elections? Yes. Should we try to prevent? But that's sort of a cybersecurity question more than a political question. And I think the whole Russia investigation has become really just a politicized thing at this point.
Ian Bremmer:
You are one of the people out there that seems to have developed one of those workable relationships and conversations ongoing with the president. Now, you look at allies around the world who seem to have a much harder time with that, heads of state.
Senator Rand Paul:
Right.
Ian Bremmer:
Do you have any advice for them on what they should be doing better, like Merkel, Angela Merkel? How might she develop a more functional relationship with the president, which she clearly does not have right now?
Senator Rand Paul:
I think people who tend to want to shade over who they are and are not direct have a more difficult time. There's also, in his discussions and particularly his pronouncements, there is a degree of bombast on occasion and nationalist pride. And I think that's done for a fact. He wants to make sure he's being heard from and that we're a big loud voice. And often, I've disagreed with it, but then sometimes I've looked back and said, well, maybe it worked. I mean, for example, on North Korea, I was worried about the rhetoric. I thought it was too bombastic and too much John Bolton, let's go to war kind of stuff. And war's a real disaster over there. Millions of people would die in a war.
Senator Rand Paul:
And I worried about that rhetoric. And then even the president sort of indicated that some of that rhetoric was to make sure he knew we were serious. And if you're using it... I guess, I think back to Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big stick. I think Trump is speak loudly, carry a big stick, but then also be willing to compromise at some point. You have to set up... And you can see this as a negotiating tool. If I want something from you, I have to either have something really good you want or I have to show some strength that there's going to be adverse repercussions.
Ian Bremmer:
I was very interested in your initial opposition to Pompeo's nomination, the secretary of state, which you shifted on after private conversations with him. What was he able to say to you that actually made you comfortable that you were going to go ahead with this? Because you were pretty decisive in that conversation?
Senator Rand Paul:
I think we've been at war too long in too many places, and I've said it over and over again. I agree with President Trump that the Iraq war was a mistake. And people say, and this is what Secretary Pompeo said to me as a nominee, he says, "Ah, it's just ancient history." And I said, the reason it's not ancient history is that it's the maybe worst policy decision we made in the last 20 or 30 years. And it is an example of similar policy decisions that may yet be made. So does regime change work? Are we greeted as liberators and is everything perfect, and the Middle East more stable since the Iraq war? I'd say all of that's wrong. I think Iran has been emboldened and the people who worry about Iran worry more now that Iraq is no longer there to counterbalance them. And Iraq is essentially more allied with Iran than us probably.
Ian Bremmer:
Definitely.
Senator Rand Paul:
And so I think that I kept asking that question to Secretary Pompeo, was Iraq war a mistake? And we never quite got there. But I also had conversations with the president as well. And I was assured by both that he did acknowledge that we had made mistakes in the Middle East and I also think I'd made my point at that point. Some people criticized me on the left and the right, everybody criticized me I think for it, for finally voting for him. But I did it mainly because of consideration of the president. And I voted for other secretaries of state that [I wasn't] particularly pleased with, John Kerry being one. And some on my side were like, well, if you can vote for John Kerry, why can't you vote for Mike Pompeo? So there's a certain amount of letting the president choose his person.
Senator Rand Paul:
But also, I think there was enough attention drawn to my part of this that I think I was able to make that statement over and over and over again that we've been at war too long in too many places. I also got Pompeo to admit in writing that there is no military solution to Afghanistan. Interestingly, the Obama administration said that in 2010, it was either before or about the same time that they sent 100,000 more troops over there. So we've been almost eight years where everybody right, left, middle is saying there's no military solution.
Ian Bremmer:
Can't win. Yeah.
Senator Rand Paul:
So Pompeo's on the right, more hawkish, wants to stay in more places. And yet, he's saying there's no military solution. It's like the next obvious question is, why are you sending more troops there? And I've asked the president that question directly. I mean, the president really says he's not for being there. He'd like to come home from Afghanistan.
Ian Bremmer:
So have they told you they're planning to wind that war down?
