Podcast: An Unstable World with Senator Chris Coons

TRANSCRIPT: An Unstable World with Senator Chris Coons

Chris Coons:

This is one of those moments when you can feel history moving around us.

Ian Bremmer:

Hi, I'm Ian Bremmer, and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. An audio version of what you can find on public television, where I analyze global topics, sit down with big guests, and make use of small puppets.

This week, I sit down with US Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's traveled throughout Asia in the South Pacific, meeting with America's old allies and assuring them that Washington hasn't lost its way. He's also been the leading voice on the Russia investigation. 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:

Senator Chris Coons, from Delaware. Great to be with you, Chris.

Chris Coons:

Thanks, Ian. Great to be on with you.

Ian Bremmer:

Let me start with global trade. We have this environment where the US and China are trading spars. You've been pretty concerned about what the Chinese are doing internationally. How on track do you think Trump is with his criticisms right now?

Chris Coons:

He may be on target, but he's certainly not on track. I've publicly commended President Trump for making a very high priority of his foreign policy, challenging China's mercantilist policies, the ways in which they compel technology transfer, or simply steal intellectual property, or limit access to the Chinese market. But the ways in which President Trump has chosen to challenge the Chinese with a tariff war, started off badly and have gotten worse. By slapping national security justified tariffs on close allies like Canada, or Sweden, or South Africa, or Germany, just to pick four countries who-

Ian Bremmer:

You do not consider Canada a national security threat? Is that what you're telling me?

Chris Coons:

Canada is not a national security threat, and they don't think they're a national security threat. In fact, they oddly think they've been our closest, most reliable ally right behind the Brits in virtually every conflict we've ever been a part of. I think when walking into a conflict you don't start, by smacking your best friends and then head in, that was a big misstep. And I think President Trump would be well advised to take a step back and say, we're going to focus on China and their practices, and we're not going to focus on harming our European allies, our Asian allies, our western hemisphere allies.

Ian Bremmer:

US and Europe, at least for the time being, the guns seem to be holstered.

Chris Coons:

Briefly, yes.

Ian Bremmer:

The Americans and the Japanese are now actively talking about new trade arrangements. Do you think, admittedly the first thing Trump did was get out of TPP and then started hitting allies. But if you look at this just right now, would you say that the US is in a better position to start now working on the China issue, or not really?

Chris Coons:

Yes. I'll say those recent developments have actually pulled us out of what I thought was a very bad place.

Ian Bremmer:

So you feel more comfortable?

Chris Coons:

I feel less uncomfortable.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. What do you think we need-

Chris Coons:

I do think there is an opening here now.

Ian Bremmer:

What should we be doing with China now? How should we be effectively pressing them, given the challenges that you are very seriously concerned about?

Chris Coons:

First, one of the things I worked closely with my Republican colleagues here and the administration on was getting the BUILD Act passed and signed into law. This gives us a new tool in our toolkit, a development finance institution that's double the size of OPEC, and capable of doing broader and bigger things than OPEC has been able to do in the last 40 years.

Ian Bremmer:

So some response to 'One Belt One Road' from China.

Chris Coons:

Some response to 'One Belt One Road.' Some response that if effectively deployed over the next year, allows us to show up in a dozen, two dozen countries and say, "We're here. We're engaged. We're going to channel, we're going to facilitate US private capital into much larger projects than we've been engaging in before." That's an important pushback. Second, we need to be having real conversations.

Ian Bremmer:

So, play some offense, basically.

Chris Coons:

Play some offense. We also need to look at TPP. I think at least six of the potential TPP partners have now ratified the Successor Agreement. It's going to come into force.

Ian Bremmer:

Without the US.

Chris Coons:

Without us. We need to look at what it means for there to be a table that we helped build and shape, with an empty chair at the end. And whether there is some scenario under which it's in our interest, in our workers' interest, in our economy's interest, but also helps reunite our allies around the Pacific Rim by reengaging with a new TPP.

Ian Bremmer:

In terms of the Chinese are obviously doing a lot more, they're now talking about a third aircraft carrier as well. I'm more talking about the horn because I know it's something, you're raising an alarm that's saying, hey, the Chinese militarily are suddenly flexing.

Chris Coons:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

How do you think the Americans should respond? How are we responding?

Chris Coons:

We should respond by investing in alliances and partnerships, and by strengthening and modernizing weapons platforms and systems to deal with the security situation we're likely to be in. The South China Sea, the growing Chinese Bluewater Navy are areas where we are likely to face significant threats, that without modernization both of our Navy and of a number of our other operational capabilities, we're not really adequately prepared for. We need to present an alternative to, and approach 'One Belt One Road' through which the Chinese are gaining access to or control over, or almost literally ownership of, key strategic deepwater ports from Djibouti to Sri Lanka. Really, all across the Indo-Pacific.