Senator Rand Paul:
Well, I think what I got from them is the general, which I always get when I talk to the president. When I talk to President Trump, I feel that he and I are very much on the same wavelength as far as not being for another major wars in the Middle East, for trying to look at problems we have here at home, to not spend so many resources in Afghanistan and bring them home. I'm just a little quicker to getting to the point of that. I would come home. I know there are problems if we come home, but there are problems if we stay and they're bleeding us dry over there, $50 billion a year. I think the president will come home at some point in time and I think they're probably open to allowing some negotiation. I asked Secretary Mattis this in our lunch not too long ago.
Senator Rand Paul:
I said, is there any conception of the war ending in Afghanistan without a negotiation with the Taliban? And his answer was no. Or I may have formed it the other way. Will we eventually negotiate with Taliban? Yes. It was a very simple answer. And the reason I ask it in my conference is that once again, we have some very naive neocons who believe no Afghan will end with unconditional surrender. They will all march in and then they will become a colony of the United States and do what we tell them. It's never going to end that way. And most wars don't end with unconditional surrender. And this is one of my big beefs with the neocons. You're either Chamberlain or you're Churchill, and there is no sort of in between ground and everything is a black and white decision. Everything is Munich.
Ian Bremmer:
So senator, you want to engage a lot around the world. And on North Korea, so far at least you've been giving President Trump reasonably high marks. Tell me why we should be optimistic here.
Senator Rand Paul:
I think President Trump's different than almost any president we've ever had. I think I'm safe in saying that.
Ian Bremmer:
That's a fair point.
Senator Rand Paul:
I think a lot of other presidents in the past have maybe over-litigated things. If you want to get to a conclusion, denuclearization, they're like, oh, we're only going to start the negotiation with the conclusion. And same way with Iran, you can't have an agreement until we start with a conclusion. I think it's unrealistic to start with a conclusion, although they are in this sense, maybe starting with a conclusion. Kim did agree to denuclearization. I think though the proof-
Ian Bremmer:
In principle. Yeah.
Senator Rand Paul:
Right. The proof's sort of in the pudding. I mean, you have to see it actually happening, but I think Trump was bold in taking the meeting. He's being criticized by some on the right and the left for saying, oh, you're legitimizing someone with a terrible human rights record. And yet, we don't really worry so much about trying to have treaties with England or people that have great human rights records. It's easy, but we really don't have so much dispute with England. We have dispute with countries that often don't have good human rights records. And there has to be a beginning. And I think there might have been a time when I was younger, I would say, oh, no, we shouldn't negotiate with the Chinese or something because of their human rights record. And yet I think overall, it's been a great advance for us to have had better relations since the '70s, since Nixon and Kissinger went there.
Ian Bremmer:
So you're mellowing a little bit?
Senator Rand Paul:
Yeah, maybe so, maybe so. And I think there still can be, subtly over time, the hope that things do get better. I think when you have more trade, when you have more freedom of commerce, I think in inevitably that political rights and human rights do improve. People say, oh, things aren't perfect in China. And I say, well, how are they under Mao? I'm thinking that it's a lot better probably in China. They still don't have the freedom we have, but they have to choose that at some point, their people have to choose that. It's going to be the same for North Korea. They have almost no freedom. But hopefully, trade and commerce, if we can get there, will be helpful.
Ian Bremmer:
So I mean, you've criticized neocons for being all or nothing in so many of these disputes, Hiroshima or it's a peace deal. Can we see progress before denuclearization? In other words, I mean Pompeo is basically saying no sanctions can be removed until actually we have this done.
Senator Rand Paul:
Well, I'd say we already have seen progress. I mean, it's amazing to me that we have had them already say that they're not going to do nuclear testing, that's a step forward by anybody's estimation, and that we've said we won't do war games. And it's amazing. And this is why this is underappreciated. If you go around, you talk to the Senate Republican caucus, they're like, oh, we must have war games. We cannot be without war games. They're not willing to give that up at all until the very end. And so Trump gave that up in the beginning, but it can be restarted any time. I think gestures like that show your commitment. He's also talked about even reducing troops at some point in time. And I think he'll make that contingent on compliance in probably a period of time.
Senator Rand Paul:
And really the same with sanctions. So I don't think sanctions are going to be released in the very beginning. But I think sanctions, and I think their complaint about the Iran agreement is they were released too easily. But I would say that if it's going to take time for them to denuclearize or if they're willing to... Let's say they have 40 and they're willing to dismantle 10 of them, there might be something you can give for that. And there might be something you could give for 10 more nuclear weapons, et cetera, until you get to the point.
Ian Bremmer:
But some back and forth, even on the economic side over the course of these negotiations, you think is potentially a reasonable way through?
Senator Rand Paul:
Like with sanctions, you mean-
Ian Bremmer:
Yeah.
Senator Rand Paul:
... where there's some lessening? I think it's going to have to. I don't think any sanctions will be released until there's something verifiable that's been done on their part.
Ian Bremmer:
On the ground.
Senator Rand Paul:
Stopping the testing is a great first step and almost really the equivalence of stopping games, maybe not quite, but-
Ian Bremmer:
If they found something verifiable on ICBMs, for example. Would you say we should give them something economically?
Senator Rand Paul:
I'm all for giving a little bit for everything we get and doing it gradually over a time. I don't think it should be all or none, and I don't think we should give up all the sanctions in the beginning. But yeah, little baby steps. We've gone through and we've had a big success. But it's a big step for North Korea to actually say they really are going to get rid of their weapons. Now, the one thing I wouldn't do is what we did the last time, we gave them money. I'm not for giving them any money. I think we should give them the allure of trade. Money is dissipated quickly anyway.
Senator Rand Paul:
Usually goes to the wrong people, would go to the regime. Whereas trade's going to go to entrepreneurs and people who sell stuff that people want, and trade has the potential with South Korea and with Japan and China and Russia. The growth of trade, I mean really, you could see North Korea becoming what East Germany became when it became part of Germany. And I know they don't want unification. And yet trade sort of unifies you in a way.
Ian Bremmer:
The right has been quite different from you on Iran where you were not in favor of ripping up this Iranian deal.
Senator Rand Paul:
Right.
Ian Bremmer:
How did that conversation go between you and the president?
Senator Rand Paul:
I haven't been able to get through to the president on that. He was very emphatic from the very beginning that he was going to tear it up. When I was in the debates with him, I said it was a bad idea, wasn't a perfect deal. No deal is perfect. And even with the Iran deal, I would've preferred that the sanctions and the money came up. We give them the money, but give it slower and the sanctions come off slower and we have verifiable progress. But really most people think that they have complied with it. And I think we've mixed apples and oranges with the whole Iran agreement, because they have abided to the nuclear agreement, but we did not have agreement on ballistic missiles.
Ian Bremmer:
There was not.
Senator Rand Paul:
Yeah. And if that bothers people, I kept saying, let's have a new agreement in addition. But I do think this, and I say this all the time now, I said it to the White House today. I talked to high ranking people at the White House. I said, if you want a better Iran agreement, one's not going to be easy because you got to go back and rebuild the whole nuclear agreement. And then if you want to a ballistic missile agreement, you will never get it until you realize that it would have to include Saudi Arabia. Because really, this is a thousand-year war. It's a religious war and much of what Iran does there is supporting co-religionists around the Middle East, and so do the Saudis too as well.
Senator Rand Paul:
But unless you realize that what Iran does in developing ballistic missiles is in response to Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia and the eight Gulf sheikdoms or 14 Gulf sheikdoms, they spend eight times as much as Iran. And we just had a big deal with Saudi Arabia. So what does Iran feel like? They're pressured to develop more weapons, not less. So if you ever wanted an agreement over there, it would have to include Saudi Arabia ratcheting down and Iran. When we had agreement with Russia, we both lowered weapons. You can't just say this is where the neocons, I think are naive. They think, oh, Iran, you shall do this. And it's like short of unconditional surrender. They're just not giving up their ballistic missiles.
Ian Bremmer:
Made harder by the fact that Trump is seen as a very strong supporter of the Saudis.