Ian Bremmer:

So far what I've heard is a lot of talk about carrots, a lot of talk about US strategy, to the extent that there needs to be stick in the American arsenal with the Chinese. What do you think the largest and most effective stick should be?

Chris Coons:

If we have an alternative, values-based international order, where trade and access to trade requires openness, that's the best alternative, I think. There are challenges in the WTO that we could be more aggressive at bringing. There are challenges, based on values that are important. If we continue to engage in relationships, such as has been the case with the Saudis, the Khashoggi Incident was a pretty critical turning point for us. If we only look at our relationships internationally in terms of transactions and not in terms of values and transactions, then we look more and more like the Chinese in terms of how we interact with the developing world, how we interact with our close allies.

I think it's important that we have a values proposition that's different than the Chinese. The Chinese come to heads of state and say, we're not going to ask difficult questions, non-interference in your domestic affairs. We're not going to press you about free press, about human rights, about politically open systems. There's a lot of things that are difficult that we're just not going to raise. And they point to us and say, those guys, however, will interfere in your internal affairs. We have a different view, which is that what we stand for has been codified in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and actually is the best path forward towards all countries, to be free, and fair and open. And that has attracted allies to support the United States over 70 years.

Ian Bremmer:

We have a different view, or we had a different view?

Chris Coons:

We have to continue to press the view that has been the dominant view of American foreign policy for seven decades. We're not perfect, we obviously have made missteps and errors at times, but we have to continue to put our values before our narrow economic or security interests. I think that is frankly, the most powerful way we compete with an alternative vision, that is essentially state authoritarian capitalism.

Ian Bremmer:

Another place that priorities and values come into play is Ukraine. Under the Trump administration, we actually have defensive weapons systems that have been provided to the Ukraine. That was not true under the Obama administration. Does that mean that these guys are more focused on values now with the Ukraine, or no?

Chris Coons:

I think the guiding principle of President Trump's early foreign policy was whatever Obama did, do the opposite. I would like to believe that there is now a stronger bipartisan consensus around we support Ukraine, we want them to be successful in resisting Russian aggression. We want to see the Minsk process resume and work. But in a region, at a time when Putin continues hostile and aggressive actions, we, I think in the United States have a clear role, which is to marshal our allies in imposing and sustaining sanctions against Russia, until they stop aggressive action against Ukraine and implement the Minsk Accords. Providing weapon systems to Ukraine that allow them to successfully defend their territory, I think is a key part of that.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, the Americans have taken individual sanctions efforts against the Saudis in response to the Khashoggi case. In the case of Russia, so far most of what's been done, also a series of individuals. Are you suggesting that what we need are sectoral sanctions against the Russians? Something that would really damage the economy.

Chris Coons:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. And do you think the Europeans would be with us in that regard?

Chris Coons:

Hopefully.

Ian Bremmer:

How much, the Trans-Atlantic relationship right now, how much of that is on the United States not being a leader, and how much of that is on the Europeans not having their act together?

Chris Coons:

The thing that I try to encourage folks to do, is to look at actions and then look at statements. If you look at actions, more and more of our NATO allies are getting to the 2% GDP expenditure in defense. More and more of our NATO allies are actually making changes in terms of interoperability exercises, information sharing, intelligence integration. We are making significant moves in what I think is a good direction. Partly, the clear and present threat from Russia has reanimated NATO. The challenge of migration has been a real challenge operationally and from a values perspective to NATO. But we've also seen changes in the politics of central and Eastern Europe, that are putting NATO and the North Atlantic relationship at some risk.

I do think that continuing to not just invest in this relationship, not just exercise this relationship, but to speak in ways that value this relationship, are critical to our path forward. The president's wrong about the basic construct of collective security. It's not that we are the chumps, and the EU and NATO were created to benefit the EU and benefit NATO to our disadvantage. We helped establish those organizations, those structures, for our security and for our prosperity, and we have benefited from them mightily. We can and should continue to have a conversation about burden sharing, but to continue to harangue our allies as if somehow they've taken advantage of us, and they all owe us an unpaid bar tab, misses the fact that more than a thousand NATO soldiers have died in Afghanistan fighting alongside Americans, the only time Article 5 has been invoked. I think starting the conversation with gratitude, and continued commitment to collective security ,and then sharpening the focus on investment is the better way to-

Ian Bremmer:

So, coming back to the transactionalism, not the right way to approach key alliances.

Chris Coons:

Right.

Ian Bremmer:

Do you think that the vote to protect the Special Council is now as important, given how much is out, how far Mueller has gone without delivering an official report? Have we passed the point of no return on the Manafort, on the Roger Stone, on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, all of this? What do you think?

Chris Coons:

Every time there's been another charging document or indictment from Mueller, you realize that he had many times more details, information, leads, than any leak or revelation about that particular area of his investigation had previously suggested. My hunch is that when this investigation comes to an end, and there is hopefully some public accounting of everything that's been investigated, it'll prove to be far broader and deeper than current evidence would suggest. I actually think it's important, vital even, that Mueller be allowed to complete his investigation, and that that work product then be shared with the Senate and the House and be public.

Neither of those are a foregone conclusion at the moment. We no longer have a Senate confirmed Attorney General who's recused himself, and a Deputy Attorney General Senate confirmed supervising. We have an Acting Attorney General, a partisan who a year ago was saying all sorts of negative things about Mueller. We have a president who continues to criticize, and attack, and tweet against Mueller. I think it is in everyone's interest, including the President, for Mueller to complete his investigation.

Ian Bremmer:

Why is it in the President's interest for that to occur?

Chris Coons:

As I've said many times on television, Mr. President, if you're innocent, act like it. And have confidence that this investigation will clear you.

Ian Bremmer:

But that is a big presumption, is it not?

Chris Coons:

That is a big presumption.

Ian Bremmer:

Especially when we know that when we have cases that are this expansive, the ability to get someone on an obstruction, to get someone on a lie after the fact when they've been backed into a corner, and Trump trips over his tongue continually, that doesn't sound like it's in his interest to allow the process to continue.

Chris Coons:

If he injects himself and fires Mueller, having spent months challenging, questioning, harassing, I think that will precipitate a crisis. And I think that will lead to a real challenge to his presidency. I think it is in his best interest to have the whole process play out, and then confront whatever it uncovers, rather than to try and cut it short.

Ian Bremmer:

You understand how he might think differently?

Chris Coons:

Of course.

Ian Bremmer:

Is it in his interest to not pardon Paul Manafort?

Chris Coons:

It depends from what perspective. I don't know if he's a president who cares about the judgment of history. If he is, he shouldn't.

Ian Bremmer:

Where do you think this actually goes? Does this become a constitutional crisis, and what does that mean in your mind?

Chris Coons:

What that means is a breakdown in the rule of law, and in the ordered relationships between branches, so severe that it compels a realignment between branches. Either as happened in the Nixon tapes case, an appeal to the Supreme Court to reach a decision they hadn't previously considered, and to direct an action by the President in order to bring the executive branch back into compliance with basic orders of the rule of law, or some basic challenge to the President's actions as being extra constitutional.

Ian Bremmer:

Would you be relieved by that? In other words, would it be better in your view to say, let's just get this to where there is a crisis, the Supreme Court has to judge, too daman partisan in Congress, and they're going to be an independent arm of government?

Chris Coons:

Look, I think the Supreme Court had a lasting and negative impact on its important and powerful reputation for being not a partisan political entity, but the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of our constitution, and thus above narrow, temporal, partisan concerns. When the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore by a five four majority, and stopped a recount and handed a presidential election to ultimately, President Bush, I think they put at risk the credibility of the court as a nonpartisan institution. I worry that with a new conservative majority, and in particular, given Justice Kavanaugh's articulated views on executive power, that they may well take action that would be comparably harmful to the long held perception of the court as being interested in the primacy of the Constitution and the constitutional order, rather than partisan concerns.

Ian Bremmer:

So in your view, the fabric of the political institutions of this country have been damaged?

Chris Coons:

They're at real risk. They're at real risk. If the President allows Mueller to complete his investigation, if the investigation produces results, which Congress then handles responsibly, if the Supreme Court doesn't shut down or prevent Mueller from recommending what actions or reporting, what actions he might, I think that goes a long way towards sustaining our current constitutional order.

Ian Bremmer:

Last question, Senator: how does it feel to be in your position at such an important point of history?

Chris Coons:

Well, all of us are here by some combination of luck, chance, error, providence. It's challenging. I struggle every day with whether or not I'm doing enough, whether I'm doing a good job, whether I'm representing my constituents well, whether I'm doing everything I possibly can to be fair, to be engaged, to be honest, to be disciplined, and to be a contributor. But this is one of those moments when you can feel history moving around us.

Ian Bremmer:

Chris Coons, Thank you very much.

Chris Coons:

Thanks, Ian.

Ian Bremmer:

That's our show this week. We'll be right back here next week, same place, same time. Unless you're watching on social media, in which case, it's wherever you happen to be. Don't miss it. In the meantime, check us out at gzeromedia.com.

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.