Senator Rand Paul:
I think so. And the big arms deal, I think is made peace less likely over there. In fact, I would do the opposite. I would even with the big arms deal, will, as a senator, try to stop it. I have the ability to get a privileged vote, which means nobody can stop me from at least getting the vote. And I've done this twice now, and one of the reasons to do it is to get the Saudis to behave and to act better in Yemen. I think the Saudis have acted less than admirably. They've had a blockade. Food has been in short supply. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation in Yemen. Largest cholera epidemic in modern history in Yemen.
Senator Rand Paul:
80% of the food comes in through the ports and the Saudis have been blockading it and we've been helping them. There's been no debate about whether we should be involved in that war. And so there is still a great deal of discussion in the Congress that I'm pushing and others that the Constitution intended that we would initiate war, which means we would debate it and we would be responsible to the voters every two years and every six years. But we would have to explain to the voters why we're at war. Now-
Ian Bremmer:
No one in Congress really has been very interested in pushing that legislation.
Senator Rand Paul:
Well, it depends. It depends. I mean, the last time on trying to limit Saudi weapon sales, I think we got 44 votes. So I mean, it's not quite a majority. The first time I think we got 22. So we have been building on this. And as the outrage I think increases over what's happening in Yemen, and our role in it, and the fact that we've never given the president permission to do this.
Ian Bremmer:
Well, when Trump ran, he was obviously much closer to you on most of these issues. And the very fact that he's willing to talk about, hey, why are these 32,000 troops in South Korea?
Senator Rand Paul:
Right.
Ian Bremmer:
There are very few people in Washington willing to actually say that publicly.
Senator Rand Paul:
Exactly
Ian Bremmer:
Right?
Senator Rand Paul:
That's what always encourages me.
Ian Bremmer:
Right. And you had the same thing with what Trump has been saying on Syria, what he's been saying on Afghanistan. And then you look at the National Security Advisor John Bolton, and you look at Secretary Mattis. And you also look at least so far what Pompeo has been saying publicly. To what extent do you believe that irrespective of the president and you may be interested in, that ultimately, we're going to continue to see the same sort of American footprint with the cost attached to that?
Senator Rand Paul:
As you know, the status quo is the ball's rolling and it just kind of keeps rolling in that direction. There's been a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy here for a long, long time. And it's a bipartisan consensus to intervene everywhere, all the time. It really is. And so the president is surrounded by many of those same voices, and I wish it weren't so. I don't have the power to change that. As you know, I didn't want John Bolton there. I think John Bolton is a terrible influence on the president.
Ian Bremmer:
You said he should be at the children's table in North Korea.
Senator Rand Paul:
I just hope they're not listening to the things he has to say. I mean, you saw what he tried to say at the very beginning before the negotiations with North Korea started.
Ian Bremmer:
You mean the Libya option?
Senator Rand Paul:
Yeah. He said, oh yeah, we're going to use the Libyan model. And he was either incredibly tone-deaf and was talking about the details of the treaty-
Ian Bremmer:
Or he was trying to kill it.
Senator Rand Paul:
Or he was trying to kill it by... Because everybody knows the end of the Libyan model was where we kill the leader and they give up the nuclear weapons and we kill the leader. So I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that every time I talk to the president, this includes if I talked to him today, which I didn't. But if I talked to him today, I would probably get the same impression, because I think it really is an honest and sincere point of view that he doesn't want more war. He wants less war. He thinks we get shafted and have to pay for all the wars. We pay for them in our lives as well. We're everywhere, doing everybody's work for them. So he's always said that, and he still does. But it's the same with a lot of presidents. Presidents will say things and then the status quo kind of bogs them down. And the fact that this whole town has always been on both sides for intervening in most places around the world.
Ian Bremmer:
Rand Paul, thank you very much.
Senator Rand Paul:
Thank you.
Ian Bremmer:
That's our show this week. Come back next week. We're going to Rome, the birthplace of modern civilization, and by far one of the most dysfunctional governments in the Western world you will find today. We talk to all of it. Come back next week.
Announcer:
The GZERO World 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.
